News
SpaceX targeting 52 Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy launches in 2022
Shortly before SpaceX was scheduled to launch an Italian Earth observation satellite, a member of NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) revealed that the company aims to conduct as many as 52 launches this year.
Supporting several estimates published by Teslarati over the last month, SpaceX officially targeting up to one launch per week in 2022 meshes well with the company’s record-breaking commercial launch manifest and plans for up to 10 Falcon launches in December 2021 and January 2022 alone. It also comes as no surprise after SpaceX’s spectacular performance in the first six months of 2021.
In H1 2021, before major production issues effectively halted all Starlink launches, SpaceX launches 20 Falcon 9 rockets in six months, demonstrating a sustainable cadence of 40 launches per year. Of those 20 launches, 13 were Starlink missions and 7 were commercial. Due to a lack of commercial launches and a lack of Starlink satellites to launch, SpaceX then proceeded to launch just three times between July 1st and November 11th.
However, in the last two months of 2021, SpaceX managed to go from launching three times in 19 weeks to launching eight Falcon 9 rockets in six weeks. Further, SpaceX completed five of those eight launches in less than three weeks. Given that that feat made December 2021 SpaceX’s first five-launch month ever just a year after SpaceX’s first four-launch month ever, it wasn’t unreasonable to assume that five launches in one month was a fluke. However, the fact that SpaceX abruptly went from a record of five launches in ~27 days to five launches in ~19 days did feel like more than a mere coincidence
That was confirmed about two weeks later, when a US military official responsible for managing the Florida range implicitly revealed that SpaceX was targeting up to five East Coast Falcon launches in January 2022. It then became a question of whether SpaceX’s plans would survive the only true constant of spaceflight: delays.
However, three weeks later, SpaceX has successfully launched three Falcon 9 rockets and is on track to launch another two from Florida in the last few days of the month. Originally scheduled to launch in late 2021, the Italian Space Agency’s (ASI) CSG-2 Earth observation radar satellite was eventually rescheduled for January 27th, but poor weather forced SpaceX to delay that launch to 6:11 pm EST (23:11 UTC), Friday, January 28th, 29th, and finally the 30th. Perhaps less than a day later, as early as 2:17 pm (19:17 UTC) on Monday, January 31st (delayed from Jan 29th and 30th), another Falcon 9 rocket is scheduled to launch a batch of approximately 49 Starlink satellites known as Starlink 4-7.
Last but not least, SpaceX has already tested and static-fired a third Falcon 9 rocket and is prepared to launch the National Reconnaissance Office’s (NRO) NROL-87 spy satellite(s) out of California’s Vandenberg Space Force Base (VSFB) no earlier than (NET) 11:07 am PST (19:07 UTC), Wednesday, February 2nd. If all three of those launches happen according to plan, SpaceX will have kicked off 2022 with six launches in the first five weeks of the year and, technically, just 27 days. Further, over a period of 10 weeks, SpaceX will have potentially completed twelve Falcon 9 launches.
In short, while just one month into the year, SpaceX is undeniably maintaining the launch cadence it will need to launch an average of one Falcon rocket per week for all of 2022. It’s obviously far more likely that unexpected issues will arise, significantly delaying a number of launches and pushing SpaceX below its goal of 52 launches in one year, but even 40 launches per year would be an extraordinary achievement. If SpaceX actually does achieve 50+ launches in 2022, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy will represent the second rocket family in history to achieve such a cadence – and the first to do so since the 1980s.
Tune in below around 6pm EST on Friday, January 28th to watch SpaceX’s fourth Falcon launch of the year.
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
