Connect with us

News

SpaceX Starship test plans solidify after bad weather delays hop

Published

on

Around the same time SpaceX was preparing for its 100th Falcon rocket launch, bad Texas weather forced the company to abort its second Starship hop test of the month.

Since that abort, SpaceX’s near-term Starship test plans have begun to solidify, offering a clearer picture of what to expect over the next week or two. Pending better weather at its Boca Chica, Texas test facilities, Starship serial number 6 (SN6) is still first in line and has been preparing for its hop debut ever since the prototype completed a Raptor engine static fire test on August 23rd.

Measuring approximately 30m (~100 ft) tall, SN6 is a full-scale Starship tank and engine section – the bottom ~60% and business end of the reusable orbital spacecraft. Of course, SpaceX has a ways to go before Starship is actually ready for its first orbital test flight, let alone reuse after such a test flight, but the company did take its biggest step yet towards that lofty ambitions with Starship SN5’s successful August 4th hop debut.

Effectively twins, Starship SN5 and SN6 have since been expected to take turns completing “several” hops to improve SpaceX’s familiarity with Starship launch operations and work towards a smooth procedure that can be completed multiple times per day. With SN6 now scheduled to hop no earlier than 8am CDT (UTC-5), September 3rd, 29 days after SN5’s debut, SpaceX still has its work cut out for it.

(SpaceX)

Nevertheless, SN5’s 150m (~500 ft) hop was the first flight of any kind for a full-scale Starship prototype, as well as the first use of an entirely new landing leg design and Raptor’s first flight in almost a year. In the history of rocket development, there is no precedent for launching and landing a prototype rocket and then repeating the same test with an entirely new prototype less than a month later.

Additionally, most of the 29 days since SN5’s first hop have been spent preparing Starship SN6 for a crucial “cryo proof” qualification test. Had that cryo proof been completed before SN5’s hop debut, SN6 could have been ready to fly as few as ~10 days later. That still leaves SpaceX a long ways away from multiple Starship hops per day but does offer encouragement that flight-proven Starship SN5 could be ready for its second hop not long after the pad is clear.

Starship SN5 awaits its second hop, August 29th. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)

However, it appears that SpaceX instead plans to follow up SN6’s hop debut with a new ‘test tank’ meant to demonstrate an upgraded Starship “thrust puck” built out of a different steel alloy. Known as Starship SN7.1, the test will follow on the heels of a more traditional tank (SN7) that completed a record-breaking pressure test in June 2020 and proved that Starship would likely be better off with a different steel alloy.

While SN7 was a basic test tank (two domes and a few steel rings), SN7.1 adds a skirt section at its base and replaces the aft dome with a thrust dome. Likely built entirely out of a steel alloy closer to 304L than the 301 SpaceX has used for all prior Starship prototypes, that thrust dome features a new ‘thrust puck’ – the structural element Raptor engines attach to and transmit their thrust through.

Advertisement
-
SN6’s thrust section, June 3rd. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
SN8’s upgraded thrust section, August 15th. SN7.1’s is believed to be identical and will be tested first. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
SpaceX has already installed a new launch mount – including a Raptor thrust simulator – for test tank SN7.1. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)

Unlike past single tank tests, SN7.1 will be put through something more like a full prototype’s cryo pressure test. SN7.1 will be installed on a launch mount, allowing its skirt clamps to firmly secure the prototype to the stand, itself secured to a concrete slab on the ground. That launch mount also allows SpaceX to install a hydraulic ram designed to mechanically simulate the thrust of 1-3 Raptor engines without the risk involved in an actual static fire. SN7.1 is scheduled to begin testing no earlier than (NET) 8 am CDT (UTC-5), September 6th – just three days after SN6’s next planned hop attempt.

Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.

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