Connect with us

News

SpaceX a bastion of independent US, European spaceflight amid Russian threats

Published

on

Russia has invaded Ukraine without provocation, triggering a series of diplomatic responses – sanctions in particular – that recently culminated in the aggressor deciding to cut ties with Europe on a number of cooperative spaceflight projects.

Dmitry Rogozin, director of Russia’s national ‘Roscosmos’ space agency, went as far as implying that the country might respond to the West’s aerospace sanctions by ending its support of the International Space Station (ISS), a move that could cause the football-field-sized structure to gradually deorbit and reenter Earth’s atmosphere. Were it not for the existence of two extraordinarily successful NASA programs and SpaceX in particular, Russia’s response – which, today, reads like a child’s tantrum – could easily have been a grave threat with far-reaching consequences.

In response to sanctions after its unprovoked invasion, Russia announced that it was withdrawing support from Europe’s French Guinea Soyuz launch operations, effectively killing Arianespace’s Soyuz offering and potentially delaying several upcoming European launches indefinitely.

As a quick side note, it’s worth noting that ULA’s lack of readily available rockets and the fact that Arianespace is likely at least a year or more away from regular Ariane 6 launches means that SpaceX may be the only Western launch provider in the world capable of filling in the gap that Arianespace’s Soyuz loss will leave. Aside from pursuing Chinese launch services, which is likely a diplomatic non-starter, the only alternative to rebooking former European Soyuz payloads on SpaceX rockets is to accept one or even several years of expensive delays.

On the other half of the coin is the International Space Station. NASA signed its first major contract with SpaceX in 2008, awarding the company $1.6 billion (and up to $3.5 billion) to launch a dozen Cargo Dragon supply missions to the ISS. Aside from effectively pulling SpaceX back from the brink of dissolution, those funds also covered a large portion of the development of its Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft and simultaneously funded Orbital Science’s (later Orbital ATK and now Northrop Grumman) Cygnus cargo spacecraft and Antares rocket.

Advertisement

Despite suffering two failures in 2014 and 2015, NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) program has been an extraordinary success. Together, Cygnus (17) and Dragon (24) have completed 41 deliveries in the last 12 years, carrying more than 110 tons (~240,000 lb) of cargo to the ISS.

Out of sheer coincidence, on February 19th, mere days before Russia’s act of war, Northrop Grumman launched the first Cygnus spacecraft designed to help ‘re-boost’ (raise the orbit of) the International Space Station. Since NASA’s premature 2011 retirement of the Space Shuttle, that task has been exclusively conducted by a combination of Russian spacecraft and the station’s Russian Zvezda module. Without regular Russian re-boost support, the station would deorbit and be destroyed. In other words, if push came to shove, the ISS could very literally fail without direct Russian involvement. Rogozin’s threat, then, was that Russia might cease to support ISS re-boosting if sanctions went too far.

However, even while ignoring the fact that NASA itself actually paid for and owns the ISS Zvezda propulsion module and in light of the first Cygnus spacecraft upgraded with a re-boost capability berthing with the station the very same week of the invasion, Russia’s threat rang decidedly hollow. Further, if Cygnus weren’t available, it’s still difficult to imagine that SpaceX wouldn’t be able to quickly develop its own Dragon re-boost capability if asked to do so.

While re-boosting is crucial, the situation has also emphasized just how little leverage Russia now has over even more important aspects of the International Space Station. Were it not for the existence of SpaceX and NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP), the situation could be even direr for Europe and the US. Despite some pressure from lawmakers to only award the CCP contract to Boeing, NASA ultimately selected Boeing and SpaceX to develop independent crew capsules capable of carrying US astronauts to and from ISS in 2014. Following a near-flawless uncrewed Crew Dragon test flight in 2019 and an equally successful crewed demo mission in 2020, SpaceX completed its first operational Crew Dragon launch in November 2020.

Since then, SpaceX has launched another two operational ‘crew rotation’ missions, meaning that the company has now singlehandedly supported all US astronaut launch and recovery operations for 16 months. Due in part to extensive mismanagement, Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft was nearly destroyed twice during its first catastrophic uncrewed test flight in December 2019. The spacecraft is still months away from a second attempt at that test flight, likely at least 9-12 months away from a hypothetical crewed test flight, and potentially 18+ months away from even less certain operational NASA astronaut launches. Further, though ULA CEO Tory Bruno claims that the company doesn’t need any support from Russia, all Atlas Vs – the rocket responsible for launching Starliner – depend on Russian-built RD-180 engines.

