News
SpaceX’s second Falcon 9 Block 5 booster reuse closes in as rocket refurb continues
Scheduled on October 7th, SpaceX is roughly three weeks out from the next routine launch of Falcon 9, set to carry the ~2800 kg (6200 lb) Argentinian satellite SAOCOM-1A into a low polar orbit from the company’s Vandenberg Air Force Base launch facilities.
Cocooned inside Falcon 9’s payload fairing during the final days of August, the Earth observation satellite’s launch will mark a number of exciting milestones for SpaceX, including the second reuse of a Block 5 booster and the debut of a California-based rocket landing zone barely 400m (1400ft) from the launch pad.
Última foto del satélite argentino SAOCOM 1A en Tierra! Los equipos de la CONAE, VENG, @invapargentina y @CNEAok finalizaron la integración y encapsulado del SAOCOM 1A en la cofia del lanzador Falcon 9 de @SpaceX. El satélite está listo! Comienzan preparativos de lanzamiento! pic.twitter.com/pwwj0NYIwE
— CONAE (@CONAE_Oficial) September 14, 2018
Previously tasked with launching Iridium’s 7th group of 10 NEXT satellites on July 25th, Falcon 9 B1048 has been assigned as SAOCOM 1A’s ride to orbit, originally expected to refly as early as September 5th and September 28th. Despite the delays, it still appears that B1048 will easily snag the SpaceX record for second fastest booster turnaround – 74 days compared to Block 5 booster B1045’s 71 days gap between launching NASA’s TESS and CRS-15 missions.

According to a number of comments from satellite engineers involved in the launch, most of the month-long slip rested on rocket availability, meaning that SpaceX was having some sort of difficulty with Falcon 9 components. Given photos and official comments showing that SAOCOM-1A was encapsulated in its payload fairing more than 5 weeks before launch (August 30th) and that Falcon 9 Block 5 is a fairly new launch vehicle, especially in a flight-proven configuration, the most logical explanation is that SpaceX is simply being extra cautious and thorough with B1048’s post-flight analysis and refurbishment.
It’s entirely possible that SpaceX engineers and technicians could have managed a ~40-day turnaround to make the original September 5 launch date, but it’s equally likely that some off-nominal characteristics were noted while the booster was being prepped for transport after craning off of drone ship Just Read The Instructions. In fact, B1048’s recovery operations were exceptionally lengthy and in-depth, including an extraordinary few hours during which technicians removed the booster’s Merlin 1D access panels, baring wholly-uncovered rocket engines in full view of a public area. Nothing equivalent has ever been observed over the course of more than a dozen Falcon booster recoveries, perhaps indicating some unique circumstances in the case of B1048.
- After launching in April 2018, B1045 landed on OCISLY and is being refurbished for a second launch in just 5 days, on June 29. (Tom Cross)
- An excellent look at Block 5 booster B1048’s aft, showing off two of four launch clamp attachment points. (Pauline Acalin)
- SpaceX technicians reinstall Falcon 9 B1048’s Merlin bay covers after examining the interior for several hours. (Pauline Acalin)
- SpaceX’s West Coast landing zone is preparing for its debut, currently NET October 6th 2018. (Pauline Acalin/Teslarati)
The most obvious explanation is that those publicly-visible inspections were used to judge whether the flight-proven booster could return directly to SpaceX’s Vandenberg launch pad or needed to make a stop at the company’s dedicated Hawthorne factory and refurbishment facilities. Judging from the month-long slip that transpired, it’s probable that the latter option was selected. Regardless, caution is key when a customer’s payload is on the line.
Once it makes its way to the launch pad for the second time, B1048 will have the opportunity to both become the first Block 5 booster to land on land and the first rocket ever to land at SpaceX’s West Coast Landing Zone (LZ), under construction/development for the last two or so years. Just like its Floridan twins, the California LZ will only be an option for particularly lightweight payloads and lower-energy launch profiles, of which SAOCOM 1A (and 1B) certainly fit the bill.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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.
Investor's Corner
Tesla uber bull Ron Baron says ‘the time to buy the stock is now’
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.



