News
SpaceX readies its California landing pad for September rocket recovery debut
Just as SpaceX successfully debuted Falcon 9 Block 5 at their California launch pad and returned drone ship Just Read The Instructions (JRTI) to rocket recovery duty after a nine-month leave, the company’s next West Coast mission is already aligning for an early-September launch. The mission, SAOCOM-1A, will feature yet another inaugural event – the first use of a West Coast landing pad less than a mile from SpaceX’s Vandenberg launch pad.
For the last two and a half years, SpaceX’s Florida launch sites (Pad 40 and Pad 39A) have also been privy to a unique secondary facility known as Landing Zone-1, located a few miles away from both pads inside the boundaries of Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS). In fact, although a number of attempts were made to recover a Falcon 9 booster aboard drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) in 2015, the first successful Falcon 9 booster landing happened to occur at LZ-1, followed four months later by the first successful recovery by sea.
SLC-4E after a foggy launch of Iridium-7 at Vandenberg. #spacex #iridium7 pic.twitter.com/YQkXbpBooj
— Pauline Acalin (@w00ki33) July 25, 2018
Why land on land, why land at sea?
The primary draw of an equivalent land-based pad is both simple and massive: while SpaceX’s autonomous drone ship vessels are complex, comparatively easy to damage, and extremely expensive to both operate and maintain, a concrete circle on land has relatively tiny fixed and variable costs, does not have to concern itself with volatile ocean conditions, and does not require a fleet of tugboats and service vessels to operate. Rough estimates place the cost of taking a drone ship, tugboat, and crew transport vessel hundreds of miles off the coast on missions that can last 7-14 days anywhere from $500,000 to $2 million or more, depending on how you tabulate costs. Either way, the drone ship fleet will always be more complex and more expensive than simple concrete pads on land.
One problem with land-based landing zones is that returning rockets to their launch sites is very fuel-intensive, requiring propellant margins at booster stage separation that dramatically reduce the payload that can be placed into low Earth orbit (LEO), let alone higher-energy missions to geostationary orbit. As such, without massive performance improvements, drone ships like JRTI and OCISLY will be irreplaceable for as long as Falcon 9 and Heavy are flying – SpaceX simply cannot recover rockets during the geostationary launches that comprise a huge portion of their manifest unless they have those vessels.
-
- Elon Musk walks among his recovered Falcon Heavy boosters at LZ-1 and 2. (Elon Musk)
-
- The drone ship Of Course I Still Love You spotted in Port Canaveral, FL last December. (Instagram /u/ johnabc123)
-
- West Coast drone ship Just Read The Instructions headed out to sea to catch a Block 5 booster on July 22. It succeeded. (Pauline Acalin)
This brings us to another conundrum. SpaceX’s Florida launch facilities support heavy commercial geostationary satellite launches as much as or more than any other type of payload in a given year of launches, meaning that the company’s now-doubled landing pad at LZ-1 is only used every once and awhile for Cargo Dragon launches and other miscellaneous and rare launches that leave enough margin in Falcon 9. SpaceX’s Vandenberg pad, on the other hand, is effectively bound to launching satellites into polar orbits (orbiting over Earth’s poles versus around the equator) – safety regulations prevent large rockets from launching over populated areas like the entire continental U.S., as an example for California launches.
Equatorial launches from East to West are much less efficient than their opposite, as Earth’s own rotation (West to East) provides rockets an appreciable performance boost. The point is that SpaceX’s Vandenberg launches are for fairly particular payloads, usually LEO communications satellites and imaging satellites that thrive in polar orbits, where one or a handful of satellites can observe almost anywhere on Earth over the course of a normal 24-hour. Those satellites also happen to be lightweight more often than not, meaning that many of the booster recoveries on drone ship JRTI could instead return to launch site (RTLS) for a dramatically simpler and cheaper recovery.
Enter Block 5
A West Coast LZ is even more intriguing and important with respect to the recent debut of Falcon 9 Block 5 at Vandenberg and the fact that all future launches. Even compared to SpaceX’s Florida LZ-1, the company’s Western pad is incredibly close to the launch pad. By landing less than a mile from SpaceX’s VAFB integration and refurbishment facilities (and launch pad), recovery and refurbishment operations should be more effortless than any before it.
-
- SpaceX’s yet-unused Californian Landing Zone, seen ahead of Falcon 9 Block 5’s Iridium-7 debut. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- SpaceX’s Vandenberg launch pad (right) and landing zone (left) ahead of the pad’s first Falcon 9 Block 5 launch, Iridium-7. (Pauline Acalin)
While the company’s VAFB launch pad is a bit older than its Eastern cousins and requires at least 3-5 weeks between launches for repairs and refurbishment, that relaxed schedule may be unbeatable for proving out the Block 5 upgrade’s true rapid reusability, as well as its ability to far more than two orbital missions per booster lifespan. SAOCOM-1A, one of two Argentinian Earth observations scheduled for launch with SpaceX, will begin that new era for SpaceX’s Vandenberg operations, including a landing pad debut permit officially granted by the FCC in the last few weeks. The Falcon 9 booster that launches that mission is bound to have a storied future ahead of itself.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet (including fairing catcher Mr Steven) check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
Tesla just gave what is perhaps its biggest signal yet that the launch of the Cybercab, its autonomous ride-hailing-geared car, is imminent.
The Cybercab has been spotted outside of Gigafactory Texas in massive numbers over the past few days, with hundreds of units being stored on property just days after the vehicle received a Certificate of Conformity from the EPA.
Today, things were a bit different.
Cybercabs spotted on Giga Texas property today had an addition: a Cybercab decal on the side, reminiscent of the “Robotaxi” ones that were placed on Model Ys just as the company launched its ride-sharing platform about a year ago.
