Connect with us

News

Musk calls out SpaceX rival for receiving billion dollar subsidy, ULA head fires back

Published

on

Following an intriguing SpaceX testimony before Senate committees in Washington D.C., Musk took to Twitter to share some thoughts on the state of the launch marketplace and SpaceX’s place within it. It didn’t take long for him to relate a somewhat common critique of the United Launch Alliance, SpaceX’s only American competition.

Advertisement

Tory Bruno, President and Chief Executive of ULA, responded with gloves off just a few hours later, deeming the implied existence of such a subsidy nothing more than a “[persistent] myth”. He spent fifteen or so minutes replying to skeptical and inquisitive followers on Twitter, stating that the Wikipedia paragraph on the subject was incorrect. Bruno was steadfast in his response saying that he had publicly testified on the public procurement process before Congress (he did, and he did not defer on the term “subsidy”), and he adamantly refused to back down on his statement that such a subsidy only existed in mythology.

For better or for worse, Bruno is correct to a large extent. In fact, he published a full editorial on the controversial subject in the canonical SpaceNews Magazine. The ELC (EELV (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle) Launch Contract) is the source of this controversy, and while not quite a full billion dollars, the FY2016 ELC contract was for $860 million.

SpaceX has admittedly been chronically doubted and mistreated in the realm of government contracting, and ULA has been less than perfectly civil in the past. Simply by existing, SpaceX in effect disrupted what was a American launch industry monopoly held between Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Those two companies merged their space endeavors approximately 11 years ago and have since been the United Launch Alliance. For reasons that do make a bit of sense but are still mildly obtuse, the United States Air Force chose to purchase ULA launch vehicles and the services that make the launch of those vehicles possible separately. The main given reason for this choice, as explored in Bruno’s editorial, is to give the Air Force added flexibility.

As discussed in the 2016 ELC contract itself, another large need for this type of funding lies in the maintenance of a large workforce, and the constant depreciation of both the Atlas and Delta families of launch vehicles. The Delta family, known mainly for the large Delta IV Heavy, is almost never utilized at this point in time, with Atlas being both more cost effective and more reliable. Regardless, due to contracting, ULA is required to maintain both the workforce and facilities necessary to produce and launch Delta vehicles, in spite of having nearly no “business” thanks to Atlas V. Maintaining a workforce and set of facilities that is in part or whole redundant is not efficient or cost-effective, but it is contractually required. So, while the ELC contract Musk deemed a nearly pointless subsidy does have some major flaws, inefficiencies, and illogical aspects, it is not technically correct to label it a subsidy.

 

Advertisement

Without the actual contract information, it is also difficult to know if ULA would still receive this contractual payment in lieu of conducting actual launches. Bruno frames it in such a way that it sounds like the U.S. government modifies the payment size based on the number and type of required launches for a given year. If the multi-year agreement means that launches delayed many months or more can still be swapped out at no additional charge, then this does indeed make a certain amount of sense. The array of discussion on the subject nevertheless fails to explore the consequences of launch provider-side issues, the likes of which ULA and Atlas 5 experienced earlier this year, resulting in some amount of delays.

While there can be no doubt that the actual gritty details of the ELC contracts deal explicitly with such possible outcomes, the lack of transparency (be that as a result of publicly inaccessible contract details or highly obtuse and lingo-heavy contract language) ultimately frames ELC contracts and the vehemence with which ULA defends them as a wasteful, overly complex, and unnecessary alternative to simply offering a fixed product with services inherently included, as SpaceX does.

Advertisement

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

Elon Musk says Tesla will take Safety Drivers out of Robotaxi: here’s when

“The safety driver is just there for the first few months to be extra safe. Should be no safety driver by end of year.”

Published

on

Credit: Joe Tegtmeyer | X

Tesla CEO Elon Musk said today that the company plans to completely eliminate Safety Drivers from its Robotaxi fleet, which differs from the Safety Monitors it uses.

Tesla’s Robotaxi platform utilizes employees in the front passenger seat during city rides in Austin and the driver’s seat of the vehicles during highway operations in Austin, as well as during all rides in the Bay Area.

Tesla adjusts Robotaxi safety monitor strategy in Austin with new service area

Musk said the presence of a Safety Driver “is just there for the first few months to be extra safe,” but there are plans to remove them in an effort to remove the crutches the company uses during the early stages of Robotaxi.

The CEO then outlined a timeframe for when it would remove the presence of an employee in the driver’s seat in both Austin and the Bay Area. He said there “should be no safety driver by end of year.”

