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 launches new Model Y interior option
Produced at Gigafactory Shanghai, the update applies to all five-seat Premium Model Y configurations and started being seen on customer deliveries this week. The move marks the first major interior refresh for the compact crossover since its global debut.
Tesla has rolled out a striking new interior choice for its best-selling Model Y in China, replacing the long-familiar white cabin with a fresh option: Zen Grey.
Produced at Gigafactory Shanghai, the update applies to all five-seat Premium Model Y configurations and started being seen on customer deliveries this week. The move marks the first major interior refresh for the compact crossover since its global debut.
The Zen Grey interior swaps the classic black-and-white contrast for a softer, more unified palette. Seats, door panels, and center console trim now feature a warm light-grey tone that covers far more surface area than before.
Previously, black accents on the console, door handles, and lower dashboard are now color-matched in the same pebbled vegan leather, creating a brighter, less clinical cabin.
Tesla describes the material as durable and easy to maintain while delivering a noticeably more premium feel. Early photos and videos from Chinese owners show the new shade reflecting natural light beautifully, giving the spacious Model Y an even airier, more inviting atmosphere without sacrificing the minimalist design customers expect:
🚨 First look at Tesla’s new Zen Grey interior, which differs slightly in tone and in placement compared to the now discontinued White Interior https://t.co/rRRuEOrbm4 pic.twitter.com/p7uyNfO3xY
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 13, 2026
The change is not an added-cost upgrade but a direct replacement for the discontinued white interior on Shanghai-built vehicles. Customers configuring a new Model Y in China, Hong Kong, or Macau now see Zen Grey as the default light-colored choice.
The update also flows to export markets supplied by Giga Shanghai, including Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines. Tesla has used its Chinese factory as an innovation hub before, and executives appear to be testing broader appeal with this subtler, warmer tone that avoids the high-maintenance reputation sometimes associated with bright white leather.
Beyond the interior, the refreshed Model Y from Shanghai includes minor exterior tweaks such as blacked-out badges on some trims and optional dark 20-inch wheels.
These changes arrive as Tesla faces stiff competition from domestic EV makers in its largest market. By refreshing the Model Y’s cabin without raising prices, the company is signaling continued commitment to value and constant improvement.
With over 1.2 million Model Y units already on Chinese roads, the Zen Grey launch gives existing owners a fresh talking point and new buyers another reason to choose Tesla. As deliveries ramp up this month, the updated interior is expected to become the dominant light-colored choice across the Asia-Pacific region.
Tesla has not yet confirmed whether the Zen Grey will reach Fremont, Austin, or Berlin-built Model Ys, but Shanghai’s track record suggests the option could spread quickly if customer feedback remains strong.
Elon Musk
Tesla launches 200mph Model S “Gold” Signature in invite-only purchase
Tesla’s final 350-unit Signature Edition closes the book on two cars that changed everything.
Tesla has announced a super limited Signature Edition run of 250 Model S Plaid and 100 Model X Plaid units as an invite only purchase in a bid to give its original flagship vehicles a proper send-off.
When the Model S first launched in 2012, the first 1,000 units sold were “Signature” editions that required a $40,000 deposit and cost nearly $100,000 each. Those early buyers were Tesla’s first real believers. This new Signature Edition deliberately echoes that moment, bookending a 14-year run with numbered collector hardware.
Both models are finished in an exclusive Garnet Red paint not available on any current Tesla production vehicle, with gold Tesla T badges up front, a gold Plaid badge and Signature badge at the rear, and a white Alcantara interior featuring gold Plaid seat badges, gold piping, Signature-marked door sills, and a numbered dash plate. The Model S adds carbon ceramic brakes with gold calipers. Every unit ships with Tesla’s Luxe Package, bundling Full Self-Driving (Supervised), four years of Premium Service, free lifetime Supercharging, and a Signature Edition key fob. Both are priced at $159,420, a roughly $35,000 premium over standard Plaid inventory.
The discontinuation is part of a broader strategic shift. At Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call, Musk described the decision as “slightly sad” but necessary, saying: “It’s time to basically bring the Model S and X programs to an end with an honorable discharge, because we’re really moving into a future that is based on autonomy.”
The Fremont factory floor that built these cars is being converted to manufacture Optimus humanoid robots, with a target of one million units annually.
Elon Musk
Tesla FSD in Europe vs. US: It’s not what you think
Tesla FSD is approved in the Netherlands, but the European version differs from what US drivers use.
On April 10, 2026, the Dutch vehicle authority RDW granted Tesla the first European type approval for Full Self-Driving Supervised, making the Netherlands the first country on the continent to authorize Tesla’s semi-autonomous system for customer use on public roads.
As Teslarati reported, the RDW approval followed 18 months of testing, more than 1.6 million kilometers driven on EU roads, 13,000 customer ride-alongs, and documentation covering over 400 compliance requirements. Tesla Europe had been running public demo drives through cities like Amsterdam and Eindhoven since early 2026, giving passengers their first experience of the system on European streets.
The European version of FSD is not the same software US drivers use. The RDW’s own statement is direct, noting that the software versions and functionalities in the US and Europe “are therefore not comparable one-to-one.” We’ve compile a table below that captures the most significant differences between US-based Tesla FSD vs. European Tesla FSD that’s based on what regulators and Tesla have publicly confirmed.
| Feature | FSD US | FSD Europe (Netherlands) |
| Regulatory framework | Self-certification, post-market oversight | Pre-market type approval required (UN R-171 + Article 39) |
| Hands requirement | Hands-off permitted on highway | Hands must be available to take over immediately |
| Auto turning from stop lights | Available — navigates intersections, turns, and traffic signals autonomously | Available in EU build — confirmed in Amsterdam demo footage handling unprotected turns and signalized intersections |
| Driving modes | Multiple profiles including a more aggressive “Mad Max” mode | EU build is more conservative by default and errs on the side of restraint when it cannot confirm the limit |
| Summon | Available — Smart Summon navigates parking lots to driver | Status unclear — not confirmed as part of the RDW-approved feature set; urban FSD approval targeted separately for 2027 |
| Driver monitoring | Camera-based eye tracking | Stricter continuous monitoring with more frequent intervention alerts |
| Software version | FSD v14.3 | EU-specific builds that must be separately validated by RDW |
| Geographic restriction | US, Canada, China, Mexico, Australia, NZ, South Korea | Netherlands only; EU-wide vote pending summer 2026 |
| Subscription price | $99/month | €99/month |
| Full urban FSD scope | Available | Partial — separate urban application planned for 2027 |
The approval comes as Tesla is under real pressure to grow FSD subscriptions globally. Musk’s 2025 CEO compensation package, approved by shareholders, includes a milestone requiring 10 million active FSD subscriptions as one condition for his stock awards to vest. Tesla hit one million subscriptions during its Q4 2025 earnings call, which is a meaningful start, but still a long way from the target. Opening Europe as a market for subscriptions, rather than just hardware sales, directly accelerates that number.
Tesla has said it anticipates EU-wide recognition of the Dutch approval during summer 2026, which would extend FSD access to Germany, France, and other major markets through a mutual recognition process without each country repeating the full 18-month review. That timeline is Tesla’s projection, not a confirmed regulatory outcome. As Musk acknowledged at Davos in January 2026, “We hope to get Supervised Full Self-Driving approval in Europe, hopefully next month.”














