News
Does Elon Musk hold the moral high ground in the commercial space race? Jeff Bezos might disagree.
In the minds of technology-aware people around the globe, Elon Musk holds unique positions in the world of commercial spaceflight:
- Launching and landing rockets.
- Launching and landing reused rockets.
- Launching and landing private rockets funded by the paying customers of a spaceflight company founded with totally private capital.
None of that is to be taken lightly, especially considering Musk’s stated goal of colonizing Mars (and beyond?). All of that combined with the fact that SpaceX’s closest competitors are either centered on rich tourists (Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin) or almost entirely government (contract) funded (Boeing, ULA), and Elon Musk looks to have a type of moral “high ground” over other industry players with a humanity-first approach.
That might not be an entirely fair assessment, though. It’s helpful to first have the full(er) history of commercial spaceflight on hand, and second to have the long-term goals of other players in mind in order to consider where SpaceX really fits in.
A SHORT HISTORY OF COMMERCIAL SPACEFLIGHT
The commercial space industry started shortly after the first satellite was launched in 1957 when the privately-owned Telstar I satellite was put into orbit using a commercially-sponsored rocket in 1962. Congress provided the regulatory framework for such missions shortly after, and hundreds of private satellites were launched in the years following. SpaceX’s earliest predecessor, Space Services, Inc. of America (SSIA), was the first to put a privately owned and operated rocket into space, albeit not into orbit.
- Fun Fact: SSIA is now a star-naming company which has previously contracted cargo space with SpaceX.
After the government provided a better regulatory environment for commercial spaceflight in 1984, SSIA also became the first private company to acquire and use a launch license. In case you’re curious, the rocket didn’t make it to space.
Who was the first private company to make it to orbit on a privately developed rocket, then? That honor would go to Orbital Sciences Corporation (now Orbital ATK, another SpaceX contractor) in 1990, although the rocket was air launched from an airplane. That achievement was followed up by Scaled Composites’ SpaceShipOne in 2004, another air launched vehicle, although it was a rocket-powered aircraft rather than just a rocket. It still holds the title as the first and only privately-funded manned craft to reach space. Virgin Galactic has taken over its successor, SpaceShipTwo, which is still under development with the primary goal of shuttling rich tourists on suborbital thrill rides.
- Fun Fact: United Launch Alliance (ULA), SpaceX’s only bidding competitor for Air Force contracts, was actually formed only to serve government rocket launch needs after legislation was passed requiring NASA to use private spaceflight companies for non-Space Shuttle essential missions. Boeing and Lockheed Martin, traditional government space and defense contractors, came together to form the ULA venture to serve this need, and the rest is mostly guaranteed-NASA-contract-friendly history. Boeing and Lockheed Martin are also the primary contractors developing NASA’s new Space Launch System and Orion crew capsule. For these reasons, I don’t really consider ULA to be a true part of the “new space race”.
SpaceX entered the history records in 2008 when Falcon 1 reached orbit as the first privately developed liquid fueled rocket. Their record list entries have grown ever since:
- 2010, the Dragon capsule was successfully launched into orbit and recovered, making it the first private capsule to do so.
- 2012, the Dragon capsule made a successful trip to the International Space Station (ISS) as the first private spacecraft to do so.
- 2015, Falcon 9 successfully landed after returning from orbit, the first orbital rocket to do so.
- 2017, a reused Falcon 9 core was successfully launched and landed after returning from orbit, making it the first privately owned rocket to do so.
Right before SpaceX’s 2015 landing, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos finally revealed what his secretive space company, Blue Origin, had been up to. Beating SpaceX’s landing by a month, Bezos revealed footage of Blue Origins’ tourist-industry rocket, New Shepard, successfully launching into space and landing itself. The differences between the two companies’ landing achievements are notable; however, Blue Origin still walked away with first prize.
Even so, in commercial spaceflight history, SpaceX’s reputation as an innovator driving the privatization of the space industry is well deserved. But does Elon Musk get to claim a moral “high ground” given SpaceX’s autonomous origins and humanity-centric goals?
JEFF BEZOS IS A DREAMER, TOO
Blue Origin might call that designation into question. How so, especially when Blue Origin’s rocket is a tourist attraction (with no restroom or regurgitation facilities I might add)?
Well, first of all, according to Bezos it doesn’t have to just be a tourist vehicle. In a recent talk given at the 33rd annual Space Symposium, Bezos suggested that the New Shepard could be used as the first stage of another multi-stage rocket rather than just the single stage for his “Astronaut Experience” tourist adventure. That could (potentially) put New Shepard in line with Falcon 9’s customer base.
Most importantly, though, New Shepard is just the beginning of Blue Origin’s long-term goals for space travel. The engine (BE-4) for their expandable heavy launch vehicle, New Glenn, is under development and will be a prime competitor with SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy once in operation.
