News
SpaceX aborts Starship launch after Raptors produce too much thrust
Update #3: SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says that Starship prototype SN10 automatically aborted a 2:15 pm CST (UTC-6) launch attempt after the rocket determined that its three Raptor engines were producing too much thrust.
Instead of scrubbing for the day, Musk says that SpaceX will instead increase the flight computer’s thrust limits and try again as early as 4:30 pm CST – still well before today’s window closes at 6:30 pm. SpaceX ended its webcast but will start a second webcast a few minutes prior to the next launch attempt.
Update #2: As of Wednesday morning, SpaceX has officially confirmed that Starship is on track for a third high-altitude launch and ‘bellyflop‘-style landing attempt sometime later today.
As of 11am CST (UTC-6), FAA approval is in hand, weather is encouraging, Starship prototype serial number 10’s (SN10) flaps have been unchained, and SpaceX has cleared the launch site – all signs that the rocket’s launch attempt is imminent. Much like SN8 and SN9 coverage, SpaceX says it will make a public livestream of SN10’s launch available to the public “a few minutes” before liftoff. Stay tuned and follow along with NASASpaceflight’s live coverage in the meantime.
Update: SpaceX has asked Boca Chica Village residents to prepare to evacuate the area as early as Wednesday morning for Starship’s third high-altitude launch and landing attempt.
The odds of things going so wrong that a Starship launch could actually end with a prototype impacting at or near the Village and the handful of non-employee holdouts still residing there are minuscule. However, FAA safety regulations and SpaceX’s contingent launch license mean that evacuations are now a routine part of Starship’s high-altitude flight tests since Starship SN8 took the first step beyond short hops. While undeniably inconvenient for the few remaining residents, today’s evacuation notice – short of an official SpaceX.com confirmation – does serve as the ultimate sign that Starship SN10’s first launch attempt is firmly scheduled on Wednesday, March 3rd.
With FAA approval in hand, weather rapidly improving, and the latest rocket prototype seemingly raring to go, the stars are aligning for SpaceX’s third high-altitude Starship launch and first triple-engine landing attempt.
As of March 1st, publicly-available FAA “temporary flight restrictions” (TFRs) and weather forecasts both agree that SpaceX is currently preparing to launch Starship serial number 10 (SN10) as early as Wednesday afternoon CST (UTC-6), March 3rd. Barring surprises, that gives SpaceX a healthy three-day period to account for any potential technical or weather-related delays.
Originally scheduled as early as the last week of February, unspecified delays pushed Starship SN10’s launch debut schedule into March. In general, the vehicle’s path to flight has been much smoother than Starship SN8 and SN9, both of which ran into hardware bugs and opaque FAA licensing issues. With Starship SN10, the FAA approved SpaceX’s “modified” launch license well before the company was ready for flight – and even before the rocket had attempted its first static fire.
Unlike Starships SN8 and SN9, both of which took anywhere from 6-10 weeks to go from rolling off the factory floor to preparing for their first launch attempts, SN10’s first launch attempt appears likely to occur less than five weeks after the rocket arrived at the launch site. The sequential improvements in efficiency and reliability between those three prototypes is a fundamental part (or goal, at least) of SpaceX’s iterative development process.
Still, Starship SN10’s preflight flow wasn’t completely free of drama and SpaceX ultimately put the rocket through a second triple-Raptor static fire after the first test revealed an issue with one of those engines. SpaceX swapped that faulty engine out in record time and fired up SN10 again less than 48 hours after test #1, seemingly producing more satisfactory results the second time around.
Unlike its predecessors, SN10 will also debut a new triple-engine approach to landing, aiming to increase redundancy and boost the odds of a successful touchdown even if one of the Starship’s three Raptors fail during a last-second flip maneuver. Building on the failures of SN8 and SN9, it’s safe to say that SN10 has the best shot yet at sticking the landing.
TFRs show that two earlier launch windows on Monday and Tuesday (March 1st and 2nd) were canceled, leaving only the Wednesday, March 3rd airspace closure request still open. Wednesday was then backed up with two alternate windows on Thursday and Friday not long after.
Hardware-wise, Starship SN10’s cherry-on-top (an explosives-based flight termination system or FTS) was installed on February 28th. In the event that Starship loses control and strays past a certain point outside of its approved trajectory, that FTS would explode, breaching the rocket’s propellant tank, triggering vehicle breakup, and thus preventing it from harming the local populace. All told, SpaceX confirmation of a Wednesday launch attempt – and another official webcast – should be imminent. Stay tuned!
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
