News
SpaceX on track for biweekly launch cadence in the remainder of year
Weekly rapid reuse launches expected by 2019
The foggy, atmospheric launch of Iridium-2 just yesterday. (SpaceX)
Following a weekend of extraordinary accomplishments, seeing SpaceX flawlessly execute two missions – one with a reused first stage – in just over 48 hours of each other, the company has capitalized on a uniquely successful weekend and year and offered information about their future plans.
The launch of BulgariaSat-1 and Iridium-2 on Friday and Sunday respectively marked the eight and ninth launches of 2017 for SpaceX, and officials at the company are reportedly expecting to launch approximately 24 missions this year, meaning 15 more to come over the next 6 months. Given the recent demonstration of 48 hour launch cadence and a more regular schedule of biweekly launches in the past few months, an expectation of 15 more launches for 2017 lines up perfectly with a cadence of two launches a month from LC-39A Cape Canaveral and three Iridium launches from Vandenberg, which happens to be exactly what is currently manifested.
Originally manifested for up to 27 launches this year, successfully launching 24 missions, one of which might be the inaugural flight of Falcon Heavy, would be extraordinarily hard to ignore in an industry that has compared the launch industry to manufacturing beverage containers and argued that reuse is only sustainable with more than 20 launches a year on a company’s manifest.
BulgariaSat-1 was successfully launched 48 hours before Iridium-2, and marked the second successful, commercial reuse of an orbital rocket. (SpaceX)
SpaceX is now likely to undertake 24 launches this year, but the company also revealed this weekend that it intends to achieve a regular weekly launch cadence (52 launches per year) as soon as 2019. In a recent article, I speculated that we might begin to see regular weekly launches once both LC-39A and LC-40 were active, and that appears to be nearly correct. If SpaceX is to regularly conduct weekly launches by 2019, it is bound to begin shrinking its two week cadence as soon as is safe and possible. This will likely occur once Falcon Heavy has successfully flown several times from LC-39A, thus freeing SpaceX to deem the vehicle operational and less at risk of destroying one of their two Eastern pads.
There is also a tentative understanding that SpaceX is striving to construct and activate their planned Boca Chica, Texas launch complex by 2019. The successful reactivation of LC-40 and subsequent modification of LC-39A for Falcon Heavy will leave the brunt of SpaceX’s launch complex maintenance and construction teams free to focus entirely on the Texas facility sometime late this year or early next year, meaning that Boca Chica pad activation could certainly occur as early as 2019. This would leave the company with two fully operational all-purpose launch pads dedicated to Falcon 9 launches if they choose to retain LC-39A solely for Falcon Heavy and Commercial Crew launches, allowing them to reach weekly cadences even before the launches of Falcon Heavy, Commercial Crew contracts, and Vandenberg launches are accounted for.
One crucial factor playing into SpaceX’s ability to launch 52 times in a year is of course reusability, as it is hard to imagine SpaceX more than doubling their Falcon manufacturing capabilities in under a year and a half. Likely no coincidence, SpaceX simultaneously offered information to insurance underwriters about the increasing speed of their ability to launch, recover, and reuse first stages. More specifically, a spokesman of the company stated that the reuse of BulgariaSat-1’s Falcon 9 1029 took considerably less than half as long as the inaugural reuse of the stage that launched SES-10 earlier this year, implying that refurbishment and quality assurance checks for 1029 took something like four or five months total.
With SpaceX having debuted new titanium grid fins intended to speed up reuse on the Sunday launch of Iridium-2, the company is well on its way to transferring over to Block 4 (upgraded engine performance) and possibly Block 5 of Falcon 9 later this. Block 5 is expected to introduced major changes meant to replace aspects of the current Falcon 9 that require major refurbishment after recovery. Musk detailed these changes several months ago in a Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything), mentioning that reusable heat shielding around the engines, improved landing legs, and titanium grid fins were the main aspects of a Block 5 of Falcon 9 meant to offer rapid reuse without refurbishment. In June 22nd interview on the Space Show, Gwynne Shotwell reiterated that this “final” version of Falcon 9 is expected to be able to launch, land, and relaunch with barely more than a thorough once-over, and ought to be capable of flying a dozen missions at least.
Falcon 9’s fancy new titanium grid fins. (SpaceX/Instagram)
This final piece of the puzzle of weekly cadence fits in quite nicely. With a possible introduction date for Block 5 of late 2017 or early 2018, SpaceX will likely end production of Block 3 by the end of this year and transfer over entirely to the easily reusable Block 5. Assuming a continuing a trend of increasingly reuse-friendly customers, Hawthorne production capacity of approximately 20 Falcon 9s per year, and a plausibly significant reduction in launch costs due to more rapid and complete reuse, SpaceX could find themselves at the start of 2019 with a dozen or more launch vehicles that are each capable of conducting upwards of 10-12 highly affordable launches each.
Let there be no doubt: these are incredibly optimistic and difficult goals for the company to achieve on the timescale they have provided. However, given the number of beneficial changes likely to soon be made to both the launch vehicles and SpaceX’s manufacturing, launch, and refurbishment facilities in the next 6-12 months, those goals are realistically achievable, albeit with some likely delays. Regardless, things are beginning to get rather intense for SpaceX and for the launch industry in general.
