News
SpaceX teases extreme Falcon 9 launch cadence goals in Starship planning doc
Published as part of an August 2019 environmental assessment (EA) draft for Starship’s prospective Pad 39A launch facilities, SpaceX revealed plans for a truly mindboggling number of annual Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches by 2024.
As environmental planning documents, the figures should be taken with a large grain of salt and be treated as near-absolute ceilings rather than practical goals. Nevertheless, SpaceX revealed plans for its two Florida launch sites (LC-40 and LC-39A) to ultimately support as many as 70 annual launches of Falcon 9 and Heavy by 2024, less than five years from now.
Simply put, even the most dogmatic fan would have to balk at least a little bit at the numbers SpaceX suggested in its Starship EA draft. More specifically, SpaceX apparently has plans to support as many as 20 annual Falcon 9/Heavy launches from Pad 39A and an incredible 50 annual Falcon 9 launches from LC-40 as early as 2024.
“SpaceX plans to increase the Falcon launch frequency to 20 launches per year from LC-39A and up to 50 launches per year from LC-40 by the year 2024. However, as Starship/Super Heavy launches gradually increase to 24 launches per year, the number of launches of the Falcon would decrease.“
–SpaceX, Starship Environmental Assessment Draft, August 2019
Two obvious options
Given just how significant of an increase a 70-launch annual cadence would be for SpaceX relative to their current record of 21 launches, it’s entirely possible that these numbers are really just a pipe dream included in a pending environmental assessment to hedge bets just in case a similar launch frequency is achieved over the next five years.
On the other hand, it’s possible that SpaceX – just now coming into the ability to reliably achieve a much higher cadence – has coincidentally become payload-constrained at almost the same time, meaning that the company’s customers’ payloads just aren’t ready for launch. This would explain, for example, why SpaceX has only launched 10 times this year when the company had already completed 15 launches by August 2018.
Additionally, it can be almost unequivocally assumed that all but 15-20 of those supposed 70 annual launches would come from SpaceX’s own internal demand for Starlink launch capacity. Assuming no improvements between now and 2024, 50 Falcon 9 launches could place as many as 3000 Starlink satellites in orbit in a single year, equivalent to more than 25% of the entire proposed ~11,800-satellite constellation.
Barring regulatory changes to US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and International Telecommunication Union (ITU) requirements, SpaceX must launch at least half of all Starlink satellites (~5900) by November 2024 and finish launching the remaining ~5900 by November 2027. If SpaceX fails to reach those deployment milestones, the company runs the risk of losing Starlink’s domestic and international licenses to operate.
This would help to explain why SpaceX says that it’s planning to reach a maximum cadence of 70 annual launches “by 2024”, given that 2024 will be a pivotal year in the eyes of regulations currently in effect for Starlink.
Starship confusion
As noted in the quote above, SpaceX plans to eventually phase out Falcon 9 and Heavy launches as the company’s next-generation Starship and Super Heavy launch vehicle gradually comes online, proves itself reliable, and begins operational launch activities. According to SpaceX, given just how much mass Starship can nominally launch relative to both Falcon 9 and Heavy, far fewer launches will be needed to accomplish the tasks that would otherwise require several times more launches of SpaceX’s smaller vehicles.
SpaceX’s initial Environmental Assessment for Starship launches from Pad 39A caps the rocket’s maximum cadence at 24 annual launches. Oddly, this directly contradicts the goals set for Starship (formerly BFR) by CEO Elon Musk and SpaceX more generally. By building a launch vehicle that is fully and rapidly reusable, the goal has long been to deliver cheap, aircraft-like access to orbit at a completely unprecedented scale.
This would technically mean that SpaceX could actually dramatically increase its launch cadence without increasing costs, allowing the company to perform currently nonsensical missions where Starship might launch payloads weighing just 5-10% of its total payload capacity. Airline operations routinely do things of a similar nature, sometimes flying just a fraction of their maximum passenger load to destinations for a variety of reasons.
Additionally, SpaceX has consistently indicated that Starship will rely heavily on orbital refueling to accomplish its ultimate deep space ambitions. Previous presentations from Elon Musk have shown that launches to the Mars or Moon with significant payload would require no fewer than five separate tanker launches and orbital refuelings, all of which would classify as one of the 24 annual launches SpaceX has described in its August 2019 EA draft. On their own, launching two Starships to Mars with 100 tons of payload each would require no fewer than 10-12 launches.
Ultimately, it’s unwise to draw any substantial conclusions from an Environmental Assessment like the one the above information has been taken from. This 39A-specific EA also ignores the possibility of a similar launch facility being developed in Boca Chica, Texas, which SpaceX explicitly acknowledges.
