News
Ex-SpaceX engine expert to help design rockets built for launch on world’s largest jet
Stratolaunch, an aerospace company funded by Microsoft-made billionaire Paul Allen to build the world’s largest flightworthy aircraft, has announced a decision to build its own liquid-fueled rockets, to be air-launched from the aforementioned mega-plane.
Targeting an inaugural launch of the first version of the rocket – currently nicknamed “Kraken” – as early as 2022, Stratolaunch has chosen Jeff Thornburg, formerly SpaceX’s Vice President of Propulsion Engineering and the father of the company’s Mars-focused Raptor engine, to lead its foray into in-house rocket propulsion development and manufacturing.
Stratolaunch has confirmed what most people have long speculated: it’s developing its own launch vehicles for its air-launch system, including a reusable space plane that could eventually carry people. pic.twitter.com/nF9lKVe4xk
— Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) August 20, 2018
But first: building the world’s largest aircraft
Stratolaunch’s first task at hand, however, is to begin flight-testing the largest (hopefully) operational aircraft in history, a prerequisite for the company’s longer-term orbital rocket and spaceplane aspirations. Nicknamed “Roc” after a mythical (and fictional) bird so large it could carry an elephant, the plane certainly lives up to its namesake. Featuring a full six of the same engines that power Boeing’s once-record-breaking 747 airliner and a wingspan that could easily fit three smaller 737 airliners with room to spare, it is genuinely difficult (if not impossible) to successfully convey the sheer scale of Roc outside of witnessing it in person.
Stationed in California’s Mojave Desert, the aircraft’s one and only copy is, for the most part, completed and has spent the brunt of 2018 conducting runway taxi tests, hopefully culminating in an inaugural flight test later this year or early next year. Designed to lift orbital-class rockets weighing as much as 250 metric tons (550,000 lb) to an altitude of at least 9100 meters (30,000 feet), the primary benefit of using aircraft as launch platforms derives from the simple fact that the atmospheric density at 30,000 feet is more than three times less than that at sea level. Similar to aircraft, rocket performance dramatically improves as atmospheric density decreases: less atmosphere means lower drag and pressure.
Rockets that launch from sea-level have to grapple with the difficulties of Earth’s relatively thick atmosphere at that height, with major launch events like “Max-Q” being big concerns almost solely because the dense air exerts major forces on launch vehicles and demands extreme measures like throttling down booster engines (very inefficient) and optimizing structures for aerodynamic efficiency despite the fact that rockets spend very little time operating in a significant atmosphere.
A launch pad without a rocket (sort of)
However, the simple fact of the matter is that billionaire Paul Allen’s colossal aircraft essentially does not have a single air-launched rocket in the world that can properly take advantage of its capabilities. Originally sized and designed with an air-launched version of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 in mind, that relationship folded amicably after roughly a year (2012), at which point SpaceX realized it would need to almost completely redesign a unique variant of Falcon 9. Your author will readily admit that they have admired the insanity of such a massive plane while still severely doubting its practical utility.
Thankfully, it appears that Allen is adamantly opposed to the idea that Stratolaunch is some silly whim to build the world’s largest plane. Rather, he is exceptionally reserved and pragmatic when discussing the aerial launch platform, according to a recent and extensive interview by Wired Magazine’s Steven Levy.
“Allen isn’t one to show exuberance, and when he speaks about the plane he focuses on its future utility. ‘When you see that giant plane, it’s a little nutty,’ he says. ‘And you don’t build it unless you’re very serious, not only about wanting to see the plane fly but to see it fulfill its purpose. Which is getting vehicles in orbit.’ – Paul Allen, 2018
-
- Stratolaunch’s Roc shown with a triplet of Orbital ATK Pegasus XL rockets. (Vulcan Space)
-
- Back in 2012, SpaceX briefly entertained the idea of a Falcon 9 variant optimized for air-launch, potentially including crew rating the rocket down the road. (Stratolaunch/Dynetics)
-
- The Roc is inconceivably vast. (Stratolaunch)
Currently, Orbital ATK’s (now Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems) air-launched Pegasus XL rocket is the only “customer” in the world that can realistically use Stratolaunch as a launch platform, not exactly an impressive or sustainable launch vehicle with a maximum performance of less than 450 kg (~1000 lbs) to low Earth orbit for an incredible ~$40 million per (expendable) flight.