Keep your eyes peeled for upcoming Teslarati coverage of SpaceX’s next July 4th launch and its static fire that is scheduled for as soon as this Thursday.
Elon Musk
The Boring Company clears final Nashville hurdle: Music City loop is full speed ahead
The Boring Company has cleared its final Nashville hurdles, putting the Music City Loop on track for 2026.
The Boring Company has cleared one of its most significant regulatory milestones yet, securing a key easement from the Music City Center in Nashville just days ago, the latest in a series of approvals that have pushed the Music City Loop project firmly into construction reality.
On March 24, 2026, the Convention Center Authority voted to grant The Boring Company access to an easement along the west side of the Music City Center property, allowing tunneling beneath the privately owned venue. The move follows a unanimous 7-0 vote by the Metro Nashville Airport Authority on February 18, and a joint state and federal approval from the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration on February 25. Together, these green lights have cleared the path for a roughly 10-mile underground tunnel connecting downtown Nashville to Nashville International Airport, with potential extensions into midtown along West End Avenue.
Music City Loop could highlight The Boring Company’s real disruption
Nashville was selected by The Boring Company largely because of its rapid population growth and the strain that growth has placed on surface infrastructure. Traffic has become a persistent problem for residents, convention visitors, and airport travelers alike. The Music City Loop promises an approximately 8-minute underground transit time between downtown and the Nashville International Airport (BNA), removing thousands of vehicles from surface roads daily while operating as a fully electric, zero-emissions system at no cost to taxpayers.
The project fits squarely within a broader vision Musk has championed for years. In responding to a breakdown of the Loop’s construction costs, Musk posted on X: “Tunnels are so underrated.” The comment reflected a longstanding belief that underground transit represents one of the most cost-effective and scalable infrastructure solutions available. The Boring Company has claimed it can build 13 miles of twin tunnels in Nashville for between $240 million and $300 million total, a fraction of what comparable projects cost elsewhere in the country.
Image Credit: The Boring Company/Twitter
The Las Vegas Loop, The Boring Company’s first operational system, has served as a proof of concept. During the CONEXPO trade show in March 2026, the Vegas Loop transported approximately 82,000 passengers over five days at the Las Vegas Convention Center, demonstrating the system’s capacity during large-scale events. Nashville draws millions of convention visitors and tourists each year, and local business leaders have pointed to that same capacity as a major draw for supporting the project.
The Music City Loop was first announced in July 2025. Construction began within hours of the February 25 state approval, with The Boring Company’s Prufrock tunneling machine already in the ground the same evening. The first operational segment is targeted for late 2026, with the full route expected to be complete by 2029. The project represents one of the largest privately funded infrastructure efforts currently underway in the United States.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss
A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s legal team has filed a motion demanding that Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick disqualify herself from an ongoing high-stakes Tesla shareholder lawsuit.
The filing, submitted March 25, cites an apparent LinkedIn “support” reaction from McCormick’s account to a post celebrating a $2 billion jury verdict against Musk in a separate California securities-fraud case.
The move escalates long-simmering tensions between Musk, Tesla, and the Delaware judiciary, where McCormick previously presided over the landmark challenge to Musk’s record $56 billion 2018 compensation package.
Delaware Supreme Court reinstates Elon Musk’s 2018 Tesla CEO pay package
The LinkedIn post was written by Harry Plotkin, a Southern California jury consultant who assisted the plaintiffs who sued Musk over 2022 tweets about his Twitter acquisition. Plotkin praised the trial team for “standing up for the little guy against the richest man in the world.”
The New York Post initially reported the story.
A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality.
This appears to be unequivocal proof she denied the pay package because of her own personal beliefs and not the law.
Corruption. https://t.co/8dvgcfYuvh
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 25, 2026
McCormick swiftly denied intentional endorsement. In a letter to attorneys, she stated she was unaware of the interaction until LinkedIn notified her. She wrote:
“I either did not click the ‘support’ icon at all, or I did so accidentally. I do not believe that I did it accidentally.”
The chancellor maintains the reaction was inadvertent, but critics, including Musk allies, call the explanation implausible given the platform’s deliberate interface.
McCormick’s central role in the Tesla pay-package litigation underscores the stakes. In Tornetta v. Musk, in January 2024, she ruled the 2018 performance-based stock-option grant, potentially worth $56 billion at the time and now valued far higher, was invalid.
The package consisted of 12 tranches of options, each vesting only after Tesla achieved ambitious market-cap and operational milestones. McCormick found Musk exercised “transaction-specific control” over Tesla as a controlling stockholder, the board lacked sufficient independence, and proxy disclosures to shareholders were materially deficient.
Applying the entire-fairness standard, she concluded defendants failed to prove the deal was fair in process or price and ordered full rescission, an “unfathomable” remedy she described as necessary to deter fiduciary breaches.
After the ruling, Tesla shareholders ratified the package a second time in June 2024. McCormick rejected that ratification in December 2024, holding that post-trial votes could not cure defects.