This particular draft is also the first Starship-related EA ever filed by SpaceX, and the company may thus be treating it more as a bare minimum with the intention of eventually pursuing far more ambitious launch rates once Starship has been established.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
News
Tesla Robotaxi fleet gets a brain upgrade ahead of Cybercab launch event
Tesla’s Robotaxi service now runs longer hours nationwide as its unsupervised fleet quietly grows larger.
Tesla’s Robotaxi service just got easier to catch, with the company’s official Robotaxi account noting that rides are now available from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., seven days a week, across its operating footprint. The account also said its unsupervised fleet is “a lot bigger” than before, though without specifics. The bigger change is what Tesla says upgraded intelligence in vehicle distribution and routing is what’s actually cutting wait times, not a new Full Self-Driving version.
While Tesla did not name the team behind the upgrade, the language points to its AI and fleet software group rather than the driving stack itself. Vehicle distribution and routing in Robotaxi has functioned mostly as a dispatch problem with the software deciding which idle car goes to which rider, and how far it has to travel to get there. “Upgraded intelligence” suggests a smarter version of that dispatch logic, likely using demand forecasting to position idle cars near where riders are about to request them rather than reacting once a request comes in. Tesla’s AI division has built similar prediction systems for other parts of the business, including the neural networks that power FSD itself, so applying that same approach to fleet logistics would be a natural extension rather than a new discipline for the team.
Robotaxi now runs 6am to 10pm, 7 days/week
Unsupervised fleet is a lot bigger
Also, upgraded intelligence in vehicle distribution & routing means you wait less pic.twitter.com/UFZ4bqg2dZ
— Tesla Robotaxi (@robotaxi) August 26, 2026
Tesla is also about a week away from a separate robotaxi milestone. The company plans to launch Cybercab, its purpose built two seat robotaxi with no steering wheel or pedals, in Austin on September 3. Cybercab has been giving employees rides on public and private roads for weeks, and the September event is expected to fold those vehicles into the existing Robotaxi fleet within days of the launch.
Thank you so much @Tesla for inviting us to the Cybercab launch in Austin! 🤠 pic.twitter.com/F1rAR8zd5O
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 22, 2026
Austin previously ran Robotaxi from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m. as of last September, a schedule set before the service expanded into Dallas, Houston, Miami, Tampa, Orlando and the Bay Area. Wednesday’s post did not specify whether that extended overnight window still applies in Austin specifically or whether 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. is now the standard across every market. Tesla’s post, visible on its official Robotaxi account, framed the change simply as fewer riders waiting around for a car.
Whether the wider hours hold once Cybercab enters the fleet next week is the next thing worth watching. Tesla has tended to expand Robotaxi in increments, first geofence, then hours, then fleet size, and each step so far has arrived without much advance notice.
Tesla Cybertruck’s three configurations are all the same on the outside from an appearance perspective, but they differ slightly in price, range, performance, and other features. After yesterday’s price adjustment, Tesla’s Base All-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck is now priced at $74,990, a far cry from the $59,990 it started at several months ago.
At $60,000, the Cybertruck All-Wheel-Drive is a steal: no pickup, electric or gas-powered, comes close in terms of overall driving capability thanks to Steer-by-Wire; no truck is more fun to drive at that price, and add in Full Self-Driving for $99 per month, and you truly have the best possible pickup on the market, at least if you’re planning to use it for driving.
I unfortunately didn’t have the equipment to test towing and payload and how it impacts the truck.
TESLARATI Premium Membership
$19.99 USD
But at $75,000, is it still worth it? Obviously, the question gets to be more difficult because of the $15,000 difference. But there’s still an argument.
I spent the last week with this awesome truck, and when I took it back, I was sad because it truly is the best Tesla in the lineup. I formerly said the Model S was my favorite Tesla, but after a week with Cybertruck, I can easily say it would be my choice over the now-defunct all-electric sedan.
What makes it so great? Well, a lot of things, and there are some things that I’d like to see change. However, this is a truck that truly has a serious argument for those who are thinking of trying something completely different.
Exterior and Interior
This build comes with 18″ Molten Wheels as the standard offering, but 20″ Core Wheels with 35″ tires are also available. The standard wheel option on this affordable model is not my favorite, but it can be easily swapped for something more attractive.
Overall, this particular build did have some panel gap issues that were especially noticeable between the hood and both front quarter panels. This is obviously not an “across the board” issue, as the Cyberbeast I took home for comparative reasons was significantly better overall.
It’s 📐 week. Cybertruck AWD!!! pic.twitter.com/0hkmTQDQYk
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 19, 2026
The interior is different, with its textile material instead of the vegan leather. Personally, I missed the leather due to the ventilated seats, but I prefer the textile as I personally felt like they were more comfortable. This is something I’d definitely consider if I were between the three trim levels and money was not really an issue.
