News
SpaceX may have signed a fairing agreement with ULA supplier RUAG (Update: no agreement)
According to unverified and speculative comments reportedly made to a member of the space industry by a RUAG spokesperson, the prominent aerospace supplier may have reached an agreement with SpaceX to manufacture a handful of larger payload fairings for future Falcon 9 and Heavy launches.
In the likely event that SpaceX is one of two contractors awarded a portion of several dozen US military launch contracts next year, the company will need to be able to cater to niche requirements, including accommodating unusually tall military satellites. Those satellites can be so tall that SpaceX’s own payload fairing – generally middle-of-the-pack relative to competitors’ offerings – may be too short, meaning that SpaceX will have to find ways around that minor shortcoming.
Update: Tim Chen has retracted his earlier comments and has stated that there is actually no agreement currently in place with SpaceX for RUAG to produce taller fairings out of its new Decatur, AL factory.
Additionally, ULA CEO Tory Bruno clarified that the company’s “[new fairing] has [ULA] intellectual property in its design and manufacture … [and] is currently planned only for use on Atlas and Vulcan”, meaning that any cooperation between SpaceX and RUAG would likely require a new production facility and a somewhat different fairing design.
“ULA’s new fairing, which is built in our factory in Decatur, has our intellectual property in its design and manufacture. This fairing is currently planned only for use on Atlas and Vulcan. You would want to ask RUAG about business they might have with their other customers.”
Tory Bruno, August 14th, 2019
Regardless of the veracity of these recent claims, it appears that SpaceX has three obvious responses at its disposal: design and build an entirely new variant of its universal Falcon fairing, purchase the necessary fairings from an established supplier, or bow out of launch contract competitions that demand it. The latter option is immediately untenable given that it could very well mean bowing out of the entire US military competition, known as Phase 2 of the National Security Space Launch program’s (NSSL; formerly EELV) Launch Services Procurement (LSP).
For dubious reasons, the US Air Force (USAF) has structured the NSSL Phase 2 acquisition in such a way that – despite there being four possible competitors – only two will be awarded contracts at its conclusion. The roughly ~30 launch contracts up for grabs would be split 60:40 between the two victors, leaving two competitors completely emptyhanded. In short, bowing out of the Phase 2 competition could mean forgoing as many as one or two-dozen contracts worth at least $1-2B, depending on the side of the 60:40 split.
According to a handful of recent comments and developments, SpaceX has likely sided with the option of procuring taller fairings from an industry supplier. As it turns out, European company RUAG has effectively cornered the Western rocket fairing market, with SpaceX being the only Western launch company currently building its own fairings. RUAG builds fairings for both Arianespace’s Ariane 5 and Vega rockets and ULA’s Atlas V. Additionally, RUAG will build and supply fairings for both companies’ next-gen rockets – Arianespace’s Ariane 6 and ULA’s Vulcan – and builds fairings for a number of smallsat launch companies.
Comments made in June by a RUAG official confirmed that there was some semblance of a relationship between SpaceX and RUAG for the purpose of satisfying USAF needs for taller fairings, although the phrasing suggested that the cooperation was in its early stages and nothing had been solidified.
“In a June 12 letter to Smith, the company’s CEO Peter Guggenbach makes the case that legislation forcing access to suppliers is unnecessary in this case because RUAG does not have an exclusive arrangement with ULA and is willing to work with SpaceX or any other launch providers.
“For this competition, we are in the process of submitting or have submitted proposals to multiple prime contractors regarding launch vehicle fairings. In those agreements, we share technical data to support a prime contractor’s bid while protecting our intellectual property.”
RUAG vice president Karl Jensen told SpaceNews the company has a “significant partnership” with ULA but is looking to work with others too. “We have an offer to SpaceX,” he said. “We don’t know if they’ll accept it.”
SpaceNews, 06/13/2019
Interestingly, although ULA’s RUAG-built Atlas V fairing is slightly narrower than SpaceX’s 5.2m (17 ft) diameter fairing, Atlas V’s largest fairing is significantly taller, supporting payloads up to 16.5m (54 ft) tall compared to 11m (36 ft) for Falcon 9 and Heavy. Given that just a tiny portion of military spacecraft actually need fairings that tall, SpaceX is apparently not interested in simply modifying its own fairing design and production equipment to support a 20-30% stretch.
This likely relates in part to the fact that one of SpaceX’s three NSSL Phase 2 competitors – Northrop Grumman (Omega), Blue Origin (New Glenn), and ULA (Vulcan) – are guaranteed to receive hundreds of millions of dollars of development funding after winning one of the two available slots (60% or 40% of contracts). SpaceX, on the other hand, will receive no such funding while still having to meet the same stringent USAF requirements compete in LSP Phase 2. Of note, Congressman Adam Smith managed to insert a clause into FY2020’s defense authorization bill that could disburse up to $500M to SpaceX in the event that the company is one of Phase 2’s two winners.
Despite this potential influx of infrastructure-focused funds, SpaceX may still be pursuing taller Falcon fairings from RUAG as a backup in the event that the company is not one of the two Phase 2 winners or is unable to use some of the $500M secured by Rep. Smith to develop its own stretched fairing.
