News
SpaceX’s next-gen Falcon Heavy closer to reality as side booster leaves factory
A duo of rocket spottings on November 9th and 10th confirm that SpaceX’s next Falcon Heavy rocket – an amalgamation of three Falcon 9 boosters, an upper stage, and extensive modifications – is already in the late stages of manufacturing and is nearing the beginning of integrated structural and static fire testing.
As of now, this Falcon Heavy side booster could end up supporting either or both of two near-term launch contracts in place for the rocket, communications satellite Arabsat 6A or the US Air Force’s second Space Test Program (STP-2) launch
SpaceX's second Falcon Heavy is slowly but surely coming together 😀 https://t.co/AYJsQ8Mld5
— Eric Ralph (@13ericralph31) November 13, 2018
The question of the hour – at least for Falcon Heavy – is which of those two available payloads will be atop the rocket on its first truly commercial launch. While suboptimal, a few general characteristics of each payload, SpaceX’s history of commercial launches, and Falcon Heavy itself can offer a hint or two.
Triple the rocket, triple the trouble
Thanks in large part to the fact that the first integrated Falcon Heavy was composed of two relatively old Falcon 9 booster variants and a center core that was quite literally a one-off rocket, the process of reenginering and building another Falcon Heavy rocket off of the family’s newest Block 5 variant has likely been far harder than simply building another Falcon Heavy. Although all three original Falcon Heavy boosters (B1023, B1025, and B1033) were in the same league as Block 5, their Block 2 and Block 3 hardware was designed for approximately 10% less thrust and are almost entirely different vehicles from the perspective of structures and avionics.
Perhaps even more importantly, it’s unknown whether Falcon Heavy Block 1 (for lack of a better descriptor) was designed with serious reusability in mind, at least in the same sense as Falcon 9 Block 5 was. For instance, a major portion of the rocket’s extreme complexity and difficulties lies in the basic need to transmit three times as much thrust through the center core. To do that and do it without rocket-powered separation mechanisms, SpaceX had to develop structural attachments and connections capable of surviving unbelievable mechanical and thermal stresses for minutes on end.
-
- The first Falcon Heavy was a Frankenstein’s monster of sorts. (SpaceX)
-
- Falcon Heavy is seen here lifting off during its spectacular launch debut. (SpaceX)
-
- A Falcon Heavy side booster was spotted eastbound in Arizona on November 10th. (Reddit – beast-sam)
Clearly, this was an unfathomably difficult problem to solve in such a manner that Falcon Heavy would work at all the first time. Factor in the strategic need for those same components to survive repeated cycles of those stresses with minimal refurbishment in between and the problem at hand likely becomes a magnitude more difficult, at least. In large part, this helps to explain why there will end up being a minimum of 11-12 months between Falcon Heavy’s first and second launches.
Arabsat or STP?
Over the course of SpaceX’s last 2-3 years of commercial launch activity, the company and its customers have demonstrated time and time again a reliable pattern: commercial customers (in the sense of private entities) are far more willing to take risks with new technologies than SpaceX’s government customers. NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services is the exception for the latter group but also has no Falcon Heavy launch contracts. For Falcon Heavy, there are thus main three options at hand.
- Arabsat 6A launches first with 1-2 flight-proven boosters; the Air Force’s STP-2 mission flies on an all-new Falcon Heavy 4-6 months later.
- SpaceX builds entirely new Falcon Heavy rockets for both customers, requiring four new side boosters and two new center cores.
- STP-2 launches first on an all-new Falcon Heavy; Arabsat 6A launches second on the first flight-proven Falcon Heavy after 6+ months of additional delays.
-
- The USAF’s STP-2, a combination of a few dozen different satellites. (USAF)
-
- The communications satellite Arabsat-6A. (Lockheed Martin)
-
- LZ-1 and LZ-2, circa February 2018. (SpaceX)
-
- A closeup of one of Falcon Heavy’s side boosters after landing. (SpaceX)
Arabsat is far more likely to accept – for a significant discount – a ride aboard the first flight-proven Falcon Heavy, especially if it means preventing more major launch delays. If the Falcon Heavy side booster spotted eastbound last week is a refurbished Block 5 booster rather than a new rocket, than option 1 is the easy choice for most probable outcome. The real pack leader for Falcon Heavy Flight 2, however, will be the completion of a new Block 5 center core and its shipment to Texas for structural and static fire testing.
Time will tell. For now, a completed Falcon Heavy side booster is the best sign yet that SpaceX may manage the rocket’s second launch in the first quarter of 2019, whichever launch that may be.
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
