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.
Cybertruck
Tesla drops latest hint that new Cybertruck trim is selling like hotcakes
According to Tesla’s Online Design Studio, the new All-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck will now be delivered in April 2027. Earlier orders are still slated for early this Summer, but orders from here on forward are now officially pushed into next year:
Tesla’s new Cybertruck offering has had its delivery date pushed back once again. This is now the second time, and deliveries for the newest orders are now pushed well into 2027.
According to Tesla’s Online Design Studio, the new All-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck will now be delivered in April 2027. Earlier orders are still slated for early this Summer, but orders from here on forward are now officially pushed into next year:
🚨 Tesla has updated the $59,990 Cybertruck Dual Motor AWD’s estimated delivery date to April 2027.
First deliveries are still slated for June, but if you order it now, you’ll be waiting over a year.
Demand appears to be off the charts for the new Cybertruck and consumers are… pic.twitter.com/raDCCeC0zP
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 26, 2026
Just three days ago, the initial delivery date of June 2026 was pushed back to early Fall, and now, that date has officially moved to April 2027.
The fact that Tesla has had to push back deliveries once again proves one of two things: either Tesla has slow production plans for the new Cybertruck trim, or demand is off the charts.
Judging by how Tesla is already planning to raise the price based on demand in just a few days, it seems like the company knows it is giving a tremendous deal on this spec of Cybertruck, and units are moving quickly.
That points more toward demand and not necessarily to slower production plans, but it is not confirmed.
Tesla Cybertruck’s newest trim will undergo massive change in ten days, Musk says
Tesla is set to hike the price on March 1, so tomorrow will be the final day to grab the new Cybertruck trim for just $59,990.
It features:
- Dual Motor AWD w/ est. 325 mi of range
- Powered tonneau cover
- Bed outlets (2x 120V + 1x 240V) & Powershare capability
- Coil springs w/ adaptive damping
- Heated first-row seats w/ textile material that is easy to clean
- Steer-by-wire & Four Wheel Steering
- 6’ x 4’ composite bed
- Towing capacity of up to 7,500 lbs
- Powered frunk
Interestingly, the price offering is fairly close to what Tesla unveiled back in late 2019.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk outlines plan for first Starship tower catch attempt
Musk confirmed that Starship V3 Ship 1 (SN1) is headed for ground tests and expressed strong confidence in the updated vehicle design.
Elon Musk has clarified when SpaceX will first attempt to catch Starship’s upper stage with its launch tower. The CEO’s update provides the clearest teaser yet for the spacecraft’s recovery roadmap.
Musk shared the details in recent posts on X. In his initial post, Musk confirmed that Starship V3 Ship 1 (SN1) is headed for ground tests and expressed strong confidence in the updated vehicle design.
“Starship V3 SN1 headed for ground tests. I am highly confident that the V3 design will achieve full reusability,” Musk wrote.
In a follow-up post, Musk addressed when SpaceX would attempt to catch the upper stage using the launch tower’s robotic arms.
“Should note that SpaceX will only try to catch the ship with the tower after two perfect soft landings in the ocean. The risk of the ship breaking up over land needs to be very low,” Musk clarified.
His remarks suggest that SpaceX is deliberately reducing risk before attempting a tower catch of Starship’s upper stage. Such a milestone would mark a major step towards the full reuse of the Starship system.
SpaceX is currently targeting the first Starship V3 flight of 2026 this coming March. The spacecraft’s V3 iteration is widely viewed as a key milestone in SpaceX’s long-term strategy to make Starship fully reusable.Â
Starship V3 features a number of key upgrades over its previous iterations. The vehicle is equipped with SpaceX’s Raptor V3 engines, which are designed to deliver significantly higher thrust than earlier versions while reducing cost and weight.
The V3 design is also expected to be optimized for manufacturability, a critical step if SpaceX intends to scale the spacecraft’s production toward frequent launches for Starlink, lunar missions, and eventually Mars.
News
Tesla FSD (Supervised) could be approved in the Netherlands next month: Musk
Musk shared the update during a recent interview at Giga Berlin.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk shared that Full Self-Driving (FSD) could receive regulatory approval in the Netherlands as soon as March 20, potentially marking a major step forward for Tesla’s advanced driver-assistance rollout in Europe.
Musk shared the update during a recent interview at Giga Berlin, noting that the date was provided by local authorities.
“Tesla has the most advanced real-world AI, and hopefully, it will be approved soon in Europe. We’re told by the authorities that March 20th, it’ll be approved in the Netherlands,’ what I was told,” Musk stated.Â
“Hopefully, that date remains the same. But I think people in Europe are going to be pretty blown away by how good the Tesla car AI is in being able to drive.”
Tesla’s FSD system relies on vision-based neural networks trained on real-world driving data, allowing vehicles to navigate using cameras and AI rather than traditional sensor-heavy solutions.
The performance of FSD Supervised has so far been impressive. As per Tesla’s safety report, Full Self-Driving Supervised has already traveled 8.3 billion miles. So far, vehicles operating with FSD Supervised engaged recorded one major collision every 5,300,676 miles.
In comparison, Teslas driven manually with Active Safety systems recorded one major collision every 2,175,763 miles, while Teslas driven manually without Active Safety recorded one major collision every 855,132 miles. The U.S. average during the same period was one major collision every 660,164 miles.
If approval is granted on March 20, the Netherlands could become the first European market to greenlight Tesla’s latest supervised FSD (Supervised) software under updated regulatory frameworks. Tesla has been working to secure expanded FSD access across Europe, where regulatory standards differ significantly from those in the United States. Approval in the Netherlands would likely serve as a foundation for broader EU adoption, though additional country-level clearances may still be required.
Tesla drops latest hint that new Cybertruck trim is selling like hotcakes
Elon Musk outlines plan for first Starship tower catch attempt