On August 12th, SpaceX – along with Blue Origin, ULA, and NGIS – submitted bids for NSSL Phase 2 launch services, confirming that all four companies will indeed be in the running for contracts. The USAF is not expected to announce the results of this competition until Q2 2020.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
The Tesla Diner has been subject to many points of criticism since its launch in mid-2025, and skeptics and disbelievers claim the company’s latest novel concept is on its way down, but there’s a lot of evidence to state that is not the case.
The piece cites anecdotal evidence like empty parking lots, more staff than customers during a December visit, removed novelty items, like Optimus robot popcorn service and certain menu items, the departure of celebrity chef Eric Greenspan in November 2025, slow service, high prices, and a shift in recent Google/Yelp reviews toward disappointment.
The piece frames this as part of broader Tesla struggles, including sales figures and Elon Musk’s polarizing image, calling it a failed branding exercise rather than a sustainable restaurant.
This narrative is overstated and sensationalized, and is a good representation of coverage on Tesla by today’s media.
Novelty Fade is Normal, Not Failure
Any hyped launch, especially a unique Tesla-branded destination blending dining, Supercharging, and a drive-in theater, naturally sees initial crowds taper off after the “Instagram effect” wears down.
Tesla makes major change at Supercharger Diner amid epic demand
This is common for experiential spots in Los Angeles, especially pop-up attractions or celebrity-backed venues. The article admits early success with massive lines and social media buzz, but treats the return to normal operations as “dying down.”
In reality, this stabilization is a healthy sign of transitioning from hype-driven traffic to steady patronage.
Actual Performance Metrics Contradict “Ghost Town” Claims
- In Q4 2025, the Diner generated over $1 million in revenue, exceeding the average McDonald’s location
- It sold over 30,000 burgers and 83,000 fries in that quarter alone. These figures indicate a strong ongoing business, especially for a single-location prototype focused on enhancing Supercharger experiences rather than competing as a mass-market chain
It’s not a ghost town lol. The @Tesla Diner still had over 30,000 burger orders and 83,000 fries orders in Q4. The diner generated over $1M in revenue in Q4, a $4M annual run rate, which is more than the average McDonald’s…. pic.twitter.com/XvAGLUqxej
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) January 4, 2026
Conflicting On-the-Ground Reports
While the article, and other similar pieces, describe a half-full parking lot and sparse customers during specific off-peak visits, other recent accounts push back:
- A January 2026 X post noted 50 of 80 Supercharger stalls were busy at 11 a.m., calling it “the busiest diner in Hollywood by close to an order of magnitude
TESLA DINER 🍔
Frantic!!!
Crazy busy. pic.twitter.com/wMbmr8SFFn
— Rich & Sharon (@HullTeslaModel3) January 4, 2026
- Reddit discussions around the same time describe it as not empty when locals drive by regularly, with some calling the empty narrative “disingenuous anti-Tesla slop.”
When we visited it last week it was packed. We had to wait to enter, get a table and go to the restroom. We were lucky to find a spot to charge.
— Rani G (@ranig) January 4, 2026
Bottom Line
The Tesla Diner, admittedly, is not the nonstop circus it was at launch–that was never sustainable or intended. But, it’s far from “dying” or an “empty pit stop.”
It functions as a successful prototype: boosting Supercharger usage, generating solid revenue, and serving as a branded amenity in the high-traffic EV market of Los Angeles.
News
Tesla stands to win big from potential adjustment to autonomous vehicle limitations
Enabling scale, innovation, and profitability in a sector that is growing quickly would benefit Tesla significantly, especially as it has established itself as a leader.
Tesla stands to be a big winner from a potential easing of limitations on autonomous vehicle development, as the United States government could back off from the restrictions placed on companies developing self-driving car programs.
The U.S. House Energy and Commerce subcommittee will hold a hearing later this month that will aim to accelerate the deployment of autonomous vehicles. There are several key proposals that could impact the development of self-driving cars and potentially accelerate the deployment of this technology across the country.
These key proposals include raising the NHTSA’s exemption cap from 2,500 to 90,000 vehicles per year per automaker, preempting state-level regulations on autonomous vehicle systems, and mandating NHTSA guidelines for calibrating advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS).
Congress, to this point, has been divided on AV rules, with past bills like the 2017 House-passed measure stalling in the Senate. Recent pushes come from automakers urging the Trump administration to act faster amid competition from Chinese companies.
Companies like Tesla, who launched a Robotaxi service in Austin and the Bay Area last year, and Alphabet’s Waymo are highlighted as potential beneficiaries from lighter sanctions on AV development.
The NHTSA recently pledged to adopt a quicker exemption review for autonomous vehicle companies, and supporters of self-driving tech argue this will boost U.S. innovation, while critics are concerned about safety and job risks.
How Tesla Could Benefit from the Proposed Legislation
Tesla, under CEO Elon Musk’s leadership, has positioned itself as a pioneer in autonomous driving technology with its Full Self-Driving software and ambitious Robotaxi plans, including the Cybercab, which was unveiled in late 2024.
