Connect with us

SpaceX

DeepSpace: A critical juncture for SpaceX, Blue Origin, ULA, other players

Published

on

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.
  • 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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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)

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Comments

SpaceX

T-Mobile cuts Starlink Cellular service price, eyes broader access

Published

on

(Credit: T-Mobile)

T-Mobile cut the price of its Starlink cellular service to $10 per month as it gears up for a July launch and aims to broaden access. The carrier also seeks FCC approval to extend Starlink cellular service to legacy devices, citing life-saving potential.

“After gauging the incredible response from customers—including broader than expected interest from competitor’s customers—we’ve set our final launch pricing for T-Satellite at just $10 a month,” T-Mobile CEO Mike Sievert said during a Thursday earnings call.

The $10 price applies to T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon customers. Non-T-Mobile users can access the service via a downloadable eSIM. “This gen one pricing will be good for at least a year,” Sievert added.

Initially, T-Mobile announced during a Super Bowl ad that the Starlink beta service would be free for its highest-tier plan until year-end. Other T-Mobile users would pay $15 monthly, while customers from other carriers would be charged $20.

Advertisement

An early adopter discount briefly offered T-Mobile users a $10 rate. The new universal $10 pricing reflects T-Mobile’s aggressive push to outpace AT&T and Verizon, which are developing satellite services with partners like AST SpaceMobile.

Starlink Cellular service, powered by over 560 satellites, functions as an orbiting cell tower, enabling text-based messaging in rural and remote areas. Data downloads and voice calls may follow later this year.

T-Mobile’s filing with the Federal Communications Commission requests expanded access for legacy devices, arguing that current rules limiting service to newer phones exclude many users. The carrier emphasized that broader access could enhance connectivity in critical situations.

T-Mobile’s price cut and FCC push signal a strategic effort to dominate the satellite connectivity market. By leveraging SpaceX’s Starlink constellation, the carrier aims to deliver affordable, widespread service while addressing regulatory hurdles. The move could reshape how rural users access mobile networks, especially as competitors ramp up their satellite offerings. With the July launch approaching, T-Mobile’s focus on affordability and inclusivity positions it as a key player in the evolving satellite communication landscape.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

SpaceX

SpaceX’s Starbase nears city status with voter support

With 90% voter support expected, Starbase City could soon become reality. The space-age town will support SpaceX’s mission to Mars.

Published

on

(Credit: SpaceX/X)

Starbase is on the cusp of becoming the nation’s newest municipality. Local voters are casting ballots and deciding whether to incorporate the Starbase community. The voting process, which runs until May 3, 2025, could transform the unincorporated area into a space-age city.

Starbase is located in Cameron County’s Rio Grande Valley, 25 miles east of Brownsville, Texas. It is home to SpaceX’s Starship facility and houses fewer than 300 residents, including 120 children.

Elon Musk relocated SpaceX’s headquarters from Hawthorne, California, to Starbase in 2024, envisioning a futuristic town for his workforce. Musk pitched the concept of a space-age city four years ago and has repeatedly talked about it over the years.

The proposed Starbase city would span 1.5 square miles—roughly the size of New York’s Central Park. It would potentially house 3,500 SpaceX employees. A petition filed earlier this year triggered the vote to establish Starbase as a Type C municipality. SpaceX believes Starbase needs to be incorporated to support its mission to travel to Mars.

The vote is expected to pass, with 90% of the 279 eligible voters expected to favor establishing a Starbase city. Voters will also select a mayor and two commissioners for the new city. Bobby Peden is currently the only candidate for Mayor of Starbase. Meanwhile, Jordan Buss and Jenna Petrzelka are running for commissioner.

Advertisement

Starbase’s incorporation would mark a bold step in Musk’s vision, creating a hub tailored to SpaceX’s Mars ambitions. As voting continues, the outcome could redefine the Rio Grande Valley, establishing a unique, company-driven municipality centered on space exploration.

