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.
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
