SpaceX
DeepSpace: A critical juncture for SpaceX, Blue Origin, ULA, other players
This is a free preview of DeepSpace, Teslarati’s new member-only weekly newsletter. Each week, I’ll be taking a deep-dive into the most exciting developments in commercial space, from satellites and rockets to everything in between. Sign up for Teslarati’s newsletters here to receive a preview of our membership program.
A high-pressure competition between all four major US launch providers – SpaceX, ULA, Blue Origin, and Orbital ATK (now NGIS) – is about to head into its most critical stage, a period of 60 days allotted for interested parties to submit their completed proposals. According to the US Air Force (USAF), the final request for proposals (RFP) could come as early as March 29th, giving the four aforementioned companies until May 28th to complete their proposals.
All things considered, the growing pressure and some of the USAF’s strategy behind the program – known as Launch Service Procurement (LSP) Phase 2 – has raised significant questions that remain largely unanswered and lead to a few mild bouts of strife or unhappiness from contract competitors. Most notably, Blue Origin – having just won a USAF development contract worth $500M – has repeatedly requested that the USAF and Department of Defense (DoD) delay the RFP and contract awards until 2021, according to Space News’ Sandra Erwin. Meanwhile, a lack of clarification from the USAF means that it’s unclear whether the strategy behind launch contract awards (LSP) will end up contradicting or undermining a partially connected development program known as Launch Service Agreements (LSA) that saw the USAF award ~$2B to three providers (excluding SpaceX) between 2018 and 2024.
Battle of the Acronyms: LSP vs. LSA
- Recently rebranded by the US military as the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program, LSP Phase 1 and 2 and LSA are the latest major procurement initiatives begun under the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program, spun up in the 1990s to provide a firmer foundation for the commercial launch of military spacecraft after the 1986 Shuttle Challenger disaster pushed most satellites off of the platform.
- Phase 2 of the EELV program has been ongoing for several years and will culminate with the procurement of 25+ launch contracts (LSP) from two providers no earlier than 2020. The USAF’s Launch Service Agreements are also a major strategic feature of Phase 2, nominally seeing the military branch contribute major funding to assist in the development of three separate launch vehicles (New Glenn, Vulcan, and Omega) with the intention of ultimately certifying those rockets for EELV (now NSSL) launches.
- LSA also saw the USAF award several tens of millions to SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Aerojet Rocketdyne to develop capabilities centered around advanced, new rocket engines (BE-4, AR-1, and Raptor), but the latest phase of LSA is valued at least several times higher than its earlier engine-specific awards.
-
- Oddly, the purpose of LSA was – at least on the cover – to effectively ensure that the Air Force had multiple (more than two) providers and thus preserve a healthy, competitive military launch market. A senior leader specifically stated that “the goal of [LSA] is to make sure [the US military has] a competitive industrial base.”
- Aside from an initial $181M awarded to Blue Origin, ULA, and Orbital ATK (now Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems, NGIS) in 2018 and 2019, the remaining funding – up to $320M for Blue Origin’s New Glenn, $610M for NGIS’ Omega, and $785M for ULA’s Vulcan – would be dispersed to each provider between 2020 and 2024.
- However, an odd and controversial bit of language behind the coming five-year launch services procurement (LSP) initiative would completely cut off funding to LSA awardees in the event that they fail to be awarded launches from the latest LSP.
- Additionally, the LSP awards are strictly meant – apparently very intentionally – to be distrubuted among two launch providers, despite a minimum at least four being able (SpaceX) or required (ULA, Blue, NGIS) to enter a bid.
- In other words, this guarantees that either one or two of the three LSA awardees would have the vast majority of their supposedly awarded development funding cut off after FY2020, four years early.
- Oddly, the purpose of LSA was – at least on the cover – to effectively ensure that the Air Force had multiple (more than two) providers and thus preserve a healthy, competitive military launch market. A senior leader specifically stated that “the goal of [LSA] is to make sure [the US military has] a competitive industrial base.”
- Despite continued protests from a number of stakeholders, the USAF has refused to budge from its decision to simultaneously A) create a duopoly, B) defeat the purpose of LSA awards, and C) mass-award ~25 launch contracts to two providers in 2020, anywhere from 12-24 months prior to the planned inaugural launches of all three LSA-funded rockets.
- Without cost-sharing development funds from the USAF and a chance of winning more than a handful of US military launch contracts between now and the late 2020s, it can be all but guaranteed that an LSA funding cutoff will either indefinitely pause or slow to a crawl a given provider’s development of their proposed launch vehicle.
A rocket and a hard place
- This sticky situation thus offers up a few potential ways that this badly-designed (or entirely dishonest) military launch development and procurement strategy will end up by the end of 2020. One way or another, the current strategy as it stands will end up providing two (or one, given that SpaceX will not receive LSA funding) companies with several years of development funding and at least five years of bountiful, guaranteed launch contracts.
- The four providers and two LSP slots available offer a set range of possible alternate realities, limited by political barriers that would, say, almost invariably prevent the USAF from severely harming ULA by cutting off the vast majority of the company’s only real source of income for 5+ years.