Tesla appealed. On December 19 of last year, the Delaware Supreme Court unanimously reversed the rescission remedy while largely leaving McCormick’s liability findings intact. The high court deemed total unwinding inequitable and impractical, restoring the package but awarding the plaintiff only nominal $1 damages plus reduced attorneys’ fees. Musk ultimately received the full award.
The current recusal motion arises in yet another Tesla derivative suit before McCormick. Legal observers say granting it could signal heightened scrutiny of judicial social-media activity; denial might reinforce perceptions of an insular Delaware bench.
Broader fallout includes accelerated corporate migration out of Delaware, Musk himself moved Tesla’s incorporation to Texas after the first ruling, and renewed debate over whether the state’s specialized courts remain the gold standard for corporate governance disputes.
A decision is expected soon; whichever way it lands, the episode highlights the fragile balance between judicial independence and public confidence in high-profile litigation.
News
Tesla Cybercab spotted next to Model Y shows size comparison
The Model Y is Tesla’s most-popular vehicle and has been atop the world’s best-selling rankings for the last three years. The Cybercab, while yet to be released, could potentially surpass the Model Y due to its planned accessible price, potential for passive income for owners, and focus on autonomy.
The Tesla Cybercab and Tesla Model Y are perhaps two of the company’s most-discussed vehicles, and although they are geared toward different things, a recent image of the two shows a side-by-side size comparison and how they stack up dimensionally.
The Model Y is Tesla’s most-popular vehicle and has been atop the world’s best-selling rankings for the last three years. The Cybercab, while yet to be released, could potentially surpass the Model Y due to its planned accessible price, potential for passive income for owners, and focus on autonomy.
Geared as a ride-sharing vehicle, it only has two seats. However, the car will be responsible for hauling two people around to various destinations completely autonomously. How they differ in terms of size is striking.
In a new aerial image shared by drone operator and Gigafactory Texas observer Joe Tegtmeyer, the two vehicles were seen side by side, offering perhaps the first clear look at how they differ in size.
Tesla Model Y vs. Tesla Cybercab:
✅ Overall Length:⁰Model Y: 188.7 inches (4,794 mm)⁰Cybercab: ~175 inches (≈4,445 mm)⁰→ Cybercab is about 13–14 inches shorter (roughly the length of a large suitcase).
✅ Overall Width (excluding mirrors):⁰Model Y: 75.6 inches (1,920 mm)… https://t.co/PsVwzhw1pe pic.twitter.com/58JQ5ssQIO
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 25, 2026
Dimensionally, the differences are striking. The Model Y stretches roughly 188 inches long, 75.6 inches wide, excluding its mirrors, and stands 64 inches tall on a 113.8-inch wheelbase. The Cybercab measures approximately 175 inches in length, about a foot shorter, and just 63 inches wide.
That narrower stance gives the Cybercab a dramatically more compact silhouette, making it easier to maneuver in tight urban environments and park in standard spaces that would feel cramped for the Model Y. Height is also lower on the Cybercab, contributing to its sleek, coupe-like profile versus the Model Y’s taller crossover shape.
Visually, the contrast is unmistakable. The Model Y presents as a family-friendly SUV with conventional doors, a prominent hood, and a spacious glass roof.
The Cybercab eliminates the steering wheel and pedals entirely, creating a clean, futuristic cabin that feels more lounge than cockpit.
Its doors open in a distinctive, wide-swinging motion, and the body features smoother, more aerodynamic lines optimized for autonomy. Parked beside a Model Y, the Cybercab appears almost toy-like in width and length, yet its low-slung stance and minimalist design emphasize agility over bulk.
🚨 We caught up with the Tesla Cybercab today in The Bay Area: pic.twitter.com/9awXiK26ue
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 24, 2026
Cargo capacity tells another part of the story. The Model Y offers generous real-world utility: 4.1 cubic feet in the front trunk and 30.2 cubic feet behind the rear seats, expanding to 72 cubic feet with the second row folded flat.
It comfortably swallows groceries, luggage, or sports equipment for five passengers. The Cybercab, designed for two riders, trades that volume for targeted efficiency.
It features a rear hatch with enough space for two carry-on suitcases and personal items, plenty for the typical robotaxi trip, while maintaining impressive legroom and headroom for its occupants.
In short, the Model Y prioritizes versatility and family hauling with its larger footprint and abundant storage. The Cybercab sacrifices size for simplicity, cost, and urban nimbleness.
At roughly 12 inches shorter and 12 inches narrower, it embodies Tesla’s vision for scalable, affordable autonomy: smaller on the outside, smarter inside, and ready to redefine how we move through cities.
The Cybercab and Model Y both will contribute to Tesla’s fully autonomous future. However, the size comparison gives a good look into how the vehicles are the same, and how they differ, and what riders should anticipate as the Cybercab enters production in the coming weeks.
The Boring Company clears final Nashville hurdle: Music City loop is full speed ahead
Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss
Tesla Cybercab spotted next to Model Y shows size comparison
Elon Musk’s Boring Co. Tunnel Vision Challenge ends with a surprise for Louisiana, Maryland and Dallas
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
