Connect with us

News

Does Elon Musk hold the moral high ground in the commercial space race? Jeff Bezos might disagree.

Published

on

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.

Advertisement
  • 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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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).

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

Stay tuned!

Accidental computer geek, fascinated by most history and the multiplanetary future on its way. Quite keen on the democratization of space. | It's pronounced day-sha, but I answer to almost any variation thereof.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Elon Musk offers to pay TSA salaries as government shutdown leaves agents without paychecks

Elon Musk offered to personally cover TSA salaries as the DHS shutdown deepens travel chaos nationwide.

Published

on

By

Elon Musk says that he is willing to personally cover the salaries of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) workers caught in the crossfire of a partial government shutdown that has now dragged on for over a month. “I would like to offer to pay the salaries of TSA personnel during this funding impasse that is negatively affecting the lives of so many Americans at airports throughout the country,” Musk wrote.


The offer arrives as Congress let funding expire for the Department of Homeland Security on February 14, amid a disagreement over immigration enforcement, leaving most TSA employees classified as essential and on duty but working without pay. The timing could not be more disruptive, as the shutdown is colliding directly with spring break travel season when millions of Americans are in the air.

This is not the first time TSA workers have endured this kind of hardship. TSA agents are being asked to work without pay until congressional action unblocks their paychecks, having previously held out through the longest government shutdown in U.S. history at 43 days. The pattern reveals a systemic failure in how Congress funds critical security infrastructure, and Musk’s offer shines a spotlight on that recurring failure at a moment when the public is directly feeling its effects through long lines and terminal closures.

Advertisement

Whether Musk can legally follow through remains unclear, as federal law generally prohibits government employees from receiving outside compensation related to their official duties.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry

Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI unveiled TERAFAB, a $25B chip factory targeting one terawatt of AI compute annually.

Published

on

By

Tesla TERAFAB Factory in Austin, Texas

Elon Musk took the stage over the weekend at the defunct Seaholm Power Plant in Austin, Texas, to officially unveil TERAFAB, a $20-25 billion joint venture between Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI that he described as “the most epic chip building exercise in history by far.” The announcement marks the most ambitious infrastructure bet Musk has made since Gigafactory 1 in Sparks, Nevada, and it fuses three of his companies into a single, vertically integrated AI hardware machine for the first time.

TERAFAB is designed to consolidate every stage of semiconductor production under one roof, including chip design, lithography, fabrication, memory production, advanced packaging, and testing.  At full capacity, the facility would scale to roughly 70% of the global output from the current world’s largest semiconductor foundry from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC).

Elon Musk’s stated goal is one terawatt of computing power annually, split between Tesla’s AI5 inference chips for vehicles and Optimus robots, and D3 chips built specifically for SpaceXAI’s orbital satellite constellation.

Tesla Terafab set for launch: Inside the $20B AI chip factory that will reshape the auto industry

Advertisement

The logic behind the merger of these three entities is rooted in a supply chain crisis Musk has been signaling for over a year. At Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call, he warned investors that external chip capacity from TSMC, Samsung, and Micron would hit a ceiling within three to four years. “We’re very grateful to our existing supply chain, to Samsung, TSMC, Micron and others,” Musk acknowledged at the Terafab event, “but there’s a maximum rate at which they’re comfortable expanding.” Building in-house was, in his framing, not a strategic option, but a necessity.

The space angle is where the announcement becomes genuinely unprecedented. Musk said 80% of Terafab’s compute output would be directed toward space-based orbital AI satellites, arguing that solar irradiance in space is roughly 5x greater than at Earth’s surface, and that heat rejection in vacuum makes thermal scaling viable. This directly feeds the SpaceXAI vision, which is betting that within two to three years, running AI workloads in orbit will be cheaper than doing so on the ground. The satellites, powered by constant solar energy, would effectively turn low Earth orbit into the world’s largest data center.

Will Tesla join the fold? Predicting a triple merger with SpaceX and xAI

Historically, this announcement threads together every major Musk initiative of the past two years: the xAI-SpaceX merger, Tesla’s $2.9 billion solar equipment talks with Chinese suppliers, the 100 GW domestic solar manufacturing push, the Optimus humanoid robot program, and Starship’s development. TERAFAB is the capstone that ties them into a single coherent architecture — chips made on Earth, launched by SpaceX, powered by Tesla solar, run by xAI, and ultimately extended to the Moon.

Advertisement

“I want us to live long enough to see the mass driver on the moon, because that’s going to be incredibly epic,”Musk said during the presentation.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Rolls-Royce makes shocking move on its EV future

When Rolls-Royce unveiled its first all-electric model, the Spectre, in 2022, former CEO Torsten Müller-Ötvös declared the brand would cease production of internal combustion engine vehicles by the end of the decade.

Published

on

Rolls Royce Wheels
Credit: BMW Group

Rolls-Royce made a shocking move on its EV future after planning to go all-electric by the end of the decade. Now, the company is tempering its expectations for electric vehicles, and its CEO is aiming to lean on its legacy of high-powered combustion engines to lead it into the future.

In a significant reversal, Rolls-Royce Motor Cars has scrapped its ambitious plan to become an all-electric manufacturer by 2030. The luxury British marque announced the decision amid sustained customer demand for traditional combustion engines and shifting regulatory landscapes.

When Rolls-Royce unveiled its first all-electric model, the Spectre, in 2022, former CEO Torsten Müller-Ötvös declared the brand would cease production of internal combustion engine vehicles by the end of the decade.

The move aligned with the industry’s broader push toward electrification, promising silent, effortless power befitting the “Rolls-Royce of cars.”

Advertisement

However, new CEO Chris Brownridge, who assumed the role in late 2023, has reversed course. “We can respond to our client demand … we build what is ordered,” Brownridge stated.

The company will continue offering its iconic V12 engines, which remain a cornerstone of its heritage and appeal to discerning buyers who appreciate the distinctive sound and character. He noted the original pledge was “right at the time,” but “the legislation has changed.”

While not abandoning electric vehicles entirely, the Spectre remains in production, with an electric Cullinan option forthcoming; the decision marks the end of a strict all-EV timeline. Relaxed emissions regulations and slowing EV demand, evidenced by a 47 percent drop in Spectre sales to 1,002 units in 2025, forced the reconsideration.

It was a sign that perhaps Rolls-Royce owners were not inclined to believe that the company’s all-EV future was the right move.

Advertisement

Rolls Royce customers want more EVs, says company CEO

Rolls-Royce joins a growing roster of automakers reevaluating aggressive electrification targets.

Fellow luxury brand Bentley has pushed its full electrification from 2030 to 2035, while continuing to offer hybrids and ICE models. Mercedes-Benz walked back its 2030 all-EV goal, now aiming for about 50% electrified sales while keeping combustion engines into the 2030s. Porsche has abandoned its 80% EV sales target by 2030, delaying models and extending hybrids.

Mainstream giants are following suit. Honda canceled its U.S. EV plans, including the 0-Series and Acura RSX, facing a $15.7 billion hit as it doubles down on hybrids. Ford and General Motors have incurred tens of billions in writedowns, canceling models and pivoting to hybrids amid an industry total exceeding $70 billion in charges.

Advertisement

This trend reflects a pragmatic shift driven by infrastructure gaps, consumer preferences, and policy changes. In the ultra-luxury segment, where emotional connection reigns, automakers are prioritizing flexibility over rigid deadlines, ensuring brands like Rolls-Royce evolve without alienating their core clientele.

Continue Reading