Giga Texas drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer noticed the change today:
Tesla Cybercabs are now getting “Cybercab” logos on the side of them!
Tesla did the same with Model Ys that were given “Robotaxi” logos: https://t.co/DanANtw1m7 pic.twitter.com/FqOhH0S9Ks
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 19, 2026
Tesla could be signaling that the Cybercab is preparing to enter the Robotaxi fleet in the coming weeks or months with this move. It seems more symbolic than anything; Tesla is ready to throw Cybercabs in the ride-hailing platform just as it did with Model Ys last year.
The addition of the Certificate of Conformity awarded to the Cybercab is another major factor working to Tesla’s advantage. The company now has permission from the EPA to allow the vehicle to operate on public roads and enter the chain of commerce. It’s officially street legal.
Tesla Cybercab specs revealed: range, curb weight, range ratings, and more
The big question that remains is whether Tesla will be able to operate the car without a safety monitor, especially considering it plans to put the car out there without a steering wheel or pedals. With the Cybercab only having a seating capacity of two, it is hard to believe Tesla will even consider putting a Safety Monitor in the car.
It did recently self-certify as Level 4 and has the ability to operate driverless vehicles in the State of Texas under a law that took effect on May 28. You can read more about that here:
Tesla’s Robotaxi dreams just took a massive step toward reality
We’d imagine Cybercabs will be on the roads as soon as July, but August will likely be a better estimate of when the car will be entered into the Cybercab fleet. It all depends at where Tesla is, as they’ve truly prioritized safety with the rollout of the Robotaxi platform.
Elon Musk has publicly questioned Moody’s credit assessments following the rating agency’s decision to assign SpaceX a Baa1 investment-grade rating, two notches above Tesla’s Baa3. The comments came amid discussions comparing the two companies’ financial profiles.
SpaceX earned its first-time Baa1 rating with a stable outlook from Moody’s. The agency highlighted the company’s leadership in orbital launches, the growing recurring revenue from its Starlink satellite network, strong vertical integration, U.S. government contracts, and emerging opportunities in AI infrastructure.
These factors were cited as supporting robust cash flows, margin expansion, and financial flexibility.
Musk responded directly: “Tesla’s credit rating is ridiculously low tbh,” and added, “Yeah, makes no sense. Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt, and is consistently profitable!” His remarks underscored Tesla’s balance sheet strength and profitability at a time when many traditional automakers continue to report losses in the shift to electric vehicles.
Yeah, makes no sense.
Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt and is consistently profitable!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 19, 2026
Tesla maintains a leading position in the global EV market, with diversification into energy and storage, battery technology, and robotics through projects like Optimus. Recent financial updates show the company generated positive free cash flow of $1.4 billion in Q1 2026, supported by operating cash flow of $3.9 billion. Cash and short-term investments stood at approximately $44.7 billion.
Moody’s has affirmed Tesla’s Baa3 issuer rating with a stable outlook in periodic reviews, acknowledging the company’s EV leadership, technology strengths, including AI for autonomous vehicles, solid profitability, and strong liquidity.
Tesla (TSLA) scores Baa3 Moody’s rating for ‘stable’ outlook
However, the agency has also noted challenges in the automotive segment and expectations for margin pressures.
Musk’s critique highlights a common debate about how traditional rating methodologies apply to high-growth, capital-intensive technology companies. SpaceX benefits from long-term government-backed contracts and diversified, recurring revenue streams, while Tesla’s valuation reflects heavy investment in future technologies such as autonomy and robotics.
Both ratings remain investment-grade, yet the one-notch difference has fueled online discussion about potential inconsistencies in evaluating innovative firms.
The exchange comes as SpaceX explores financing options following its recent valuation milestones, while Tesla continues executing on its multi-year roadmap. Musk’s pointed response serves as a reminder that credit ratings, though influential for borrowing costs, represent one lens through which markets assess corporate strength—and that company leaders often view their financial positions through the lens of long-term innovation and cash generation rather than short-term risk metrics alone.
A new report from Reuters claims that a transport authority in Sweden is pushing back against the approval of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite because it will travel over speed limits.
The report says the Swedish Transport Administration (TRV) recommends the European Union votes against FSD’s approval. TRV believes it should not be approved until Tesla disables FSD’s ability to speed.
TRV sent a letter to the European Union’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV), which is set to meet on June 30 to discuss the potential approval of the Tesla FSD suite in the country. Tesla, which has received various approvals in Europe over the past two months, has not provided a comment.
Teslas operating on FSD do travel over the speed limit, depending on the Speed Profile that is chosen. Drivers have the ability to disengage FSD at any point; Tesla specifically states that those supervising the suite are responsible for its actions.
Let’s cut to the chase: humans operating any vehicle speed almost daily in the United States. Realistically, speed limits in the U.S. are more frequently treated as speed minimums. However, other countries are different, and driving behaviors are less aggressive.
TRV believes that “allowing automated systems to systematically exceed legal speed limits…risks undermining both the legal framework and the expected safety benefits of vehicle automation,” the report stated. It’s surprising that Tesla has not received this claim from other countries previously.
This could be a good argument to bring Max Speed back, the setting that previously allowed the driver to choose the absolute fastest the car would travel.
This would still put the responsibility of supervision in the hands of the driver. It would allow the driver to choose whether the car would travel over the speed limit or not, acknowledging that they set the speed, and if they get pulled over, there would be no ability to argue it.
However, it does not seem as if this is something Tesla will do, especially considering many U.S. drivers have requested the feature in an effort to eliminate speeding or at least tone it down. The company has not shown any interest in bringing it back.
Tesla has approvals for FSD in Europe in Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
Elon Musk says this part of Tesla ‘makes no sense’
