News
SpaceX indefinitely delays second Falcon 9 launch in two weeks
For the second time in less than two weeks, SpaceX has indefinitely delayed a Falcon 9 launch after discovering apparent issues with the rocket less than a day before liftoff.
Japanese startup ispace’s misfortune also marks the eighth time in less than two months that SpaceX has delayed or aborted a Falcon 9 launch for unspecified technical reasons less than 24 hours before liftoff. The streak of delays is unusual after 12 months of record-breaking execution, over the course of which SpaceX has successfully completed 60 orbital launches with just a handful of last-minute technical delays.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
The number of last-day delays and Falcon 9 launch aborts has abruptly skyrocketed in recent months, possibly indicating that a single problem or change is at least partially responsible for the trend. The streak began in early October and has continued through the end of November, resulting in eight delays in two months, with impacts ranging from minutes to days or even weeks. In all but one instance, SpaceX’s only explanation was a need for more time for “data review” or “checkouts” of the rocket, its payload, or both.
SpaceX consistently announces launch delays on Twitter, making it possible to collate when the company has stated it was “standing down” from a launch attempt or “now targeting” a later launch date for technical reasons. In the 18+ months between March 2021 and October 2022, SpaceX announced only three technical delays after publicly scheduling a launch (one last-second abort and two minor “additional checkouts” delays). Adding to the oddity, SpaceX reported at least 15 similar delays between January 2020 and March 2021.
A decrease in the frequency of technical issues is a generally expected outcome of a competent organization gaining experience with the operation of a complex, new system (like a launch vehicle). By all appearances, that’s the pattern SpaceX was following: a drastic drop in the number of technical launch aborts even as the pace of Falcon 9 launches soared to new heights. But within the last two months, the frequency of technical delays has skyrocketed from close to zero to higher than any point in recent SpaceX history.
Without context, it’s impossible to say if there is an invisible thread connecting the recent string of delays. There are many possible explanations, including workforce fatigue, management changes, policy changes, and factory issues. It’s even possible that the seemingly sudden onset was caused by an intentional change of risk posture: for example, increasing sensitivity to off-nominal signals that had been observed before but were discounted enough to avoid launch delays.
As part of its effort to continually improve existing systems and processes, SpaceX could have changed things too much or removed one too many steps. While unlikely, it’s also possible that the recent uptick in delays is merely a coincidence. Regardless, if the trend continues, it will be difficult for SpaceX to increase its launch cadence any further – particularly toward CEO Elon Musk’s stated goal of 100 launches in 2023. Delays also increase launch costs and disrupt customer plans, incentivizing a return to smoother operations as quickly as possible.
Most concerning is a recent pair of unrelated launches that have become indefinitely delayed. Starlink 2-4, first scheduled to launch on November 18th, has yet to receive a new launch date after SpaceX apparently discovered problems after a Falcon 9 static fire test on November 17th. Less than two weeks later, SpaceX has indefinitely delayed a second Falcon 9 launch – Japanese startup ispace’s first Moon landing attempt – “after further inspections of the launch vehicle and data review.”
Ultimately, launch delays are a fundamental part of spaceflight, and it’s better to keep a rocket on the ground when there is any uncertainty about its readiness for flight. Nonetheless, big changes in the frequency of delays are still noteworthy, especially when SpaceX itself does not typically explain the cause of delays for non-NASA missions.
SpaceX has several more Falcon 9 launches firmly scheduled in December. It remains to be seen how exactly the indefinite delays of Starlink 2-4 and HAKUTO-R will impact those upcoming launches. Starlink 4-37, for example, was scheduled to launch from the same pad as HAKUTO-R as early as December 6th, but that date will slip for every day HAKUTO-R is delayed. A SpaceX ship tasked with recovering HAKUTO-R’s Falcon 9 fairing appears to be heading back to port, indicating a delay of at least two or three days.
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
