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.
Tesla launched unsupervised Robotaxi service in San Antonio, Texas, on November 9, 2026, with the first rides beginning at 5 a.m. local time.
The company’s official Robotaxi account on X posted the announcement just after midnight, sharing a map that outlines a large operational zone covering much of the city. The geofence is roughly 274 to 275 square miles, making it Tesla’s largest day-one Robotaxi service area to date.
🚨 Tesla just announced that Robotaxi is available in San Antonio, TX
First rides at 5am local time! https://t.co/azck6NlD8H
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 9, 2026
The zone centers on downtown, covers nearly everything inside Loop 410, and extends north to Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 and U.S. 281, with further reach west past State Highway 151, east beyond I-35, and south toward I-37. This area encompasses about one million residents and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
San Antonio International Airport lies inside the geofence, though Tesla is not currently offering airport pickups or drop-offs. This hopefully will happen soon, as ride-sharing to and from the airport can be expensive.
The launch makes San Antonio Tesla’s eighth unsupervised Robotaxi city and its fifth in Texas, joining Austin, Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth. Florida markets in Miami, Orlando, and Tampa are also live.
🚨 Here’s every active geofence, by size (not including the Bay Area geofence):
• Austin: 435 sq mi (first ride Jun 22, 2025) · Cybercabs live, expanded today • San Antonio: ~275 sq mi (first ride Nov 9, 2026) • Houston: 254 sq mi (Apr 18, 2026) • Fort Worth: 143 sq mi (Nov 2, 2026) • Dallas: 81 sq mi (Apr 18, 2026) • Miami: 31 sq mi (Jul 3, 2026) • Orlando: 26 sq mi (Jul 21, 2026) • Tampa: 24 sq mi (Jul 21, 2026)
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 9, 2026
Service uses modified Model Y vehicles operating without a safety driver in the vehicle, consistent with recent unsupervised expansions. Cybercab two-seaters remain limited primarily to Austin for now. It’s worth noting that Dept. of Transportation officials in Texas have already ok’d the Cybercab’s operation in Austin, and one official called it “a tangible example of how quickly our transportation system is evolving.”
San Antonio was previously listed among near-term targets in Tesla’s October 2026 Robotaxi safety materials, alongside Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Jacksonville. The rapid Texas rollout follows Fort Worth’s unsupervised debut on November 2 and builds on Austin’s original launch in June 2025.
The 274-square-mile debut remains substantially larger than Waymo’s local footprint and marks continued progress in Tesla’s unsupervised autonomy efforts after starting the year with no such rides. The company has stated ambitions for broader 24/7 operations by the end of 2026 as vehicle counts and software reliability improve.
Tesla has started to perform earthworks engineering on the roughly 3,000-acre site in Fort Bend County, Texas, advancing the massive $10 billion Project Crystal Sun plan to build a vertically integrated solar manufacturing complex.
Flyover drone footage from S.E. Robinson, Jr. released this morning shows the location under development. Tesla has crews on site performing large clearings, but you can also see equipment staging areas, the use of an existing homestead, and active leveling across a substantial portion of the property.
Tesla has started construction on Project Crystal Sun, its $10B vertically integrated solar factory near Houston, Texas.
The plant will make everything from silicon ingots and wafers to finished cells and panels, with operations targeted for Q1 2029.
@SERobinsonJr with a great flyover of the facility:
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 9, 2026
Public filings first submitted in July under Texas’s Jobs, Energy, Technology and Innovation Act describe a plant that would manufacture the full solar chain: everything from silicon ingots, wafers, coated cells, and finished modules.
Tesla projects 9,712 permanent jobs by 2033, ramping from roughly 1,900 positions in the first year of operations, plus a peak of about 1,147 construction jobs. Construction is targeted for 2026–2028, with commercial production beginning in the first quarter of 2029. An accompanying economic analysis estimates the project could add roughly $107 billion to Texas GDP over several decades.
Local incentives have cleared major hurdles. Lamar Consolidated Independent School District unanimously approved school-tax limitations in September, and Fort Bend County commissioners approved a package of abatements and related agreements in late October that could extend equipment tax breaks for as long as 35 years.
Tesla had previously indicated it was evaluating a competing out-of-state location.