Advertisement

Having a Safety Driver or Monitor has been a major point of criticism from Robotaxi skeptics and Tesla critics.

However, Tesla has maintained that its priority in the early stages is the safety of riders, which will keep things running; even a single negative incident could derail self-driving efforts as a whole, including those outside of the company.

Advertisement

Tesla executives have said their attitude toward safety is “paranoid,” but for good reason: an accident could set back the progress that it and many other companies, including rivals like Waymo, have made in the past few years.

For now, it might be a point of criticism for some, but it’s smart in the near term. Musk plans for Tesla to have Robotaxi operating for half of the U.S. population by the end of the year as well, so it will be interesting to see if it can maintain these timelines.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla is already giving Robotaxi privileges hours after opening public app

This morning, Tesla launched the app in the Apple Store, giving iOS users the ability to download and join a waitlist in hopes of gaining access.

Published

on

tesla robotaxi app on phone
Credit: Tesla

Tesla is already giving Robotaxi privileges to those who downloaded the app and joined its waitlist just hours after it launched in the United States.

As the Robotaxi platform has been operating in Austin for several months, Tesla is now allowing the general public to download its app and call for a driverless ride in the city.

Tesla Robotaxi makes major expansion with official public app launch

The company previously sent invitations to select media outlets and Tesla influencers, seeking initial feedback on the performance of the Robotaxi platform.

There have been positive reviews, but, as with any Beta program, some mishaps have also occurred, although none have been significant.

Advertisement

As of the writing of this article, the City of Austin only lists one incident involving a Tesla Robotaxi, noting it as a “Safety Concern,” but not an accident or collision.

This morning, Tesla launched the app in the Apple Store, giving iOS users the ability to download and join a waitlist in hopes of gaining access.

Tesla is already granting Robotaxi access to several of those who have downloaded the app and gotten on the waitlist early:

Advertisement

With the launch of the public app, we were not too sure how soon Tesla would be able to initiate bringing more riders into the Robotaxi program. The immediate admittance for some riders just hours after the launch is a big positive and is surely a sign of strength for Tesla and its Robotaxi program.

What many will look for moving forward is the expansion of the geofence, which does not seem like a problem, as Tesla has already managed to do this on three occasions. The most recent expansion has expanded the service area to approximately 190 square miles.

People will also look for evidence of fleet expansion, a concern that has been a concern for many, especially since Tesla has not been completely transparent about it. They have revealed a recent service fleet growth of 50 percent, but there has been no specific number of vehicles mentioned.

Tesla reveals it has expanded its Robotaxi fleet in Austin

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla explains why Robotaxis now have safety monitors in the driver’s seat

The update to Austin’s safety monitors became a point of interest among Tesla watchers on social media.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla has provided an explanation about the presence of safety monitors in the driver’s seat of its autonomous Robotaxi units.

The autonomous ride-hailing service is currently being deployed in Austin and the Bay Area, with more cities across the United States expected to gain access to the service later this year.

Safety Monitors

When Tesla launched its initial Robotaxi program in Austin, the company made headlines for operating vehicles without a human in the driver’s seat. Even with this setup, however, Tesla still had safety monitors in the passenger seat of the Robotaxis. The safety monitors, which do not interact with passengers, have been observed to report issues and other behaviors from the autonomous vehicles in real time. 

Safety monitors on the driver’s seat were also employed in the service’s Bay Area rollout, though numerous members of the EV community speculated that this was likely done to meet regulations in California. However, with the expansion of the Austin geofence, riders in Tesla’s Robotaxis observed that the safety monitors in the city have been moved to the driver’s seat as well.

Tesla’s explanation

The update to Austin’s safety monitors became a point of interest among Tesla watchers on social media. Longtime FSD tester Whole Mars Catalog, for one, speculated that the move might be due to Texas’ new regulations for autonomous vehicles, which took effect recently. Interestingly enough, the official Tesla Robotaxi account on X responded to the FSD tester, providing an explanation behind the safety monitor’s move to the driver’s seat. 

Advertisement

“Safety monitors are only in the driver’s seat for trips that involve highway driving, as a self-imposed cautious first step toward expanding to highways,” the Tesla Robotaxi account noted.

Tesla has been extremely cautious with its autonomous driving program, particularly with the rollout of its Robotaxi service, which use Unsupervised FSD. This is quite understandable considering the negative media slant that Tesla is consistently subjected to, which could very well result in minute incidents or mistakes by Robotaxis being blown out of proportion.

Continue Reading

Trending