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.
News
Tesla (TSLA) receives “Buy” rating and $551 PT from Canaccord Genuity
He also maintained a “Buy” rating for TSLA stock over the company’s improving long-term outlook, which is driven by autonomy and robotics.
Canaccord Genuity analyst George Gianarikas raised his Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) price target from $482 to $551. He also maintained a “Buy” rating for TSLA stock over the company’s improving long-term outlook, which is driven by autonomy and robotics.
The analyst’s updated note
Gianarikas lowered his 4Q25 delivery estimates but pointed to several positive factors in the Tesla story. He noted that EV adoption in emerging markets is gaining pace, and progress in FSD and the Robotaxi rollout in 2026 represent major upside drivers. Further progress in the Optimus program next year could also add more momentum for the electric vehicle maker.
“Overall, yes, 4Q25 delivery expectations are being revised lower. However, the reset in the US EV market is laying the groundwork for a more durable and attractive long-term demand environment.
“At the same time, EV penetration in emerging markets is accelerating, reinforcing Tesla’s potential multi‑year growth runway beyond the US. Global progress in FSD and the anticipated rollout of a larger robotaxi fleet in 2026 are increasingly important components of the Tesla equity story and could provide sentiment tailwinds,” the analyst wrote.
Tesla’s busy 2026
The upcoming year would be a busy one for Tesla, considering the company’s plans and targets. The autonomous two-seat Cybercab has been confirmed to start production sometime in Q2 2026, as per Elon Musk during the 2025 Annual Shareholder Meeting.
Apart from this, Tesla is also expected to unveil the next-generation Roadster on April 1, 2026. Tesla is also expected to start high-volume production of the Tesla Semi in Nevada next year.
Apart from vehicle launches, Tesla has expressed its intentions to significantly ramp the rollout of FSD to several regions worldwide, such as Europe. Plans are also underway to launch more Robotaxi networks in several more key areas across the United States.
News
Waymo sues Santa Monica over order to halt overnight charging sessions
In its complaint, Waymo argued that its self-driving cars’ operations do not constitute a public nuisance, and compliance with the city’s order would cause the company irreparable harm.
Waymo has filed a lawsuit against the City of Santa Monica in Los Angeles County Superior Court, seeking to block an order that requires the company to cease overnight charging at two facilities.
In its complaint, Waymo argued that its self-driving cars’ operations do not constitute a public nuisance, and compliance with the city’s order would cause the company irreparable harm.
Nuisance claims
As noted in a report from the Los Angeles Times, Waymo’s two charging sites at Euclid Street and Broadway have operated for about a year, supporting the company’s growing fleet with round-the-clock activity. Unfortunately, this has also resulted in residents in the area reportedly being unable to sleep due to incessant beeping from self-driving taxis that are moving in and out of the charging stations around the clock.
Frustrated residents have protested against the Waymos by blocking the vehicles’ paths, placing cones, and “stacking” cars to create backups. This has also resulted in multiple calls to the police.
Last month, the city issued an order to Waymo and its charging partner, Voltera, to cease overnight operations at the charging locations, stating that the self-driving vehicles’ activities at night were a public nuisance. A December 15 meeting yielded no agreement on mitigations like software rerouting. Waymo proposed changes, but the city reportedly insisted that nothing would satisfy the irate residents.
“We are disappointed that the City has chosen an adversarial path over a collaborative one. The City’s position has been to insist that no actions taken or proposed by Waymo would satisfy the complaining neighbors and therefore must be deemed insufficient,” a Waymo spokesperson stated.
Waymo pushes back
In its legal complaint, Waymo stated that its “activities at the Broadway Facilities do not constitute a public nuisance.” The company also noted that it “faces imminent and irreparable harm to its operations, employees, and customers” from the city’s order. The suit also stated that the city was fully aware that the Voltera charging sites would be operating around the clock to support Waymo’s self-driving taxis.
The company highlighted over one million trips in Santa Monica since launch, with more than 50,000 rides starting or ending there in November alone. Waymo also criticized the city for adopting a contentious strategy against businesses.
“The City of Santa Monica’s recent actions are inconsistent with its stated goal of attracting investment. At a time when the City faces a serious fiscal crisis, officials are choosing to obstruct properly permitted investment rather than fostering a ‘ready for business’ environment,” Waymo stated.
News
Tesla FSD v14.2.2 is getting rave reviews from drivers
So far, early testers have reported buttery-smooth drives with confident performance, even at night or on twisty roads.
Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised) v14.2.2 is receiving positive reviews from owners, with several drivers praising the build’s lack of hesitation during lane changes and its smoother decision-making, among others.
The update, which started rolling out on Monday, also adds features like dynamic arrival pin adjustment. So far, early testers have reported buttery-smooth drives with confident performance, even at night or on twisty roads.
Owners highlight major improvements
Longtime Tesla owner and FSD user @BLKMDL3 shared a detailed 10-hour impression of FSD v14.2.2, noting that the system exhibited “zero lane change hesitation” and “extremely refined” lane choices. He praised Mad Max mode’s performance, stellar parking in locations including ticket dispensers, and impressive canyon runs even in dark conditions.
Fellow FSD user Dan Burkland reported an hour of FSD v14.2.2’s nighttime driving with “zero hesitations” and “buttery smooth” confidence reminiscent of Robotaxi rides in areas such as Austin, Texas. Veteran FSD user Whole Mars Catalog also demonstrated voice navigation via Grok, while Tesla owner Devin Olsen completed a nearly two-hour drive with FSD v14.2.2 in heavy traffic and rain with strong performance.
Closer to unsupervised
FSD has been receiving rave reviews, even from Tesla’s competitors. Xpeng CEO He Xiaopeng, for one, offered fresh praise for FSD v14.2 after visiting Silicon Valley. Following extended test drives of Tesla vehicles running the latest FSD software, He stated that the system has made major strides, reinforcing his view that Tesla’s approach to autonomy is indeed the proper path towards autonomy.
According to He, Tesla’s FSD has evolved from a smooth Level 2 advanced driver assistance system into what he described as a “near-Level 4” experience in terms of capabilities. While acknowledging that areas of improvement are still present, the Xpeng CEO stated that FSD’s current iteration significantly surpasses last year’s capabilities. He also reiterated his belief that Tesla’s strategy of using the same autonomous software and hardware architecture across private vehicles and robotaxis is the right long-term approach, as it would allow users to bypass intermediate autonomy stages and move closer to Level 4 functionality.
Tesla (TSLA) receives “Buy” rating and $551 PT from Canaccord Genuity
Waymo sues Santa Monica over order to halt overnight charging sessions