Back to the “high ground” question, the founder of Amazon had dreams of being a space entrepreneur way before that concept truly existed, and Bezos went into computer science knowing he needed plenty of money to reach that goal. Musk didn’t consider space technology exclusively, but rather went in as a way to be part of pushing humanity’s development forward. Purity of intent? Points for both.
Bezos himself has acknowledged that there are similarities in the goals of both SpaceX and Blue Origin, citing the two companies’ pursuit of vertical landings and quick reusability as the primary ones. For a time, SpaceX was unique in the “new space” arena by not using space tourism as a funding mechanism, but now that they’ve announced their contract to take some very rich customers on a trip around the Moon, they’ve lost that designation. What’s more, Blue Origin has also announced their own Moon program, but it will be to assist with cargo needs for development of a permanent Moon base.
Plus one for Blue Origin.
Both SpaceX and Blue Origin were founded with private funds, and the funding for their developments to date come from a mix of both government and private sources. Technically, Blue Origin is almost entirely privately funded, but they received two rounds of funding from NASA as part of their Commercial Crew Development program that can’t be ignored. Also, their contract with ULA to develop the BE-4 engine (to be used on both Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket series and ULA’s upcoming Vulcan rocket) makes the designation murky. ULA only launches rockets for government cargo, so whether the money Blue Origin receives from them is truly “private” is a matter of money-trail opinion. On a further note, Bezos has pledged to invest an annual billion dollars of his own funds into Blue Origin.
Plus one for Blue Origin, but plus two for SpaceX for already running a viable, profitable space launch company with plenty of private customers.
What about Mars? Well, Elon Musk has made it no secret that Mars is the primary goal of SpaceX’s technology achievements, and he really, really wants to settle humans there to save the species from potential future disaster. Bezos, on the other hand, has likened the purpose of going to Mars as “because it’s cool”. However, Bezos also wants to do all the “heavy lifting” in building the infrastructure necessary for space commercialization to take off. He used the existing Internet and shipping systems to build Amazon, so now he wants to build the Internet and shipping system equivalents in space with Blue Origin’s technology.
Plus one for both, and I think that means the two are even.
MORAL HIGH GROUND?
The answer to the question of moral standing is then, of course, entirely based on one’s opinion of the future of human spaceflight and the roles we should pursue outside of our home planet. Also as an honorable mention for consideration is one’s economic persuasion in the form of a “chicken or the egg” scenario.
Government has taken us to space and enabled a booming satellite communications market, but we haven’t even returned to the Moon since 1972. Would a privatized space industry have us on Mars already? We can further consider that NASA gave us memory foam, Tang, and underwater pens; however, would better, cheaper versions been developed on their own in the commercial sector as the need for such products for Earth-based activities developed independent of government projects?
Once again returning to the question of a greater-purpose-driven space program, does space tourism lead to trickle-down space exploration, i.e., eventual space travel for the average citizen? Or will it take an “infrastructure first” approach to really make that sort of space travel be a reality?
If a space company claims that its long-term goal is to benefit the future of human kind, the use of space tourism certainly looks to be economically justified as a funding mechanism. But does that then mean that the future of humanity in space is being bred on the “bread” (sorry) of the super-rich?
While it wouldn’t be the first time an industry grew in such a way, there exists a population of folks that prefer a little more “purity” in their spaceflight. Yours truly happens to be such a crab, but I also acknowledge that such sentiments come from growing up only knowing space as taught by a science-centric NASA. Space has always been cool because it gives us a broader perspective of our place in the universe. I never fantasized about opening the first deep space McDonald’s (or Rudy Tyler’s Burger Shack if you understand a bad Space Camp movie reference).
Elon Musk was a game changer in the commercial space world by pursuing rockets as a means of bettering humanity. That gave him a “one-up” over Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin for the purist crowd. Now that SpaceX has added millionaire Moon tourism to its manifest, however, and Blue Origin is moving along into non-tourist space developments to build infrastructure, the field is evening out. It’s also prudent to mention that there are many other rocket companies out there developing private vehicles that we’ll be hearing from eventually.
COMING UP
So what’s up next for SpaceX? The Hawthorne-based rocket company will be back to its regularly scheduled history-making programming this summer with the launch of Falcon Heavy, and later this year Crew Dragon is set to launch, making SpaceX one step closer to launching American astronauts on American soil.
First up, however, Falcon 9 will launch on April 30th, carrying NROL-76 into a secretive orbit from SpaceX’s refurbished Apollo pad, Launch Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Not many other details are available about payload, though. It’s for the National Reconnaissance Office, so publicly available information is slim. We should see the first stage make a ground landing as consolation – fingers crossed the video doesn’t cut out!
We can also add this launch to the history books again for SpaceX. This is the first payload SpaceX will have ever launched for the U.S. Department of Defense, having beaten ULA for the contract after threatening to sue the Air Force for the right to bid. Watch out, traditional government launch contractors. SpaceX is moving in to your turf. When Blue Origin is ready to start the bidding war, it will be interesting to see how they work out that ULA relationship.
Stay tuned!
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
