News
SpaceX's next Crew Dragon launch is delayed but that's actually good news
NASA says that SpaceX’s next big Crew Dragon flight test has slipped a bit further into 2020, a counterintuitively positive sign that the human-rated spacecraft’s next launch is firmly scheduled for the first month of the next decade.
Known as Crew Dragon’s In-Flight Abort (IFA) test, SpaceX opted to include the mission in its Commercial Crew contract, a decision NASA chose to leave up to its providers. Boeing, for example, chose not to perform a real-world in-flight abort test of its Starliner spacecraft, instead relying on a pad abort test and digital modeling to determine the spacecraft’s capabilities. NASA allowed this flexibility because it believes – at least theoretically – that it should be possible to determine whether a spacecraft can perform the most challenging abort scenarios without actually doing full-fidelity flight tests.
Given that NASA chose to perform an extremely expensive full-fidelity in-flight abort test with its own Orion spacecraft just a few months ago, one can’t exactly say that the space agency has chosen to reap what it’s sown, but with any luck, the Starliner spacecraft will never have to perform such an abort and find out how close Boeing’s modeling is to reality.
It’s also worth noting that despite the fact SpaceX elected to perform an extra abort test that will likely destroy an entire Falcon 9 rocket, Crew Dragon development will cost NASA $2 billion (40%) less than Starliner, while each operational Crew Dragon launch will also cost some $250 million (39%) less than a comparable Starliner launch.
As of December 18th, NASA says that SpaceX’s In-Flight Abort (IFA) test has slipped a week from January 4th to January 11th, 2020. Counterintuitively, that delay is actually an extremely encouraging sign that Crew Dragon’s next launch is quite firmly set for the first month of 2020. For reference, as NASA and SpaceX approached Crew Dragon’s Demo-1 orbital launch debut earlier this year, the mission was initially set for January 17th. Around three weeks later, NASA announced that Demo-1 had slipped to no earlier than (NET) “February”. Four weeks after that delay, NASA once again announced another delay to March 2nd, which would turn out to be the day that Crew Dragon really did reach orbit for the first time.
On the other hand, IFA – Crew Dragon’s second launch – had its first firm launch date (January 4th) announced by NASA on December 6th, 2019. Less than two weeks later, NASA says that the launch date has slipped by exactly one week to January 11th, less than four weeks from today. It’s entirely possible that SpaceX’s IFA test will slip further into 2020 in the coming weeks, but compared to Crew Dragon’s Demo-1 mission, both NASA and SpaceX appear to be far more confident in the schedule for Crew Dragon’s second launch.
Regardless of when exactly it lifts off, Crew Dragon’s In-Flight Abort is going to be an extremely challenging test for the spacecraft. Designed to simulate a near-worst-case abort scenario during launch, SpaceX will essentially trick Dragon into believing that Falcon 9 has failed around a minute and a half after launch. At that point, the rocket and spacecraft will be traveling as fast as Mach 2.5 (860 m/s, 1900 mph) and experiencing what is known as Max Q, the point of peak aerodynamic stress (referring to heating, buffeting, pressure, and more).
At that exact point, Crew Dragon capsule C205 will ignite all eight of its SuperDraco abort engines, almost instantaneously producing 130,000 lbf (570 kN) of thrust to send the spacecraft almost a kilometer (0.5 mi) away from Falcon 9 in just a few seconds. If Crew Dragon survives the ordeal, it will quickly detach its trunk section, flip around to face its heat shield towards the ground, and ultimately deploy parachutes before gently landing in the Atlantic Ocean.
SpaceX plans to recover and reuse the otherwise orbit-worthy capsule on a future mission, likely one of the company’s upcoming CRS2 space station resupply launches. Finally, if everything goes exactly as planned during the In-Flight Abort test and both NASA and SpaceX see no issues with the flown hardware or data the test produces, Crew Dragon Demo-2 – the spacecraft’s first astronaut launch – could potentially be ready for flight as early as February or March 2020.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