Advertisement

Further adding to the mire, even Cygnus is not immune. The first stage of the Antares rocket that mainly launches it is both built in Ukraine and dependent upon Russian Energomash RD-181 engines. Northrop Grumman only has the hardware on hand for the next two Cygnus-Antares launches, at which point the company will have to either abandon its NASA contract or find an alternative launch provider. Once again, SpaceX is the only US provider obviously capable of filling that gap on such short notice and without incurring major delays of half a year or more.

Boeing's Starliner and SpaceX's Crew Dragon spacecraft stand vertical at their respective launch pads in December 2019 and January 2020. Crew Dragon has now performed two successful full-up launches to Starliner's lone partial failure. (Richard Angle)
Boeing’s Starliner and SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft are pictured on their Atlas V and Falcon 9 rockets. (Richard Angle)

In fewer words, without SpaceX, NASA would still be exclusively dependent upon Russian Soyuz rockets and spacecraft to get its astronauts to and from the space station it spent tens of billions of dollars to help build. Even in a best-case SpaceX-free scenario, NASA might instead be dependent upon a rocket with Russian engines to launch its own astronauts. Needless to say, the presence of US astronauts on Russian launches and ULA’s use of Russian engines were already extremely sensitive issues after Russia ‘merely’ invaded Ukraine’s Crimea region in 2014.

It’s hard not to imagine that US and European responses to Russia’s aggression would have been weakened if NASA and ESA astronauts were still entirely dependent upon Russia to access the International Space Station. Further, in the same scenario, given its withdrawal from French Guinea, it’s also not implausible to imagine that Russia might have severely hampered or even fully withdrawn its support of Western access to the ISS.

Put simply, Crew Dragon – now a bastion of independent European and US human spaceflight in an age of extraordinary Russian recklessness – has arguably never been more important and SpaceX’s success never more of a triumph than they are today.

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Tesla Board Chair slams Wall Street Journal over alleged CEO search report

Denholm’s comments were posted by Tesla on its official account on social media platform X.

Published

on

robyn-m-denholm-tesla
CeBIT Australia, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Tesla Board Chair Robyn Denholm has issued a stern correction to The Wall Street Journal after the publication posted a report alleging that the electric vehicle maker’s Board of Directors opened a search for a new CEO to replace Elon Musk.

Denholm’s comments were posted by Tesla on its official account on social media platform X. 

The WSJ’s Allegations

Citing people reportedly familiar with the discussions, the WSJ alleged that Tesla Board members reached out to several executive search firms to work on a formal process for finding Elon Musk’s successor. The publication also alleged that tensions had been mounting at Tesla due to the company’s dropping sales and profits, as well as the time Musk has been spending with DOGE.

The publication also alleged that Elon Musk had met with the Tesla Board about the matter, and that members told the CEO that he needed to spend more time on Tesla. Musk was reportedly instructed to state his intentions publicly as well. The CEO did not push back against the Board, the WSJ claimed. 

Elon Musk did announce that he is stepping back from his day-to-day role at the Department of Government Efficiency during the Tesla Q1 2025 earnings call. Musk’s announcement was embraced by Tesla investors and analysts, many of whom felt that the CEO’s renewed focus on the EV maker could push the company to greater heights. 

Advertisement

Tesla and Musk’s Response

In response to The Wall Street Journal’s report, Tesla’s official account on X shared a comment from its Board Chair. In her comment, Denham noted that the WSJ‘s report was “absolutely false.” She also highlighted that Tesla had communicated this fact to the publication before the report was published, but the Journal ran the story anyway.

“Earlier today, there was a media report erroneously claiming that the Tesla Board had contacted recruitment firms to initiate a CEO search at the company. This is absolutely false (and this was communicated to the media before the report was published). The CEO of Tesla is Elon Musk and the Board is highly confident in his ability to continue executing on the exciting growth plan ahead,” Denholm stated.

Elon Musk himself commented on the matter, stating that the publication showed an “extremely bad breach of ethics” since the report did not even include the Tesla Board of Directors’ denial of the allegations. “It is an EXTREMELY BAD BREACH OF ETHICS that the WSJ would publish a DELIBERATELY FALSE ARTICLE and fail to include an unequivocal denial beforehand by the Tesla board of directors!” Musk wrote in a post on X.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk is now a remote DOGE worker: White House Chief of Staff

The Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is no longer working from the West Wing.

Published

on

Credit: Elon Musk/X

In a conversation with the New York Post, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles stated that Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is no longer working from the West Wing.

As per the Chief of Staff, Musk is still working for DOGE—as a remote worker, at least.

Remote Musk

In her conversation with the publication, Wiles stated that she still talks with Musk. And while the CEO is now working remotely, his contributions still have the same net effect. 

