News
SpaceX rocket booster makes it back to port after hard drone ship landing
SpaceX has completed its third rocket launch of 2020 and the most recent booster to launch safely returned to Port Canaveral on Saturday after an exceptionally hard drone ship landing.
Falcon 9 booster (first stage) B1051 lifted off for the third time on January 29th, following up two prior orbital-class missions by placing SpaceX’s fourth batch of 60 Starlink satellites into low Earth orbit (LEO). B1051 debuted on March 2nd, 2019 when it became the first Falcon 9 rocket to launch SpaceX’s next-generation Crew Dragon spacecraft, successfully sending the vehicle on its way to what would end up being a flawless rendezvous with the International Space Station (ISS). Less than four months later, B1051 completed its second mission, this time lifting off from SpaceX’s Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), California facilities before landing in zero-visibility fog conditions just a thousand feet from the pad.
Compared to some of the higher-energy geostationary (high orbit) launches SpaceX often performs, B1051’s two prior launches allowed for relatively gentle reentries and landings. On January 29th, 2020, after sending SpaceX’s 3rd batch of upgraded Starlink v1.0 satellites (Starlink V1 L3) on their way to space, the Falcon 9 booster experienced the hardest successful landing seen after a SpaceX launch in quite some time.
With Starlink V1 L3 complete, SpaceX has officially launched an incredible 120 satellites weighing some 32 metric tons (70,500 lb) in a single month – 22 days, to be precise. If everything goes as planned, those two monthly Starlink launches should become SpaceX’s average over the rest of 2020, necessary to satisfy the company’s goal of completing 20-24 Starlink launches this year alone. If SpaceX replicates its January successes this month, the company’s Starlink constellation – already ~230 satellites strong – may even be ready to start serving internet to customers in the northern US and Canada as early as March 2020, less than two months from now.
Meanwhile, the mission marked SpaceX’s second Falcon 9 landing and recovery of the new year, as well as the sixth time an orbital-class SpaceX booster has completed three launches. SpaceX continues to push the envelope of reusable rocketry ever since it debuted Falcon 9’s Block 5 upgrade in May 2018.
Designed to enable no less than 10 launches per booster with minimal refurbishment in between, SpaceX’s Block 5 reusability milestones have gotten much closer together ever since the company began dedicated Starlink launches, reusing a payload fairing for the first time and launching two Falcon 9 boosters for the fourth time in just the last two and a half months. In fact, SpaceX already has plans to launch Falcon 9 booster B1048 for the fifth time – another major reusability first – as early as the next 4-5 weeks.
Hard landing; tough rocket
Starlink V1 L3’s launch followed a trajectory almost exactly identical to the two V1 missions that preceded it in November 2019 and January 2020 and Falcon 9 B1051 ignited its central Merlin 1D engine for the last time around eight minutes after liftoff. Twenty seconds or so later, the Falcon 9 booster rapidly shut down its landing engine, visibly falling several feet onto the deck of drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY).
The results of that unintentionally hard landing are extremely apparent in photos taken of the same booster after its first (March 2019) and third (Jan 2020) landings on drone ship OCISLY, compared above. Taken from almost identical perspectives as the drone ship passed through the mouth of Port Canaveral, the difference in the booster’s height and stance are hard to miss, with B1051’s engine bells and the black ‘belt’ of its heat-shielded engine section clearly sitting several feet lower after Starlink V1 L3.
While subtle, the most important difference is near the tips of each visible landing leg’s telescoping boom, visible in the form of a final, smaller cylinder on the left (earlier) image. On the right, that cylinder has effectively disappeared. This is actually an intentional feature of Falcon 9’s landing leg design: known as a ‘crush core’, the tip of each leg boom holds a roughly 1m (3ft) long cylinder of aluminum honeycomb, optimized to lose structural integrity (crush) only after a specific amount of force is applied. In essence, those crush cores serve as dead-simple, single-use shock absorbers that can be reused as long as a given booster’s landing is gentle enough.
B1051’s third landing was definitely not gentle enough, but it appears that the booster’s rough fall onto the drone ship’s deck was just within the safety margins those crush cores provide. Why B1051 fell onto the deck is unclear, potentially caused by the drone being at the bottom of a swell or a last-second anomaly with the booster’s landing engine. Thankfully, regardless of the cause of the anomaly, B1051’s crush cores can be quite easily replaced, meaning that the booster can remain operational as long as its hard landing didn’t cause any less-visible damage or stress elsewhere on the rocket.
In short, SpaceX smart design decisions very likely allowed a part worth just a few thousand dollars to save a Falcon 9 booster worth tens of millions of dollars from the scrap heap. With a little luck, B1051 should have at least several more launches in its future before entering retirement.
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
