Update: SpaceX says it and NASA are moving forward with plans to launch a Crew Dragon carrying US, Japanese, and Russian astronauts as early as noon EDT (16:00 UTC) on Wednesday, October 5th.
Concurring with a statement made on October 3rd, SpaceX has also called off a planned October 4th launch of its Starlink 4-29 mission. However, the company has delayed Starlink 4-29 just 24 hours and says that Falcon 9 will launch the latest batch of internet satellites out of California no earlier than (NET) 4:10 pm PDT (23:10 UTC) on October 5th. Intelsat has also confirmed that its Galaxy 33 and Galaxy 34 geostationary communications satellites are scheduled to launch on a Falcon 9 rocket as early as 7:07 pm EDT (23:07 UTC) on October 6th, leaving SpaceX on track to launch three Falcon 9 rockets from three launch pads in 31 hours.
The company achieved a similar feat earlier this year when it launched three Falcon 9 rockets in 36 hours. Three launches in 31 hours would break that record.
SpaceX is on the cusp of launching three Falcon 9 rockets in a handful of days. Minor issues with two of the three missions, however, have complicated the already hard process of coordinating so many launches at the same time.
For many reasons, rocket launches are an inherently difficult thing to schedule, and that difficulty only gets magnified when attempting to launch rockets as quickly as possible for customers with very different needs while using a fixed number of launch pads. SpaceX’s upcoming series of launches demonstrates the slippery nature of high-cadence rocket launch scheduling better than most.
Last month, SpaceX ran into issues (mainly bad weather) that delayed its Starlink 4-34, 4-35, and 4-36 missions by varying degrees. Before those delays, SpaceX had intended to break its LC-40 pad turnaround record with Starlink 4-35 and then repeat the feat with Starlink 4-36, but that opportunity closed when Starlink 4-34’s several weather delays pushed Starlink 4-35 from September 19th to the 24th and raised the risk of the next launch, Starlink 4-36, interfering with customer missions planned in the first half of October.
That burst of customer missions, all of which take priority over SpaceX’s own Starlink missions, meant that a few-day delay for a mission two launches prior ultimately pushed Starlink 4-36 from the end of September to no earlier than October 20th. It will launch out of Cape Canaveral Space Force Station’s (CCSFS) LC-40, the same pad that launched Starlink 4-35 on September 24th and will launch Intelsat’s Galaxy 33 and 34 satellites no earlier than (NET) October 6th and Eutelsat’s Hotbird 13F satellite NET October 13th. All four launches (including Starlink 4-36) are thus contingent upon each other, so a delay with one mission would likely delay each subsequent mission to leave enough time for pad turnaround and rocket processing.
Date Mission Rocket Location Pad 10/04/22 Starlink 4-29 Falcon 9 California VSFB SLC-4E 10/04/22 SES-20/21 Atlas V Florida CCSFS LC-41 10/05/22 Crew-5 Falcon 9 Florida KSC LC-39A 10/06/22 Galaxy 33/34 Falcon 9 Florida CCSFS LC-40 10/13/22 Hotbird 13F Falcon 9 Florida CCSFS LC-40 10/20/22 Starlink 4-36 Falcon 9 Florida CCSFS LC-40
SpaceX isn’t the only company that launches out of Cape Canaveral, Florida. Originally scheduled in late September, the United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) Atlas V launch of the SES-20 and SES-21 geostationary communication satellites was delayed by the same weather system that indirectly hampered Starlink 4-35 and 4-36. That mission is now set to launch NET 5:36 pm EDT (21:36 UTC) on October 4th.
Up first, however, is SpaceX’s Starlink 4-29 mission out of California’s Vandenberg Space Force Base (VSFB). Delayed to October 4th hours before its October 3rd target, the new schedule will give SpaceX “more time for pre-launch checkouts,” Falcon 9 will now lift off as early as 4:48 pm PDT (23:48 UTC), a little over two hours after Atlas V. However, making the whole situation even more interlinked, SpaceX says it will stand down from its October 4th Starlink launch attempt if its next Florida mission – Crew Dragon’s fifth operational NASA astronaut launch – remains on track for its current noon EDT (16:00 UTC), October 5th launch target.
In an October 3rd briefing following a mostly clean launch readiness review (LRR), NASA and SpaceX officials revealed that three new minor issues – “not showstoppers” – had appeared after a busy period of ground testing. An otherwise successful astronaut dry dress rehearsal and a subsequent wet dress rehearsal and static fire uncovered a possible fire extinguisher leak in the Dragon spacecraft and a minor issue with one of the Falcon 9 rocket booster’s nine Merlin 1D engines. A communications issue was also discovered on the SpaceX drone ship Crew-5’s rocket booster is meant to land on in the Atlantic Ocean.
SpaceX and NASA officials weren’t especially worried about the issues and were confident they would be resolved in time for an October 5th launch. If they aren’t and Crew-5 slips to October 6th, SpaceX should be able to launch Starlink 4-29 on October 4th, but then it’s unclear if the company will also be able to launch Intelsat’s Galaxy 33 and Galaxy 34 geostationary communications satellites on the same day as Crew-5. Galaxy 33/34 is scheduled to launch NET 7:07 pm EDT on October 6th, likely ~6 hours after Crew-5’s own October 6th launch window.
If Crew-5 slips and Galaxy 33/34 can’t launch on the same day, it would likely delay both Hotbird 13F and Starlink 4-36. It’s also unclear if Starlink 4-29 can launch on the same day as Crew-5 if it flies after Dragon. Either way, SpaceX could potentially end up launching Crew-5, Galaxy 33/34, and Starlink 4-29 on October 5th and 6th – potentially less than a day and a half apart.
As SpaceX continues to push the limits of what is possible with its existing Falcon launch and landing infrastructure, chaotic scheduling situations like this, where small issues impact large strings of launches, will become the norm instead of the exception
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