To answer that call and ensure Stratolaunch’s utility, the company reportedly began seriously considering its own in-house expendable and reusable rockets and propulsion systems sometime in 2016, plans that have since grown concrete and been publicly embedded into Stratolaunch’s overarching mission. Nicknamed “Kraken” after the mythical sea monster, the company hopes to develop an initially expendable rocket system capable of launching 3400 – 6000 kg (~7500 – 13250 lbs) into low Earth orbit with single booster and triple booster variants. Further down the line, Stratolaunch is eyeing the design and production of a fully and rapidly reusable orbital spaceplane, potentially including a version that would carry astronauts into space.
-
- A concept video produced by Stratolaunch shows the Roc launching a Kraken rocket. (Stratolaunch, via Wired)
-
- A concept video produced by Stratolaunch shows the Roc launching a Kraken rocket. (Stratolaunch, via Wired)
-
- A concept video produced by Stratolaunch shows the Roc launching a Kraken rocket. (Stratolaunch, via Wired)
-
- SpaceX’s subscale Raptor engine has completed more than 1200 seconds of testing in less than two years. (SpaceX)
-
- BFS (circa 2017) shows off its complement of SL and Vacuum Raptor engines. SpaceX is moving back to something similar to this. (SpaceX)
Normally, one might simply roll their eyes at yet another startup touting small(ish) expendable rockets with first launches no earlier than the early 2020s – the market is getting to be absurdly and impossibly overcrowded at this point. However, Stratolaunch differs for one fundamental and reason: they have placed ex-SpaceX propulsion executive and expert Jeff Thornburg at the helm of the company’s freshly public rocket propulsion wing. While at SpaceX, Mr. Thornburg spent all but one of his five years with the company (2011-2015) single-mindedly focused on the development and engineering of all aspects of the Raptor rocket engine, a next-generation propulsion system designed to enable SpaceX’s sustainable colonization of Mars.
Raptor is an exceptional rocket engine thanks in no small part to Thornburg’s brilliance as a propulsion engineer, and that same brilliance and half-decade of experience at the most successful rocket startup in existence could ultimately prove a massive boon for Stratolaunch’s otherwise interesting but unexceptional expendable rocket concepts.
Put simply, under Jeff Thornburg’s direction and with access to founder Paul Allen’s considerable wealth, Stratolaunch is undoubtedly worth keeping a close eye in the future, both far and near.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
Elon Musk has publicly questioned Moody’s credit assessments following the rating agency’s decision to assign SpaceX a Baa1 investment-grade rating, two notches above Tesla’s Baa3. The comments came amid discussions comparing the two companies’ financial profiles.
SpaceX earned its first-time Baa1 rating with a stable outlook from Moody’s. The agency highlighted the company’s leadership in orbital launches, the growing recurring revenue from its Starlink satellite network, strong vertical integration, U.S. government contracts, and emerging opportunities in AI infrastructure.
These factors were cited as supporting robust cash flows, margin expansion, and financial flexibility.
Musk responded directly: “Tesla’s credit rating is ridiculously low tbh,” and added, “Yeah, makes no sense. Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt, and is consistently profitable!” His remarks underscored Tesla’s balance sheet strength and profitability at a time when many traditional automakers continue to report losses in the shift to electric vehicles.
Yeah, makes no sense.
Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt and is consistently profitable!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 19, 2026
Tesla maintains a leading position in the global EV market, with diversification into energy and storage, battery technology, and robotics through projects like Optimus. Recent financial updates show the company generated positive free cash flow of $1.4 billion in Q1 2026, supported by operating cash flow of $3.9 billion. Cash and short-term investments stood at approximately $44.7 billion.
Moody’s has affirmed Tesla’s Baa3 issuer rating with a stable outlook in periodic reviews, acknowledging the company’s EV leadership, technology strengths, including AI for autonomous vehicles, solid profitability, and strong liquidity.
Tesla (TSLA) scores Baa3 Moody’s rating for ‘stable’ outlook
However, the agency has also noted challenges in the automotive segment and expectations for margin pressures.
Musk’s critique highlights a common debate about how traditional rating methodologies apply to high-growth, capital-intensive technology companies. SpaceX benefits from long-term government-backed contracts and diversified, recurring revenue streams, while Tesla’s valuation reflects heavy investment in future technologies such as autonomy and robotics.
Both ratings remain investment-grade, yet the one-notch difference has fueled online discussion about potential inconsistencies in evaluating innovative firms.
The exchange comes as SpaceX explores financing options following its recent valuation milestones, while Tesla continues executing on its multi-year roadmap. Musk’s pointed response serves as a reminder that credit ratings, though influential for borrowing costs, represent one lens through which markets assess corporate strength—and that company leaders often view their financial positions through the lens of long-term innovation and cash generation rather than short-term risk metrics alone.