“Instead of meeting with him in person, I’m talking to him on the phone, but it’s the same net effect,” Wiles stated, adding that “it really doesn’t matter much” that the CEO “hasn’t been here physically.” She also noted that Musk’s team will not be leaving.

“He’s not out of it altogether. He’s just not physically present as much as he was. The people that are doing this work are here doing good things and paying attention to the details. He’ll be stepping back a little, but he’s certainly not abandoning it. And his people are definitely not,” Wiles stated.

Advertisement

Back to Tesla

Musk has been a frequent presence in the White House during the Trump administration’s first 100 days in office. But during the Q1 2025 Tesla earnings call, Musk stated that he would be spending substantially less time with DOGE and substantially more time with Tesla. Musk did emphasize, however, that DOGE’s work is extremely valuable and critical.

“I think I’ll continue to spend a day or two per week on government matters for as long as the President would like me to do so and as long as it is useful. But starting next month, I’ll be allocating probably more of my time to Tesla and now that the major work of establishing the Department of Government Efficiency is done,” Musk stated.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tariff reprieve might be ‘Tesla-friendly,’ but it’s also an encouragement to others

Tesla stands to benefit from the tariff reprieve, but it has some work cut out for it as well.

Published

on

tesla employee
(Photo: Tesla)

After Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick made adjustments to the automotive tariff program that was initially announced, many quickly pointed to the reprieve as “Tesla-friendly.”

While that may be the case right now, it was also a nudge of encouragement to other companies, Tesla included, to source parts from the U.S. in an effort to strengthen domestic manufacturing. Many companies are close, and it will only take a handful of improvements to save themselves from tariffs on their cars as well.

Yesterday, Sec. Lutnick confirmed that cars manufactured with at least 85 percent of domestic content will face zero tariffs. Additionally, U.S. automakers would receive credit up to 15 percent of the value of vehicles to offset the cost of imported parts.

Big Tesla win? Sec Lutnick says cars with 85% domestic content will face zero tariffs

“This is ‘finish your cars in America and you win’,” Lutnick said.

Many were quick to point out that only three vehicles currently qualify for this zero-tariff threshold: all three are Teslas.

However, according to Kelley Blue Book’s most recent study that revealed who makes the most American cars, there are a lot of vehicles that are extremely close to also qualifying for these tariff reductions.

Tesla has three vehicles that are within five percent, while Ford, Honda, Jeep, Chevrolet, GMC, and Volkswagen have many within just ten percent of the threshold.

Tesla completely dominates Kogod School’s 2024 Made in America Auto Index

It is within reach for many.

Right now, it is easy to see why some people might think this is a benefit for Tesla and Tesla only.

But it’s not, because Tesla has its Cybertruck, Model S, and Model X just a few percentage points outside of that 85 percent cutoff. They, too, will feel the effects of the broader strategy that the Trump administration is using to prioritize domestic manufacturing and employment. More building in America means more jobs for Americans.

Credit: Tesla

However, other companies that are very close to the 85 percent cutoff are only a few components away from also saving themselves the hassle of the tariffs.

Ford has the following vehicles within just five percent of the 85 percent threshold:

  • Ford Mustang GT automatic (80%)
  • Ford Mustang GT 5.0 (80%)
  • Ford Mustang GT Coupe Premium (80%)

Honda has several within ten percent:

  • Honda Passport All-Wheel-Drive (76.5%)
  • Honda Passport Trailsport (76.5)

Jeep has two cars:

  • Jeep Wrangler Rubicon (76%)
  • Jeep Wrangler Sahara (76%)

Volkswagen has one with the ID.4 AWD 82-kWh (75.5%). GMC has two at 75.5% with the Canyon AT4 Crew Cab 4WD and the Canyon Denali Crew Cab 4WD.

Chevrolet has several:

  • Chevrolet Colorado 2.7-liter (75.5%)
  • Chevrolet Colorado LT Crew Cab 2WD 2.7-liter (75.5%)
  • Chevrolet Colorado Z71 Crew Cab 4WD 2.7-liter (75.5%)

These companies are close to reaching the 85% threshold, but adjustments need to be made to work toward that number.

Anything from seats to fabric to glass can be swapped out for American-made products, making these cars more domestically sourced and thus qualifying them for the zero-tariff boundary.

Frank DuBois of American University said that manufacturers like to see stability in their relationships with suppliers and major trade partners. He said that Trump’s tariff plan could cause “a period of real instability,” but it will only be temporary.

Now is the time to push American manufacturing forward, solidifying a future with more U.S.-made vehicles and creating more domestic jobs. Tesla will also need to scramble to make adjustments to its vehicles that are below 85%.

Continue Reading

Trending