News
Musk calls out SpaceX rival for receiving billion dollar subsidy, ULA head fires back
Following an intriguing SpaceX testimony before Senate committees in Washington D.C., Musk took to Twitter to share some thoughts on the state of the launch marketplace and SpaceX’s place within it. It didn’t take long for him to relate a somewhat common critique of the United Launch Alliance, SpaceX’s only American competition.
Sorry. That is simply not true. There is no "billion dollar subsidy". Amazing that this myth persists.
— Tory Bruno (@torybruno) July 14, 2017
Other orgs shd also develop reusable orbital rockets. If an airplane co had reusable airplanes, buying single use airplanes wd seem crazy. pic.twitter.com/OJotlGmPHt
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 13, 2017
Tory Bruno, President and Chief Executive of ULA, responded with gloves off just a few hours later, deeming the implied existence of such a subsidy nothing more than a “[persistent] myth”. He spent fifteen or so minutes replying to skeptical and inquisitive followers on Twitter, stating that the Wikipedia paragraph on the subject was incorrect. Bruno was steadfast in his response saying that he had publicly testified on the public procurement process before Congress (he did, and he did not defer on the term “subsidy”), and he adamantly refused to back down on his statement that such a subsidy only existed in mythology.
For better or for worse, Bruno is correct to a large extent. In fact, he published a full editorial on the controversial subject in the canonical SpaceNews Magazine. The ELC (EELV (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle) Launch Contract) is the source of this controversy, and while not quite a full billion dollars, the FY2016 ELC contract was for $860 million.
SpaceX has admittedly been chronically doubted and mistreated in the realm of government contracting, and ULA has been less than perfectly civil in the past. Simply by existing, SpaceX in effect disrupted what was a American launch industry monopoly held between Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Those two companies merged their space endeavors approximately 11 years ago and have since been the United Launch Alliance. For reasons that do make a bit of sense but are still mildly obtuse, the United States Air Force chose to purchase ULA launch vehicles and the services that make the launch of those vehicles possible separately. The main given reason for this choice, as explored in Bruno’s editorial, is to give the Air Force added flexibility.
As discussed in the 2016 ELC contract itself, another large need for this type of funding lies in the maintenance of a large workforce, and the constant depreciation of both the Atlas and Delta families of launch vehicles. The Delta family, known mainly for the large Delta IV Heavy, is almost never utilized at this point in time, with Atlas being both more cost effective and more reliable. Regardless, due to contracting, ULA is required to maintain both the workforce and facilities necessary to produce and launch Delta vehicles, in spite of having nearly no “business” thanks to Atlas V. Maintaining a workforce and set of facilities that is in part or whole redundant is not efficient or cost-effective, but it is contractually required. So, while the ELC contract Musk deemed a nearly pointless subsidy does have some major flaws, inefficiencies, and illogical aspects, it is not technically correct to label it a subsidy.
-
- Operated by the same company responsible for the F-35, Atlas 5 is a highly reliable and equally expensive rocket. (ULA)
-
- Delta IV Heavy, the only current American heavy lift launch vehicle in service. Once operational, Falcon Heavy will be capable of launching nearly double the payload to GTO. (USAF/ULA, 2013)
Without the actual contract information, it is also difficult to know if ULA would still receive this contractual payment in lieu of conducting actual launches. Bruno frames it in such a way that it sounds like the U.S. government modifies the payment size based on the number and type of required launches for a given year. If the multi-year agreement means that launches delayed many months or more can still be swapped out at no additional charge, then this does indeed make a certain amount of sense. The array of discussion on the subject nevertheless fails to explore the consequences of launch provider-side issues, the likes of which ULA and Atlas 5 experienced earlier this year, resulting in some amount of delays.
We do that too, but for free
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 13, 2017
While there can be no doubt that the actual gritty details of the ELC contracts deal explicitly with such possible outcomes, the lack of transparency (be that as a result of publicly inaccessible contract details or highly obtuse and lingo-heavy contract language) ultimately frames ELC contracts and the vehemence with which ULA defends them as a wasteful, overly complex, and unnecessary alternative to simply offering a fixed product with services inherently included, as SpaceX does.
Tesla has apparently revised the policy it previously had listed for Full Self-Driving transfers on the newest All-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck that the company had sold for a steal price of just $59,000 earlier this year.
After initially stating that customers who bought the pickup would be able to transfer FSD purchases, Tesla recently changed the language in those terms and conditions to reflect that this would no longer be the case.
Tesla launches new Cybertruck trim with more features than ever for a low price
The adjustment in terminology has caused a handful of orderers to cancel their reservations due to the loss of FSD transfer:
Just cancelled my 59k CT order today. My screenshot from that day of order (feb 20th) clearly shows that it would be eligible.
Terms were retroactively modified. Our 2020 Y and 2023 S are just fine for now. pic.twitter.com/D9PFnId1B4
— Ryan Scanlan 👥 (@Xenius) June 8, 2026
Tesla said orders for the new Cybertruck AWD must be placed by March 31, 2026, to qualify for the FSD transfer. The language in the document from earlier this year explicitly states that they “may qualify” for the transfer program, but the date of March 31 is explicitly mentioned.
Additionally, Tesla Delivery Advisors reached out to some orderers of the AWD Cybertruck, who were told there was “an update to the eligibility of the Full Self-Driving (Supervised) transfer.” Tesla stated they could:
- proceed without the transfer,
- upgrade to a Premium or Cyberbeast trim and request an FSD Transfer
- cancel the order and be refunded the $250 order fee.