A new report from Reuters claims that a transport authority in Sweden is pushing back against the approval of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite because it will travel over speed limits.
The report says the Swedish Transport Administration (TRV) recommends the European Union votes against FSD’s approval. TRV believes it should not be approved until Tesla disables FSD’s ability to speed.
TRV sent a letter to the European Union’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV), which is set to meet on June 30 to discuss the potential approval of the Tesla FSD suite in the country. Tesla, which has received various approvals in Europe over the past two months, has not provided a comment.
Teslas operating on FSD do travel over the speed limit, depending on the Speed Profile that is chosen. Drivers have the ability to disengage FSD at any point; Tesla specifically states that those supervising the suite are responsible for its actions.
Let’s cut to the chase: humans operating any vehicle speed almost daily in the United States. Realistically, speed limits in the U.S. are more frequently treated as speed minimums. However, other countries are different, and driving behaviors are less aggressive.
TRV believes that “allowing automated systems to systematically exceed legal speed limits…risks undermining both the legal framework and the expected safety benefits of vehicle automation,” the report stated. It’s surprising that Tesla has not received this claim from other countries previously.
This could be a good argument to bring Max Speed back, the setting that previously allowed the driver to choose the absolute fastest the car would travel.
This would still put the responsibility of supervision in the hands of the driver. It would allow the driver to choose whether the car would travel over the speed limit or not, acknowledging that they set the speed, and if they get pulled over, there would be no ability to argue it.
However, it does not seem as if this is something Tesla will do, especially considering many U.S. drivers have requested the feature in an effort to eliminate speeding or at least tone it down. The company has not shown any interest in bringing it back.
Tesla has approvals for FSD in Europe in Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
Tesla is going to let you guide Full Self-Driving with Grok in 3 months, CEO Elon Musk confirmed on X.
The response from Musk, which revealed Tesla plans to allow drivers to effectively control the car and its navigation more explicitly using Grok, puts the feature for about September.
A Tesla owner said that Full Self-Driving is great, but owners should be able to “converse with Grok like we can with an Uber driver.” She then used examples like, “Grok, turn right here,” and “Drop us off right here, we’ll walk due to traffic,” and finally,” Drop at entrance first, then park far away.”
Coincidentally, the final piece of dialogue would also mean features like Banish are potentially on the way soon.
This functionality will be there in about 3 months or so
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 18, 2026
Banish is also referred to as “Reverse Summon,” and would enable the car to self-park while dropping occupants off at their destination.
This would be a great way to improve the overall experience while supervising FSD. Navigation is already a major painpoint that many owners complain about. Manual overrides when a maneuver is requested or canceled (like using the turn signal stalk to override a navigation route), do not always work.
The feature could be especially useful in street parking scenarios in a city, where spots are sometimes tough to come by. Many of us who grab dinner in a more populated area will park a street or two over from wherever we’re going, because sometimes you know that’s the best you will get. If a driver using FSD could say, “Hey Grok, turn right here on Queen St. and park in that open spot on the right,” it could save a lot of confusion FSD might have on its own.
Musk teased that a similar feature was “coming” back in February:
Tesla Full Self-Driving set to get an awesome new feature, Elon Musk says
It is certainly surprising that Tesla is doing it at this point. The company’s more recent moves have been more evident of taking control and inputs away from humans and putting them in the AI’s hands more frequently. The biggest example of this was taking away Max Speed in AI4 cars, giving us Speed Profiles, and not having any input on the fastest speed the car will travel.
Of course, giving navigation preferences to Grok is availble already in Teslas, but not at the drop of a hat. Instead, you can suggest a certain route at the beginning of your drive.
Here’s an example of that from December:
🚨🏈 I am taking my parents and Fiancee to the @Ravens game next weekend and asked @Grok to help me route my @Tesla through a specific neighborhood to reach the correct Lot we will park in.
This is a great example of the new @grok nav integration with the Tesla Holiday Update: pic.twitter.com/rPp4I7q8Yv
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 13, 2025
Finally, the original post that Musk responded to mentioned a parking preference after dropping off the occupants, which describes the Banish feature that Tesla has teased for years.
We’re not sure if Musk was responding more to the ability to guide the car with Grok, or whether he also was including Banish in the three-month prediction timeframe.
Elon Musk challenges Tesla credit rating from Moody’s after SpaceX gets a higher one
Tesla faces Full Self-Driving pushback in EU over ‘speeding’