Continue Reading

SpaceX

Ukraine seeks Starlink alternatives from the EU

Published

on

(Credit: SpaceX)

Ukraine is exploring EU satellite alternatives to Starlink, driven by concerns over Elon Musk’s unpredictability. Starlink remains vital for Ukraine’s battlefield connectivity and cannot be easily replaced. While the European Union has started developing Starlink alternatives, they have not quite reached SpaceX’s capacity to provide internet connection.

Starlink’s Critical Role and Vulnerabilities

Starlink’s 7,000+ satellite network provides essential connectivity for Ukraine’s military. However, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk’s influence has raised strategic concerns.

“Elon Musk is, in fact, the guardian of Ukraine’s connectivity on the battlefield. And that’s a strategic vulnerability,” warns Arthur De Liedekerke, Senior Director of European Affairs for Rasmussen Global.

Opinions of Musk have started to influence dealings with any of his companies, including SpaceX and Tesla. Starlink has not escaped criticism due to its relationship with Musk, resulting in a few governments seeking alternatives to SpaceX’s internet services.

Advertisement

For instance, the German military has announced plans to develop a Starlink alternative. Kyiv and the EU are also seeking options to reduce reliance on Starlink.

EU’s Govsatcom as a Near-Term Option

Member of the EU Parliament (MEP) Christophe Grudler pitched the European Union’s Govsatcom system as a viable alternative to Starlink for Ukraine.

“It is clear that if Starlink decides to cut the signal today, we have options, in particular with Govsatcom, which is the European network that we have brought into service and which, from June, will make it possible to supplement Starlink’s missing signal in Ukraine, if necessary,” he said.

Grudler affirmed: “The European Union is very committed to helping Ukraine, so there would certainly be agreement from all the Member States to come to Ukraine’s aid if it no longer had a Starlink signal in the future.”

However, De Liedekerke pointed out that GovSatcom was made for government use. He noted that “GoveSatcom is a governmental secure satellite communications and it’s essentially to provide reliable, secure, strategically autonomous networks for communication services between governments in the EU. It couldn’t replace the kind of battlefield connectivity that we’re discussing for Ukraine. So it’s not a silver bullet at the moment.”

Eutelsat’s Competitive Edge

Eutelsat, a Franco-British operator, offers a low-Earth orbit network with 630 satellites and 35 geostationary ones, though it trails Starlink’s scale. It has 2,000 terminals deployed in Ukraine and 14,000 more planned to deploy. Starlink has 40,000 terminals in Ukraine, used by the military and civilians.

Advertisement

Price is another factor to consider when seeking a Starlink alternative. Eutelsat’s €9,000 terminals are pricier than Starlink’s €500 units.

“Eutelsat is our European champion, one that has convincing functioning solutions. And one that we need to be able to support through funding and political will,” De Liedekerke said, noting its political independence from the U.S.

Iris2 as a Future Solution

The EU’s Iris2 project is another Starlink alternative Ukraine might consider. The Iris2 project is a 290-satellite constellation, promising secure, low-latency connectivity by 2030, with partial operations by 2028.

“From 2028, we will have an operational Iris2 constellation that will be able to provide telecommunications services to all the Member States that so wish. I would add that this will be the first time we have had a constellation secured with post-quantum cryptography, so cyber-attacks will not be possible on this constellation. It will be a world first with an ultra-secure signal, which is not the case with the Starlink signal either,” Grudler said. ‘

Led by the SpaceRISE consortium, Iris2 offers a long-term alternative, though its timeline limits immediate impact.

Advertisement

Strategic Diversification

De Liedekerke has stressed the need for options aside from Starlink.

“It’s about having options. It’s about not having a single point of failure. It’s being able to say no to one and still be online. And today, we’re not in a situation where we can do that. We’ve let Ukraine’s war zone connectivity be in the hands of one man…that’s a strategic vulnerability.

By having options, by having alternatives, by diversifying our partnerships, we avoid that single point of failure.”

Ukraine’s pursuit of EU solutions aims to ensure battlefield resilience. However, the EU has some way to go before it can match Starlink’s reach.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending