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.
Elon Musk
Musk bankers looking to trim xAI debt after SpaceX merger: report
xAI has built up $18 billion in debt over the past few years, with some of this being attributed to the purchase of social media platform Twitter (now X) and the creation of the AI development company. A new financing deal would help trim some of the financial burden that is currently present ahead of the plan to take SpaceX public sometime this year.
Elon Musk’s bankers are looking to trim the debt that xAI has taken on over the past few years, following the company’s merger with SpaceX, a new report from Bloomberg says.
xAI has built up $18 billion in debt over the past few years, with some of this being attributed to the purchase of social media platform Twitter (now X) and the creation of the AI development company. Bankers are trying to create some kind of financing plan that would trim “some of the heavy interest costs” that come with the debt.
The financing deal would help trim some of the financial burden that is currently present ahead of the plan to take SpaceX public sometime this year. Musk has essentially confirmed that SpaceX would be heading toward an IPO last month.
The report indicates that Morgan Stanley is expected to take the leading role in any financing plan, citing people familiar with the matter. Morgan Stanley, along with Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and JPMorgan Chase & Co., are all expected to be in the lineup of banks leading SpaceX’s potential IPO.
Since Musk acquired X, he has also had what Bloomberg says is a “mixed track record with debt markets.” Since purchasing X a few years ago with a $12.5 billion financing package, X pays “tens of millions in interest payments every month.”
That debt is held by Bank of America, Barclays, Mitsubishi, UFJ Financial, BNP Paribas SA, Mizuho, and Société Générale SA.
X merged with xAI last March, which brought the valuation to $45 billion, including the debt.
SpaceX announced the merger with xAI earlier this month, a major move in Musk’s plan to alleviate Earth of necessary data centers and replace them with orbital options that will be lower cost:
“In the long term, space-based AI is obviously the only way to scale. To harness even a millionth of our Sun’s energy would require over a million times more energy than our civilization currently uses! The only logical solution, therefore, is to transport these resource-intensive efforts to a location with vast power and space. I mean, space is called “space” for a reason.”
The merger has many advantages, but one of the most crucial is that it positions the now-merged companies to fund broader goals, fueled by revenue from the Starlink expansion, potential IPO, and AI-driven applications that could accelerate the development of lunar bases.
News
Tesla pushes Full Self-Driving outright purchasing option back in one market
Tesla announced last month that it would eliminate the ability to purchase the Full Self-Driving software outright, instead opting for a subscription-only program, which will require users to pay monthly.
Tesla has pushed the opportunity to purchase the Full Self-Driving suite outright in one market: Australia.
The date remains February 14 in North America, but Tesla has pushed the date back to March 31, 2026, in Australia.
NEWS: Tesla is ending the option to buy FSD as a one-time outright purchase in Australia on March 31, 2026.
It still ends on Feb 14th in North America. https://t.co/qZBOztExVT pic.twitter.com/wmKRZPTf3r
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) February 13, 2026
Tesla announced last month that it would eliminate the ability to purchase the Full Self-Driving software outright, instead opting for a subscription-only program, which will require users to pay monthly.
If you have already purchased the suite outright, you will not be required to subscribe once again, but once the outright purchase option is gone, drivers will be required to pay the monthly fee.
The reason for the adjustment is likely due to the short period of time the Full Self-Driving suite has been available in the country. In North America, it has been available for years.
Tesla hits major milestone with Full Self-Driving subscriptions
However, Tesla just launched it just last year in Australia.
Full Self-Driving is currently available in seven countries: the United States, Canada, China, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea.
The company has worked extensively for the past few years to launch the suite in Europe. It has not made it quite yet, but Tesla hopes to get it launched by the end of this year.
In North America, Tesla is only giving customers one more day to buy the suite outright before they will be committed to the subscription-based option for good.
The price is expected to go up as the capabilities improve, but there are no indications as to when Tesla will be doing that, nor what type of offering it plans to roll out for owners.
Elon Musk
Starlink terminals smuggled into Iran amid protest crackdown: report
Roughly 6,000 units were delivered following January’s unrest.
The United States quietly moved thousands of Starlink terminals into Iran after authorities imposed internet shutdowns as part of its crackdown on protests, as per information shared by U.S. officials to The Wall Street Journal.
Roughly 6,000 units were delivered following January’s unrest, marking the first known instance of Washington directly supplying the satellite systems inside the country.
Iran’s government significantly restricted online access as demonstrations spread across the country earlier this year. In response, the U.S. purchased nearly 7,000 Starlink terminals in recent months, with most acquisitions occurring in January. Officials stated that funding was reallocated from other internet access initiatives to support the satellite deployment.
President Donald Trump was aware of the effort, though it remains unclear whether he personally authorized it. The White House has not issued a comment about the matter publicly.
Possession of a Starlink terminal is illegal under Iranian law and can result in significant prison time. Despite this, the WSJ estimated that tens of thousands of residents still rely on the satellite service to bypass state controls. Authorities have reportedly conducted inspections of private homes and rooftops to locate unauthorized equipment.
Earlier this year, Trump and Elon Musk discussed maintaining Starlink access for Iranians during the unrest. Tehran has repeatedly accused Washington of encouraging dissent, though U.S. officials have mostly denied the allegations.
The decision to prioritize Starlink sparked internal debate within U.S. agencies. Some officials argued that shifting resources away from Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) could weaken broader internet access efforts. VPNs had previously played a major role in keeping Iranians connected during earlier protest waves, though VPNs are not effective when the actual internet gets cut.
According to State Department figures, about 30 million Iranians used U.S.-funded VPN services during demonstrations in 2022. During a near-total blackout in June 2025, roughly one-fifth of users were still able to access limited connectivity through VPN tools.
Critics have argued that satellite access without VPN protection may expose users to geolocation risks. After funds were redirected to acquire Starlink equipment, support reportedly lapsed for two of five VPN providers operating in Iran.
A State Department official has stated that the U.S. continues to back multiple technologies, including VPNs alongside Starlink, to sustain people’s internet access amidst the government’s shutdowns.
Musk bankers looking to trim xAI debt after SpaceX merger: report
SpaceX launches Crew-12 on Falcon 9, lands first booster at new LZ-40 pad
