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 short sellers won big following the company’s massive fall on Wall Street after it reported subpar Earnings on Wednesday.
Tesla short sellers collected about $4.12 billion in single-day profits on Thursday, according to Bloomberg. Shares fell as much as 15 percent during Thursday’s session. It closed as one of the worst days for Tesla on Wall Street in the past three years.
Investors sold off the stock after Tesla said it would aggressively direct its spending toward AI and its Optimus robot project. The company had record revenues, which were driven by one of the strongest quarters in terms of vehicle deliveries in company history.
However, it missed EPS estimates by reporting just $0.33, a far cry from the $0.53 analysts expected.
S3 Partners reported that about 3 percent of Tesla’s outstanding stock is sold short. Managing Director at S3, Ihor Dusaniwsky, provided the short seller’s potential profit, as well as another figure: shorts have likely had paper gains of $8.92 billion this year, as Tesla shares are down 30 percent in 2026.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla has burned short sellers many times in the past, but the company’s latest Earnings Call was a chance for those skeptics to taste some payback. Although the company gave some very transparent information regarding future projects, the rollout of Robotaxi, Optimus, and Semi, many investors took their profits on Thursday.
Notable short sellers like Michael Burry have been transparent about their skepticism around Tesla shares. Burry just revealed three weeks ago that he had opened up a new short on the stock, stating he shorted Tesla shares at $416.22. “Happy it jumped back to this level,” he said in a blog post.
At the time of publication, Tesla shares were down about 3 percent and the stock was trading at $309.92.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla short sellers win big after shares fall after earnings
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