Tesla turning around and changing these terms will undoubtedly result in a handful of cancellations on the part of those who have placed an order for this truck. They could pay $99 per month for an FSD subscription, which is now the only option available, but having purchased the suite outright on another vehicle and being told the transfer policy would be upheld, only to have it cancelled, is a tough pill to swallow.
These moves were also made by Tesla just before deliveries were set to begin on the Cybertruck AWD configuration. Reservation holders have started receiving VINs for their trucks, and Tesla is preparing to hand over the first units.
It’s a disappointing move from Tesla that will undoubtedly make some of its fans who have bought the truck frustrated.
In the world of autonomous ride-hailing, there are only a handful of names. Among those few companies lies a strategy play by each to keep the opposition on their toes. Tesla, on the other hand, already tipped its hand at where it is headed next.
Tesla has signaled its next major push in the autonomous ride-hailing market by filing for an Autonomous Vehicle Network Company permit in Nevada (Docket 26-05015). Through Tesla Robotaxi, LLC, the company seeks approval to operate up to 5,000 robotaxis in Clark County, including high-traffic areas like Las Vegas and Henderson airports, within the first 12 months of launch.
This filing builds on Tesla’s earlier testing approvals from the Nevada DMV in September 2025 and preparations such as maintenance hubs in the Las Vegas area. Nevada represents a strategic expansion into a major tourist destination, where high visitor volumes could drive strong utilization and showcase the reliability of unsupervised autonomy to a broad audience.
We’d have to assume this means Tesla is targeting Las Vegas, and it’s a great move from a business perspective.
Vegas is such a melting pot of people from all around the country and the world. It will expose people from all corners of the globe to Tesla’s autonomy capabilities https://t.co/Qz3fQmhULF pic.twitter.com/Du5pj2RyWC
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 6, 2026
Approval would mark a significant step toward commercial operations in a new state, following progress in Texas.
Tesla’s shareholder decks and earnings calls have clearly outlined these ambitions. In the Q4 2025 shareholder deck, the company listed planned Robotaxi coverage for the first half of 2026, explicitly naming Las Vegas alongside Phoenix, Miami, Orlando, and Tampa, with Dallas and Houston already advancing. Austin was noted as “ramping unsupervised,” while the Bay Area remained in safety-driver mode.
By Q1 2026, the deck updated statuses to reflect launches in Dallas and Houston, with “preparations underway” for the remaining cities, including Las Vegas. Paid Robotaxi miles nearly doubled sequentially in Q1, underscoring momentum even as broader timelines adjusted slightly for regulatory and operational readiness.
On earnings calls, CEO Elon Musk and executives have emphasized a phased rollout prioritizing safety. Unsupervised operations in Texas have shown strong results with no reported accidents or injuries in the program. Tesla continues groundwork in additional major U.S. metros through testing and permitting, positioning it to scale quickly once approvals clear.
This Nevada move aligns with Tesla’s vision of transforming from an EV maker into an AI and robotics leader. The forthcoming Cybercab, which started production at Giga Texas in April, is expected to eventually dominate the fleet, replacing many Model Y vehicles and driving down costs to enable affordable rides.
For investors and the industry, this signals Tesla’s intent to dominate key Sun Belt and tourist markets where weather, regulations, and demand favor rapid scaling. Success in Las Vegas could validate the model for denser urban and high-tourism environments, accelerating the shift toward a future where robotaxis generate meaningful revenue.
Las Vegas will also expand knowledge among the general public at Tesla’s capabilities, helping people experience driverless ride-hailing from several companies during their time on The Strip.
Investor's Corner
Tesla just did something in South Korea that no foreign carmaker has ever done
Tesla’s Model Y just became South Korea’s best-selling car, beating every domestic model in May.
Tesla did something last month that no foreign car has ever done in South Korea by outselling every vehicle in the country, domestic or imported, finishing the month with Model Y as the single best-selling car across the entire Korean market. According to data from the Korea Automobile Importers and Distributors Association released on June 4, the Model Y recorded 8,762 units sold in May, pushing the Kia Sorento into second place at 7,836 units and the Hyundai Grandeur into third at 5,183 units. It is the first time an imported vehicle has outsold every domestic model on a single-month basis.
Tesla imported 10,866 cars into South Korea in May, making it the top import brand for the fourth consecutive month. BMW followed at 6,555 units, less than two-thirds of Tesla’s total, while BYD registered just 1,032 units. The combined domestic sales of GM Korea, Renault Korea, and KG Mobility last month totaled just 7,019 units, meaning a single Tesla model outsold three Korean automakers combined.
Tesla FSD earns high praise in South Korea’s real-world autonomous driving test
South Korea has historically been one of the hardest markets for foreign automakers to crack. Hyundai and Kia together control close to 70% of the overall market and carry deep consumer loyalty built over decades. Tesla’s path into this market was an uphill battle due to high import duties, limited service infrastructure, and early skepticism about charging networks. In 2024, the Model Y was the best-selling imported car in South Korea with 18,717 units for the full year. By 2025, after the Juniper refresh, it cleared 50,000 units and took the top spot among all EVs.
Year to date, Tesla has a 250.8% increase in the country over the same period last year, and now holds a 30.8% share of the entire imported car segment for 2026. EVs as a category represented 48.6% of all imported passenger car registrations in May. As Teslarati has reported, the Juniper refresh brought meaningful improvements to range, interior quality, and ride refinement that addressed the most common criticisms of earlier Model Y versions. Those upgrades appear to be resonating in markets like South Korea where buyers compare Tesla directly against high end domestic competitors.
Tesla revises FSD transfer policy on new Cybertruck trim, causing cancellations
Tesla tipped its hand at where Robotaxi is heading next
