News
A SpaceX surprise: Falcon Heavy booster landing to smash distance record
In an unexpected last-second change, SpaceX has moved Falcon Heavy Flight 3’s center core landing on drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) from 40 km to more than 1240 km (770 mi) off the coast of Florida.
Drone ship OCISLY is already being towed to the landing site, necessary due to the sheer distance that needs to be covered at a leisurely towing pace. The current record for distance traveled during booster recovery was set at ~970 km by Falcon Heavy center core B1055 in April 2019. If successful, Falcon Heavy center core B1057 will smash that record by almost 30% after sending two dozen spacecraft on their way to orbit. Falcon Heavy Flight 3 is scheduled to lift off in support of the Department of Defense’s Space Test Program 2 (STP-2) mission no earlier than 11:30 pm ET (03:30 UTC), June 24th. A routine static fire test at Pad 39A will (hopefully) set the stage for launch on Wednesday, June 19th.
This comes as a significant surprise for several reasons. First and foremost, the difference between a center core landing 40 km or 1300 km from the launch site is immense. For Falcon Heavy, the center core shuts down and separates from the rest of the rocket as much as a minute after the rocket’s two side boosters, potentially doubling the booster’s relative velocity at separation.
That extra minute of acceleration means that the center core can easily be 50-100+ km downrange at the point of separation. In other words, landing 40 km offshore aboard drone ship OCISLY would be roughly akin to a full boostback burn, meaning that the center core would need to nullify all of its substantial downrange velocity, turn around, and fly ~50-100 km back towards the launch site. Being able to perform such an aggressive maneuver would indicate that Falcon Heavy’s boost stage has a huge amount of propellant (delta V) remaining after completing its role in the launch.
To have STP-2’s center core recovery moved from 40 km to 1240 km thus indicates an absolutely massive change in the rocket’s mission plan and launch trajectory. For reference, Falcon Heavy Flight 2’s Block 5 center core (B1055) set SpaceX’s current record for recovery distance (970 km/600 mi) after launching Arabsat 6A – a massive ~6500 kg (14,300 lb) satellite – to a spectacularly high transfer orbit of >90,000 km (56,000 mi).
Why so spicy?
There are three obvious possibilities that might help explain why the STP-2 mission has abruptly indicated that it will require SpaceX’s most energetic booster recovery yet.
1. STP-2 is carrying at least 1-2 metric tons worth of mystery payload(s)
This is highly unlikely. The USAF SMC has already released a SpaceX photo showing the late stages of the STP-2 payload stack’s encapsulation inside Falcon Heavy’s payload fairing. Short of an elaborate faked encapsulation followed by the installation of additional mysterious spacecraft or some extremely dense hardware hidden inside, it’s safe to say that the STP-2 payload stack weighs what the USAF says it weighs, which is to say not nearly heavy enough to warrant a record-smashing booster recovery given the known orbital destinations.
The USAF further confirmed that there is no ballast on the stack, removing the possibility of a lead weight or steel boilerplate meant to artificially push Falcon Heavy to its limits.
2. STP-2’s already-challenging Falcon upper stage mission profile is even more exotic than described
Per official mission overviews, it’s already clear that STP-2 could be the most challenging launch ever attempted for SpaceX’s orbital Falcon upper stage. According to SpaceX itself, “STP-2…will be among the most challenging launches in SpaceX history, with four separate upper-stage engine burns, three separate deployment orbits, a final propulsive passivation maneuver, and a total mission duration of over six hours.”
While undeniably challenging, it’s not clear why it would require such a high-energy center core recovery. With a payload mass of just ~3700 kg, Falcon 9 has launched much larger payloads to (relatively) higher orbits, but this fails to account for the added challenge of long coasts and multiple different orbits. Also of note, the above graph (courtesy of a years-old USAF document) appears to disagree with SpaceX’s description of “four… upper-stage burns”, instead showing five burns (red spikes).
More likely than not, OCISLY’s ~1200-kilometer move can be explained largely by the reintroduction of what the above graph describes as the Falcon upper stage’s “disposal burn”, likely referring to a deorbit burn. On top of the delta V already required for the first four burns, it isn’t out of the question that an additional coast and deorbit burn from 6000 km (3700 mi) would push the recovery equation in favor of attempting to incinerate center core B1057.
3. USAF/DoD conservatism strikes again?
The last plausible explanation for this radical shift is that the US Air Force/Department of Defense (DoD) has decided last-second that they want more margins on top of their already-overflowing safety margins, quite literally pushing B1057 to the edge of its performance envelope to mitigate low-probability failure modes. This has been done to an even more extreme extent with the US Air Force’s recent GPS III SV01 launch, in which SpaceX was forced to expend a new Falcon 9 Block 5 booster to provide the extreme safety margins the USAF desired.
According to the USAF, the STP-2 mission – including launch costs – represents as much as $750M, coincidentally similar to the estimated cost of the GPS III SV01 satellite and an expendable Falcon 9 rocket. As such, it’s not out of the question that a similar level of paranoia/conservatism is in play for STP-2.
Numbers 2 and 3 are equally plausible explanations for this last-second booster recovery shift. Given the US military’s active involvement, it’s more likely than not that no explanations will be offered. Regardless, this surprise development is bound to result in a truly spectacular recovery attempt for SpaceX’s second Block 5 center core and will likely involve breaking several still-fresh records in the process.
Falcon Heavy Flight 3 is in the middle of rolling out to SpaceX’s Kennedy Space Center Pad 39A launch facilities for a routine pre-launch static fire test, scheduled to occur no earlier than 12:30 pm ET (16:30 UTC), June 19th. If all goes well, SpaceX should be on track for its first STP-2 launch attempt at 11:30 pm ET (03:30 UTC), June 24th.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