The draft legislation under consideration by the U.S. House subcommittee could provide Tesla with significant advantages, potentially transforming its operational and financial landscape.
NHTSA Exemption Cap Increase
First, the proposed increase in the NHTSA exemption cap from 2,500 to 90,000 vehicles annually would allow Tesla to scale up development dramatically.
Currently, regulatory hurdles limit how many fully autonomous vehicles can hit the roads without exhaustive approvals. For Tesla, this means accelerating the rollout of its robotaxi fleet, which Musk envisions as a network of millions of vehicles generating recurring revenue through ride-hailing. With Tesla’s vast existing fleet of over 6 million vehicles equipped with FSD hardware, a higher cap could enable rapid conversion and deployment, turning parked cars into profit centers overnight.
Preempting State Regulations
A united Federal framework would be created if it could preempt State regulations, eliminating the patchwork of rules that currently complicate interstate operations. Tesla has faced scrutiny and restrictions in states like California, especially as it has faced harsh criticism through imposed testing limits.
A federal override of State-level rules would reduce legal battles, compliance costs, and delays, allowing Tesla to expand services nationwide more seamlessly.
This is crucial for Tesla’s growth strategy, as it operates in multiple markets and aims for a coast-to-coast Robotaxi network, competing directly with Waymo’s city-specific expansions.
Bringing Safety Standards to the Present Day
Innovation in the passenger transportation sector has continued to outpace both State and Federal-level legislation, which has caused a lag in the development of many things, most notably, self-driving technology.
Updating these outdated safety standards, especially waiving requirements for steering wheels or mirrors, directly benefits Tesla’s innovative designs. Tesla wanted to ship Cybertruck without side mirrors, but Federal regulations required the company to equip the pickup with them.
Cybercab is also planned to be released without a steering wheel or pedals, and is tailored for full autonomy, but current rules would mandate human-ready features.
Streamlined NHTSA reviews would further expedite approvals, addressing Tesla’s complaints about bureaucratic slowdowns. In a letter written in June to the Trump Administration, automakers, including Tesla, urged faster action, and this legislation could deliver it.
In Summary
This legislation represents a potential regulatory tailwind for Tesla, but it still relies on the government to put forth action to make things easier from a regulatory perspective. Enabling scale, innovation, and profitability in a sector that is growing quickly would benefit Tesla significantly, especially as it has established itself as a leader.
News
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang explains difference between Tesla FSD and Alpamayo
“Tesla’s FSD stack is completely world-class,” the Nvidia CEO said.
NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang has offered high praise for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system during a Q&A at CES 2026, calling it “world-class” and “state-of-the-art” in design, training, and performance.
More importantly, he also shared some insights about the key differences between FSD and Nvidia’s recently announced Alpamayo system.
Jensen Huang’s praise for Tesla FSD
Nvidia made headlines at CES following its announcement of Alpamayo, which uses artificial intelligence to accelerate the development of autonomous driving solutions. Due to its focus on AI, many started speculating that Alpamayo would be a direct rival to FSD. This was somewhat addressed by Elon Musk, who predicted that “they will find that it’s easy to get to 99% and then super hard to solve the long tail of the distribution.”
During his Q&A, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang was asked about the difference between FSD and Alpamayo. His response was extensive:
“Tesla’s FSD stack is completely world-class. They’ve been working on it for quite some time. It’s world-class not only in the number of miles it’s accumulated, but in the way it’s designed, the way they do training, data collection, curation, synthetic data generation, and all of their simulation technologies.
“Of course, the latest generation is end-to-end Full Self-Driving—meaning it’s one large model trained end to end. And so… Elon’s AD system is, in every way, 100% state-of-the-art. I’m really quite impressed by the technology. I have it, and I drive it in our house, and it works incredibly well,” the Nvidia CEO said.
Nvidia’s platform approach vs Tesla’s integration
Huang also stated that Nvidia’s Alpamayo system was built around a fundamentally different philosophy from Tesla’s. Rather than developing self-driving cars itself, Nvidia supplies the full autonomous technology stack for other companies to use.
“Nvidia doesn’t build self-driving cars. We build the full stack so others can,” Huang said, explaining that Nvidia provides separate systems for training, simulation, and in-vehicle computing, all supported by shared software.
He added that customers can adopt as much or as little of the platform as they need, noting that Nvidia works across the industry, including with Tesla on training systems and companies like Waymo, XPeng, and Nuro on vehicle computing.
“So our system is really quite pervasive because we’re a technology platform provider. That’s the primary difference. There’s no question in our mind that, of the billion cars on the road today, in another 10 years’ time, hundreds of millions of them will have great autonomous capability. This is likely one of the largest, fastest-growing technology industries over the next decade.”
He also emphasized Nvidia’s open approach, saying the company open-sources its models and helps partners train their own systems. “We’re not a self-driving car company. We’re enabling the autonomous industry,” Huang said.
Tesla Diner defies the ‘Doom’ narrative: Profitable, Popular, and Here to Stay
Tesla stands to win big from potential adjustment to autonomous vehicle limitations
