News
Firefly nears second orbital launch attempt as US forces Ukrainian founder to divest
While the rocket startup he is responsible for resurrecting is preparing for a second orbital launch attempt, a Ukrainian multimillionaire – an entrepreneur, businessman, and the founder of Firefly Aerospace – has once again been forced to take extreme actions by the US government.
Resurrected in 2017 after going bankrupt and ceasing operations the year prior, Firefly is a private launch provider based out of Austin, Texas and founded by Maxim Polyakov and former CEO Tom Markusic. Polyakov has supported the company since its second inception, privately funding the startup with over $200 million earned through success in Ukrainian tech industries. With those contributions, Polyakov was able to singlehandedly resurrect the startup from bankruptcy and continue the development of an even more ambitious Alpha launch vehicle.
For the last two years, though, Polyakov has been under scrutiny from US government officials, who’ve objected to Polyakov – a Ukrainian and UK citizen – having control over the company, with fears that the launch technology developed by the company could make its way back to Ukraine and poses a national security threat.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
In late 2020, Polyakov quietly stepped down as chairman and withdrew from Firefly’s day-to-day operations in the hopes of killing the controversy and giving the startup a better chance at being awarded government contracts. Firefly’s board of directors includes many former U.S government officials, including Deborah Lee James, former secretary of the Air Force, and Robert Cardillo, former director of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency.
However, officials were not satisfied with Polyakov simply stepping down from operations, indicating they want him to have less ownership in the company as well. In November 2021, just two months after Firefly’s inaugural flight test, Polyakov received a letter from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S (CFIUS). This letter expressed these ongoing concerns and asked that he, along with his investment company, Noosphere Venture Partners, sell their stock in Firefly; which amounted to over 50% stake in the company. Because of this request, Firefly halted their operations at Vandenberg Air-force Base.
Before halting launch operations, Firefly claimed to be on track for another Alpha launch as early as January 2022. Firefly’s first launch on September 2nd, 2021 ended in failure around two minutes after liftoff due to a premature engine shutdown. Jason Mello, president of Firefly Space Transportation Services, stated in an interview that fixing the problem responsible for the failure was “fairly easy and straightforward.”
On February 16th, 2022 Polyakov revealed that the United States government had once again gone on the offensive, this time forcing him to fully and permanently cede any involvement in his company. He posted the following statement on Facebook:
Polyakov revealed that he chose to sell his 58% stake in the company to co-founder and CEO Tom Markusic for $1 USD – a selfless act given that selling his stake for nothing all but guarantees he will never recoup a cent of the several hundred million dollars he invested in Firefly.
Previously, Polyakov expressed how excited he was to turn Firefly into a massive aerospace company that both the United States and Ukraine could be proud of and benefit from. “During the Soviet era, Ukraine produced some of the world’s best rocket and engine technology, but much of those inventions have languished in recent years due to lack of investment. The hope was that Firefly could pair its best engineers from the U.S. and Ukraine together to make a fleet of large rockets capable of taking many satellites into orbit and, later on, missions to the moon. Polyakov wanted the U.S. to gain access to Ukrainian expertise, while also finding a way to boost the prospects of Ukrainian aerospace engineers, he has said.” (Bloomberg)
It is speculated that the US government’s sudden and extreme requests came because of concerns over the rising tensions caused by Russia’s increasingly unstable posturing and recurring threats of invasion. Even though Ukraine is friendly with the United States, concerns of conflict with Russia may have increased worries about what might happen to technology developed inside of the country. Ukraine, a sovereign nation, has been forced to increase security along its borders as fear of a Russian invasion grows.
Despite the recent legal and organizational setbacks and drama caused by the US government, Firefly has been doing extremely well from a technical standpoint. The company recently shared a video of the successful static fire testing of both stages of the second Alpha rocket, indicating that it could be ready for flight in the very near future. Even though Polyakov was forced to abandon his aerospace startup, it’s never been more clear that his investment not only saved Firefly but raised the company closer to success than it’s ever been before.
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’
