Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s next Starlink launch will have to wait a bit longer

Pictured here during its third launch, Falcon 9 B1051 is scheduled to fly for the fourth time as early as next week. (SpaceX)

Published

on

According to NASASpaceflight.com sources, SpaceX’s next Starlink satellite launch will have to wait a bit longer after slipping about a week from its former April 16th target.

Recently discussed on Teslarati, SpaceX has planned what is effectively a “return to flight” launch just weeks after Falcon 9 suffered its first in-flight engine failure in almost eight years. While the rocket was able to adjust on the fly to ensure that the overall Starlink mission was a success, the unprecedentedly reused Falcon 9 booster was lost during its landing attempt. More importantly, the Merlin 1D engine failure immediately raised the concern of NASA and the US military, SpaceX’s most important launch customers.

Expected to launch on thrice-flown Falcon 9 booster B1051, a successful return-to-flight so soon after SpaceX’s Starlink-5 anomaly would strongly imply that the company has already identified and characterized the cause of that March 18th hiccup with a significant degree of confidence. While Starlink-6 (the seventh Starlink launch overall) wont exactly replicate the conditions preceding Starlink-5’s in-flight engine failure, a successful launch would hopefully help alleviate any major concerns from SpaceX’s customers. That mission, however, will now have to wait another week or so to launch.

According to NASASpaceflight.com sources, SpaceX’s next launch will have to wait a bit longer. (Richard Angle)

While not quite as flight-proven as B1048, the Falcon 9 booster that suffered an engine failure and was lost at sea last month, SpaceX (according to Next Spaceflight) has assigned Falcon 9 booster B1051 to its seventh Starlink launch. Since its first flight in March 2019, supporting Crew Dragon’s historic orbital launch debut, B1051 has completed two additional orbital-class launches and landings, lofting Canada’s three-satellite Radarsat Constellation Mission (RCM) in June 2019 and SpaceX’s fourth batch of 60 Starlink satellites in January 2020.

On its first mission, B1051 became the first Falcon 9 rocket to launch SpaceX’s new Crew Dragon spacecraft. (SpaceX)
For its second mission, Falcon 9 B1051 was shipped to SpaceX’s Vandenberg facilities to launch Canada’s Radarsat Constellation (RCM) in June 2019. (SpaceX)
B1051’s third launch placed the fourth batch of 60 Starlink satellites in orbit on January 29th, 2020. (Richard Angle)

The Starlink-6 (Flight 7) mission will be B1051’s fourth, making it the sixth SpaceX Falcon 9 booster to launch four times since booster B1048 pushed the envelope in November 2019 – just five months ago. Aside from Falcon 9 B1048’s Starlink-5 engine failure and subsequently unsuccessful landing attempt, SpaceX also lost booster B1056 after its fourth flight in February 2020. Excluding two or three new Falcon 9 boosters assigned to critical missions for NASA and the US military, those two booster losses shrunk SpaceX’s rocket fleet by 30-40%, leaving just three flight-proven Falcon 9 boosters for other Starlink or customer missions.

SpaceX does have two twice-flown Falcon Heavy side boosters, said by CEO Elon Musk to be relatively easy to convert into Falcon 9 boosters, but their status is currently unknown, leaving them as the wildcards of SpaceX’s rocket fleet.

Pictured here during their first landings in April 2019, boosters B1052 and B1053 could potentially be modified to serve as normal Falcon 9 boosters in SpaceX’s rocket fleet. (SpaceX)

For SpaceX to be able to continue an ambitious Starlink launch cadence throughout the rest of 2020, the successful recovery of flight-proven boosters like B1051, B1049, and B1059 will likely be uniquely paramount over the next few months. Assuming SpaceX is able to successfully launch its first astronauts on Crew Dragon (NET late May) and complete a second US military GPS satellite launch (NET June 30th), two once-flown boosters will thankfully enter the company’s fleet, raising it to five (or seven) strong in by July or August.

SpaceX’s next Starlink launch is now scheduled for no earlier than (NET) April 22nd, give or take a day or two.

Advertisement
-

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

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.

Published

on

By

SpaceX Terafab rendering

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Published

on

By

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.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla uber bull Ron Baron says ‘the time to buy the stock is now’

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

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.

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.

Continue Reading