- ULA and SpaceX win: This maintains the status quo, wholly invalidating the point of using LSA funds to ensure “a competitive industrial base.” NGIS likely cancels/freezes all Omega development with no chance of competing in commercial markets. Blue Origin owner Jeff Bezos could significantly delay New Glenn’s readiness for military missions if he fails to invest an additional $500M in infrastructure. Likeliest result: a marginally competitive duopoly.
- ULA wins, SpaceX loses: Having just certified Falcon 9 – and nearly Falcon Heavy – for high-value military launches and awarded SpaceX a total of 10 launch contracts (9 yet to be completed), the USAF could effectively spit in SpaceX’s face and award ULA and Blue Origin or NGIS LSP’s 25+ launch contracts.
- It’s hard to exaggerate just how much of a slight this would be perceived as by SpaceX and its executives, CEO Elon Musk in particular. The USAF would be risking the creation of a major political enemy, one which has already demonstrated a willingness to take the federal government to court and win. The USAF/DoD would effectively be hedging their bets against an assumption that SpaceX’s nine present military launch contracts will sate the company and ensure that SpaceX indefinitely remains a certified EELV/NSSL provider.
- In this eventuality, either Blue Origin or NGIS would lose LSA funding and the prospect of almost any military launch contracts until the late 2020s. For NGIS, this would likely kill Omega.
- At the end of the day, it’s sadly conceivable that the USAF/DoD may end up awarding LSP contracts to ULA (effectively a politically-forced hand) and NGIS, the latter assuring Omega’s survival. The military would thus be assuming that the political fallout created with SpaceX and Blue Origin would not be enough to severely harm their relationships, while also assuming that their much stronger commercial prospects and independent funding sources would ensure that each provider remains certified and willing to compete for future NSSL/EELV launches.
Regardless of what happens, the contradictory ways the USAF/DoD have structured their LSA and LSP programs seems bizarrely intent on creating major headaches and potential problems where that could easily be avoided with extraordinarily simple changes, namely removing the inexplicable cap and allowing three or more companies to win some of the ~25 LSP launch contracts).
Mission Updates
- The second launch of Falcon Heavy – the rocket’s commercial debut – is still scheduled to occur as early as April 7th.
- After Falcon Heavy, Cargo Dragon’s CRS-17 resupply mission is firmly scheduled for April (April 25th), while the first dedicated Starlink launch is now NET May 2019.
Photo of the Week:
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk offered a glimpse of a 1650 Kelvin (2500ºF/1400ºC) test of Starship’s metallic heat shield, simulating mid-range temperatures such a shield’s windward side might experience during an orbital-velocity reentry.(c. Elon Musk/SpaceX)
SpaceX is set to attempt its 15th test flight of Starship this evening from Starbase, Texas.
SpaceX is targeting Starship Flight 15 for a launch as soon as today, Friday, November 13, pending an FAA Flight License, during a 75-minute window that opens at 4:45 p.m. CT (5:45 p.m. ET) from Orbital Launch Pad 2 at Starbase, Texas. The flight remains pending final regulatory approval.
WATCH Starship Flight 15 here:
https://t.co/C6GnCHyF8p
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 13, 2026
The mission, using Booster 22 and Ship 42, aims to achieve the first full recovery of an orbital launch system. Primary objectives include a tower catch of the Super Heavy booster roughly six and a half minutes after liftoff and the first-ever tower catch of a Starship upper stage after more than 22 hours in space.
SpaceX will perform Starship double catch attempt with Flight 15
Between those catches, Ship 42 is planned to enter a low Earth orbit of about 275 km, complete roughly 14 orbits, and deploy 26 next-generation Starlink V3 satellites (Starlink Group 31-2). Three of those satellites carry cameras to inspect the ship’s heat shield in orbit and help controllers decide whether the vehicle is healthy enough for a return to the tower.
Contingency ocean splashdown options exist if either stage is not cleared for catch.
To watch the attempt, check the link to the broadcast in both X posts in this article. The live webcast is scheduled to begin about 30 minutes before liftoff and is planned to continue through the ship catch the next day, with the possibility of extended onboard views during the orbital coast via Starlink.
Because the schedule is dynamic, check back here or on our social media channels for the latest updates on window timing and regulatory status. A successful dual catch would mark a major milestone toward making Starship a rapidly reusable rocket capable of frequent flights.
WATCH Starship Flight 15 here:
https://t.co/C6GnCHyF8p
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 13, 2026
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship is going for a catch that could change spaceflight forever
SpaceX will try to catch both Starship stages today, a first for any orbital rocket.
SpaceX is set to launch Starship Flight 15 from Starbase on Friday afternoon, and if both stages make it back to the tower, the mission will go down as the first time an orbital rocket has ever been fully recovered. The 75 minute launch window opens at 4:45 p.m. CT from Pad 2, a day after SpaceX rolled Ship 42 out to the pad and shared photos of the move on X.
The first catch comes quickly. About six and a half minutes after liftoff, Booster 22 is scheduled to fly back to Starbase and settle into the launch tower’s chopstick arms, the first catch attempt for SpaceX’s V3 Super Heavy. SpaceX has caught the booster three times before most recently in March 2025.