After 610 miles on Monday in this thing, I did not feel any different than I did when I left my house that morning. It feels like a living room on wheels; after a long drive, you truly do not feel as if you’ve been in a car all day long.
My biggest interior complaints were that I’d like at least two USB-C ports in the front; you are confined to just one, and it’s hidden in the center console. The rear row has two ports. Additionally, the windshield is super difficult to clean, so if you end up buying one of these, save your back and get something that extends.
Driving Performance and Comfort
One of the most surprising things about Cybertruck is the fact that it is perhaps the smoothest ride of any Tesla available. Most believe it might be rough, stiff, and rugged like most trucks, maybe not as forgiving on the back and bottom as you sit in it for an extended period of time.
I’m here to tell you, you won’t regret sitting in a Cybertruck for a long drive.
I put as many people who dislike EVs, don’t like Cybertrucks, or use trucks for work, and judge the Cybertruck in this thing in the past week. Every single person who got in this truck loved it: they loved the speed, the handling, FSD, the space, the capability, and the feel.
As previously noted, even after hundreds of miles and 14 hours spent driving around Pennsylvania, I didn’t feel tired, exhausted, or in any hurry to come home. I would have driven another 300 miles without question.
Final Thoughts
If I had my choice of the three Cybertruck trims, I think I’d take the All-Wheel-Drive for a few reasons. Initially, the price is more attractive, it is not that stripped of features, and it has everything I need.
Is it worth it at $75,000? I believe it is. I’ve driven trucks that are at a higher price point and consider this to be a better product from a driving and experience perspective. However, other pickups on the market have more towing capacity, payload capacity, and range. They do not have FSD or steer-by-wire, the two things that truly make the Cybertruck in a league of its own.
I can’t think of a time in recent memory that I’ve been this excited to drive a vehicle each day, and I literally look for excuses to drive my Model Y on a daily basis. This Cybertruck just blows the Model Y out of the water in every possible way, at least in my opinion. With the size, performance, and driving experience, there is no better Tesla out there.
You can check out the full video review below. If you have any questions about the Cybertruck AWD, be sure to reach out and let me know:
🚨FULL REVIEW of the unbelievable Tesla Cybertruck AWD 📐 pic.twitter.com/S0wHALl87K
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 26, 2026
Elon Musk
County vote hands Elon Musk’s Vegas tunnel network a huge new target
Clark County approved 19 more Vegas Loop stations, pushing Boring Company’s entitled total to 123.
The Boring Company just got permission to nearly double how far Vegas Loop can reach. Clark County commissioners approved 19 additional stations for the underground transit system, bringing the total entitled to 123, the company said in a post on X thanking the county for the vote. Elon Musk’s tunneling company also flagged the direction it sees the project heading long term. “Because Loop is point-to-point with no intermediate stops, in the limit, one could have a Loop station in every driveway,” the company wrote.
That framing captures how far the ambitions have moved. The Vegas Loop opened its first stretch of tunnel in 2021 and has grown its footprint through a string of county approvals since. In 2023, commissioners signed off on 18 additional stations, part of a plan that later doubled the system’s target to 69 stations across 65 miles. By the end of that year the company was describing a build out closer to 93 planned stations. Last year the long term design called for 104 stations across 68 miles of tunnel. The new approval pushes that number to 123, another jump in a project that keeps outgrowing its own blueprints.
The Boring Company gets approval for more stations in Las Vegas
Station count on paper is still well ahead of what riders can actually use. As Teslarati reported earlier this month, the network has about 11 open stations and has carried more than 4 million passengers since it began running, with newer stops at Fontainebleau and Sahara among the latest additions to the Strip corridor. A tunnel connection to Harry Reid International Airport remains under construction and has already slipped past its original first quarter target. The company is also racing to finish a Westgate to Paradise Road segment that Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority CEO Steve Hill has said it hopes to have running in time for November’s Formula 1 race.
The gap between entitled stations and operating ones is where the real story sits. Regulatory approval gives Boring Company the legal runway to keep tunneling toward new resorts, residential pockets and eventually the airport, but building each connection still comes down to boring machines, fire safety sign offs and construction timelines that have slipped before. The company’s Prufrock series machines set an internal record in March with a 2.28 mile tunnel near Westgate, evidence that construction has been picking up even as the list of approved destinations grows faster than the tunnels themselves.
Musk’s driveway comment reads as aspirational rather than a near term plan, but it fits how Boring Company has talked about Vegas Loop from the start: treat every approval as a floor, not a ceiling, and keep pushing county officials for room to dig.
Tesla Robotaxi fleet gets a brain upgrade ahead of Cybercab launch event
Tesla Cybertruck AWD is a steal at $60k, is it still at $75k? Full Review
