News
SpaceX VP says Starship is already winning commercial launch contracts
A SpaceX executive says that the company’s next-generation, fully-reusable Starship rocket has already secured multiple commercial launch contracts.
Set to debut no earlier than (NET) the first quarter of 2022 with a semi-orbital launch that aims to send Starship about 85% of the way around the Earth, Starship has a ways to go before it’s ready to routinely launch payloads. Nonetheless, SpaceX is confident enough in Starship’s eventual success to have effectively made it the foundation of every one of the company’s future goals – both in the short and long term.
Today, SpaceX’s Falcon rockets have become a spectacularly successful revolution in cost-effective launch through reusability and vertical integration, among other things. Thanks to that unprecedented affordability, SpaceX has been able to kick off the deployment of its Starlink internet constellation, launching more than 1800 satellites and becoming the largest satellite operator in history in less than two and a half years. Where competition is possible, Falcon 9 dominates the global commercial launch market for both small and large satellites. And yet despite its staggering success, Falcon 9 remains at least one or two magnitudes too expensive and too performance-constrained to realize SpaceX’s grander ambitions.
Those overarching goals are simple enough and directly related. First, SpaceX – through Starlink – aims to blanket the Earth’s surface with high-quality, affordable satellite internet that is either indistinguishable from or better than ground-based alternatives, ultimately connecting tens or even hundreds of millions of people to the internet. Second, SpaceX’s founding goal has always been to make humanity a multiplanetary species by enabling the creation of one or several permanent, self-sustaining cities on Mars. For the latter goal, Starship or a fully reusable rocket like it has always been essential – without which it would be prohibitively expensive to launch the sheer mass and volume of supplies needed to build a city on another world.
Recently, if SpaceX’s often hyperbolic CEO is to be believed, Starlink’s success has also become dependent on Starship, with Musk stating in a company-wide memo that SpaceX as a whole could face bankruptcy if Starship isn’t ready to launch 200+ Starlink satellites per month by the end of 2022. While it’s simply untrue that SpaceX is at risk of bankruptcy, there might be some truth behind Musk’s statement. Fearmongering aside, the gist of Musk’s argument is that Starlink is “financially weak” under the current paradigm, where Falcon 9 delivers approximately 50 300-kilogram (~650 lb) satellites to orbit with each launch.
In the same vein as Starship, Musk believes that next-generation “Starlink V2” satellites – several times larger than V1 satellites – will drastically improve the cost-effectiveness of the constellation by allowing SpaceX to squeeze much more network capacity out of every unit of satellite mass. However, making Starlink V2 satellites several times larger would reduce the efficiency of launching them on Falcon 9 by an equal degree – hence the apparently dire need for Starship.
Contrary to Musk’s apocalyptic vision, even if it might be significantly slower and more expensive to deploy, it’s quite likely that a full Starlink V1 constellation launched by Falcon 9 could still be economically viable. What it probably wouldn’t be, though, is exceptionally profitable, which has long been SpaceX’s main plan for funding its multiplanetary dreams. With a Starship capable of achieving its design goals, that could change.
According to Musk and other SpaceX executives, the true cost – before payloads – of a flight-proven Falcon 9 launch is somewhere between $15M and $28M. At an estimated cost of $250-500k apiece, 50-60 Starlink V1 satellites raise the total cost of a Starlink launch to approximately $30-60M – the range between marginal and total cost. In a partially reusable configuration, Falcon 9 is capable of launching about ~16 tons (~35,000 lb) to low Earth orbit (LEO).
Starship, however, is designed to launch at least 100 tons (~220,000 lb) and possibly up to 150 tons (~330,000 lb) to LEO for a marginal cost of as little as $2M. Even if SpaceX is a magnitude off of that target and never gets beyond 100t to LEO, a $20M Starship launch fully loaded with Starlink satellites would still cost five times less than Falcon 9 per unit of satellite mass launched. At 150 tons to LEO for $10M, Starship would cost 15 times less. If SpaceX one day perfects full reusability and marginal costs do fall to $2M, a 150-ton Starship launch could be up to 70 times cheaper than Falcon 9.
For the exact same reasons it could radically improve the cost-efficiency of Starlink deployment and finally make humanity’s expansion beyond Earth affordable enough to be viable, Starship would also inherently revolutionize access to space for all other launch customers – not just SpaceX.
According to SpaceX Vice President of Commercial Sales Tom Ochinero, Starship has already begun to make inroads with SpaceX’s healthy list of existing Falcon customers. While relatively minor and inevitable, it’s still an important symbolic step for SpaceX and Starship as it attempts to deliver a launch vehicle so cheap and capable that it ushers the company’s own Falcon rockets into retirement.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
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.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