The effort fits broader statements by Musk that Tesla and SpaceX are each working toward 100 gigawatts of annual U.S. solar manufacturing capacity. If built as described, Project Crystal Sun would stand as one of the largest domestic attempts to create a fully integrated solar supply chain on American soil.
While Tesla has not issued a formal groundbreaking announcement, the visible site preparation and high-profile social media activity represent a concrete step forward for a project that has moved from confidential filings to active earthworks in a matter of months.
Elon Musk continues to shed more reasons that justify the cancelation of the Tesla Cybertruck, but some of the reasons for the sunset, as well as the process the company is choosing, do not make a lot of sense.
Musk announced last week on X that Tesla would wind down Cybertruck production in mid-2027, a decision that aims to prioritize Cybercab and its importance to the company’s future and passenger transportation as a whole.
But some of what Tesla and Musk are saying does not seem to make much sense. From the process the company is taking with orders to some of the reasoning for the cancelation, the whole situation seems strange.
With that being said: I totally see the merit in prioritizing Cybercab, but I also believe there is room for Cybertruck, a vehicle that has traditionally had low volumes, especially now at its current price point. If it were not for the cancelation, Cybertruck would sell very few units with the recent price adjustments.
Musk Talks Order Rate vs. Production Rate
The first thing that does not make a lot of sense here is the fact that this morning, Musk said that “The Cybertruck order rate far exceeds our production rate. We will try to make as any as possible before shutting down the line in about 8 months, but will have to return deposits for a lot of people.”
The Cybertruck order rate far exceeds our production rate. We will try to make as many as possible before shutting down the line in about 8 months, but will have to return deposits for a lot of people.
This is not a case of Cybertruck being unprofitable, as has been misreported by legacy media, but rather that the opportunity cost of the complexity of Cybertruck is vastly outweighed by the value of incremental Cybercab production.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 9, 2026
Then why is Tesla STILL accepting orders for the Cybertruck if it already cannot fulfill its order log by mid-2027?
There are so many people ordering Cybertruck that will not receive it. If Tesla already is having trouble seeing how it will build its current orders, why would it allow additional ones?
There are going to be a lot of people who are very upset next June or July, all because they placed an order for a truck that Tesla knew it would not have the time to build. At this point, it seems like a better idea from a customer service standpoint to simply stop accepting orders on a certain date, build those trucks, fulfill those orders, and then close production.
Continuing to accept orders at this point seems wildly strange. If anything, it feels like the $59k Cybertruck orderers will be the ones who get the short end of the stick here, but that’s speculation and just a hunch on my end.
If not Cybertruck, then what?
With only the Model 3 and Model Y available for consumers, meaning the general public, to buy, there is now no utility vehicle in the Tesla lineup, and that is definitely a disappointment.
Ford already washed its hands of the Lightning, which means the Rivian R1T will likely be the best-selling EV pickup on the market, dueling with the GMC Hummer Pickup, Chevy Silverado EV, and the GMC Sierra EV. There are several pickups that are set to hit the market soon, like the Slate EV Truck, and Ford’s new EV pickup, the Fathom.
Tesla could provide some some transparency on what it is planning to do with a future pickup or utility design. Musk said in the past that something much cooler than a minivan will be built. Cries for a full-size SUV have been heard by Tesla, but the company seems to adamant on prioritizing ridesharing vehicles instead of vehicles people want for work, climate, or hobbies.
Some clarity here, past the point of “Tesla is still going to build cars” would be nice. Even a simple, “Yes” response from all the people asking if Tesla will build something larger would be more than enough. We don’t need all the details now, but something would be nice.
Closing Thoughts
More than anything, it is important to note that I do believe Tesla is making a tough decision and one that, from a business standpoint, does make sense. However, I also believe that there is room for the Cybertruck in Tesla’s lineup.
One thing I think it’s worth mentioning is Tesla is not that much different from many companies. They do things that are better for the business that will surely upset consumers. The difference is very few companies have a following like Tesla, so when these things happen, they feel very personal.
Add in the fact that Cybertruck has truly become a symbol of Tesla, and people are even more upset about it.
It will all get figured out, but it’s still very confusing when we step back and take a look at the bigger picture.
Tesla Robotaxi enters its newest city, reaching San Antonio
Tesla begins groundworks on $10B ‘Project Crystal Sun’ in Texas