Ship 42 moves to the Starbase pad ahead of launch https://t.co/pMUFTHneJQ — SpaceX (@SpaceX) November 13, 2026
The second catch is the one that has never been done. Ship 42 will climb to an orbit about 275 kilometers up, deploy 26 Starlink V3 satellites and complete about 14 orbits. Three of those satellites carry cameras to inspect the ship’s heat shield before it commits to coming home. If its reentry, landing burn and tower approach systems pass their checks, the ship will fire its engines to leave orbit, fall through the atmosphere in its belly flop position, flip vertical and drop into the tower about 22 and a half hours after launch, on Saturday afternoon. SpaceX gave a preview of that maneuver in an animation during its third quarter earnings webcast.
Elon Musk described a successful double catch on that call as “the first time that an orbital launch vehicle has been fully recovered” and a “profound technology milestone,” putting the odds of catching the ship at “more likely than not.” SpaceX has called it a potential “breakthrough moment in making Starship a reliable, rapidly reusable rocket,”
Reuse is where the economics change. Falcon 9 lands its boosters routinely, but its upper stage is thrown away on every flight. Starship is designed so both stages can be refueled and flown again, which is key to cutting launch costs. That matters for Starlink, where each V3 satellite is expected to carry roughly 10 times the download capacity of the V2 Mini satellites flying today, and for Starmind, SpaceX’s planned constellation of AI compute satellites.
It matters for NASA too. Starship is the lunar lander for the Artemis program, and reaching the Moon requires refilling a ship in orbit using several tanker flights. That plan only works if Starships can fly again and again. Musk has said he expects Starship to reach a weekly launch cadence in the first half of 2027.
Investors are paying attention. Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas wrote this week that a catch of both stages would likely be “a material positive” for SpaceX stock.
The last Starship flight in September reached orbit for the first time but ended after about three hours with a splashdown in the Pacific, short of its planned 10 hours, after some engines shut down. Since then, Booster 22 has completed a full 33 engine static fire and Ship 42 a six engine firing, as Teslarati previously reported. As of Friday morning, SpaceX was still waiting on the FAA to approve a license change covering the ship’s return over land.
Elon Musk
Tesla and SpaceX merger talks hit a new stage, and one hurdle remains
Tesla and SpaceX merger talks are reportedly advancing, and a deal could arrive by December.
Tesla and SpaceX are moving closer to a combination, with a deal announcement possible as soon as December, Bloomberg reported on Thursday, citing people familiar with the matter. The companies have also discussed a scenario in which the announcement slips into early 2027.
Boards and advisers on both sides are now working through the terms of the deal and the governance structure of the combined company, according to the report. One open item is how many SpaceX shares Tesla investors would receive. Bloomberg had previously reported that the two companies were aiming to announce a deal in the first half of next year and close it before the end of President Donald Trump’s term, so a December announcement would pull that schedule forward by months.
Tesla shares rose as much as 1.9% to $398.35 after the report, while SpaceX gained 0.6% to $140.63. SpaceX carries a market value of about $1.9 trillion following its June IPO, and Tesla is valued at about $1.55 trillion, which would make a combination the largest corporate deal on record. Neither company responded to requests for comment.
The talks became official on October 20, when Elon Musk said on SpaceX’s third quarter earnings call that both companies had formed special committees of independent directors to study a merger, as Teslarati reported. Musk said he could not take part because he is “a conflicted party” and called the process “an odd kabuki dance.” He also noted that Tesla would need approval from 50 percent of all outstanding shares, a bar the company missed in 2025 when a board declassification proposal won support from only 39.4 percent.
China remains the biggest structural problem. Bloomberg’s sources said the companies still need to work out how to isolate Tesla’s large and profitable manufacturing business in China from SpaceX’s U.S. government and defense contracts. JPMorgan analyst Rajat Gupta described those two factors last month as “key dynamics that are at odds with each other” for regulatory and shareholder approval. Musk has repeatedly said Tesla has no plans to separate its China business, a position he restated in August after ARK Invest predicted a merger announcement before the end of the year.
Washington adds another layer. Democrats took control of Congress in this month’s midterms and have pledged to investigate Musk’s business and political activities, which could bring added scrutiny to a deal involving one of the Pentagon’s most important launch and satellite contractors.
The report also lands three weeks before Tesla’s December 3 annual meeting at Giga Texas. That ballot has only three items, led by the re-election of Musk, board chair Robyn Denholm and JB Straubel, and includes no merger proposal. Any deal announced in December would likely require a separate special meeting for Tesla shareholders to vote on it.
The two companies already share a growing list of projects, including the Terafab semiconductor plant in Texas. Tesla’s next generation Roadster, which uses cold gas thrusters built on SpaceX hardware, turned up on display at SpaceX headquarters last month and has become one of the clearest public examples of that overlap.
SpaceX Starship Flight 15: How to watch the double catch attempt
Tesla trims Model Y offerings as All-Wheel-Drive gets the axe
