News
SpaceX, Blue Origin, and ULA make major progress in commercial megarocket space race
A new generation of space race is currently underway, but this time it’s not a race to determine which country will reach orbit first, but rather which spaceflight company will successfully reach orbit first with the world’s second generation of super-heavy launch vehicles (SHLVs).
SpaceX, United Launch Alliance (ULA), Blue Origin, and NASA all have plans to build and operate their own SHLV rockets. All entities are deep into design and development and are, for the most part, at various stages of assembly and integration of their first flight hardware, offering an excellent opportunity to compare and contrast the differing approaches at work.
While NASA and ULA are developing rockets featuring an expendable single core supported by solid rocket boosters, SpaceX and Blue Origin have developed reusable designs that will utilize an enormous single core booster powered by multiple engines.
SpaceX: Starship/Super Heavy
Currently the world’s only builder and operator of a super-heavy launch vehicle (Falcon Heavy), SpaceX’s next-generation rocket is undoubtedly the most well known.
The design of SpaceX’s next-generation Starship & Super Heavy rocket is by far the most ambitious. According to company CEO Elon Musk, the new rocket will be comprised of a massive booster deemed “Super Heavy”, featuring as many as 35 Raptor engines capable of producing a total of more than 70,000 kN (15.7M lbf) of thrust at liftoff. The rocket’s upper stage is known as Starship and will be a fully-reusable crew and cargo transport vehicle powered by up to 6 Raptors – 3 sea level-optimized engines and 3 vacuum-optimized engines.
Per a September 2018 design update, Starship and Super Heavy will stand 118 meters (387ft) tall and will be able to launch a minimum of 100 metric tons (220,000 lb) to Low Earth Orbit in a fully reusable configuration, in which both the booster and ship return to Earth for recovery and reuse. On its own, Starship will stand at least 55 meters tall and feature a massive payload bay (or crew section) with a usable volume of no less than 1000 cubic meters (~35,000 ft3). The now-outdated 2018 design also featured almost 90 cubic meters of unpressurized cargo space, a bet less than nine times as much SpaceX’s operational Cargo Dragon spacecraft.
Although CEO Elon Musk has stated that the design of Starship’s legs and control surfaces has since changed, including the addition of legs to Super Heavy boosters, the upper stage’s 2018 design featured two actuating canards and fins/legs, two of which actuate a bit like flapping wings.
Currently, SpaceX is actively building two orbital Starship prototypes at two separate facilities in Cocoa Beach, Florida and Boca Chica, Texas, as well as an unusual low-fidelity prototype known as Starhopper. Outfitted with a lone Raptor engine (SN06), Starhopper very recently completed a successful 20-meter hop, also the vehicle’s first untethered test flight.
According to Musk, Starhopper is being prepared for a second untethered flight as early as August 16th, in which the rocket will reach a maximum altitude of up to 200 meters (650 ft) and perform a small divert, landing on an adjacent landing pad. Musk also has plans to present a major update on the status of Starship during an official event, scheduled to occur on August 24th in Boca Chica, TX. Aside from hundreds of disconnected snippets in the form of Musk’s prolific tweets, this will mark the first official presentation on Starship since SpaceX made the radical leap from carbon fiber to stainless steel.
SpaceX has taken a truly unprecedented approach to Starship and Super Heavy production and is currently assembling two full-scale Starship prototypes (Mk1 and Mk2) outside with little to no cover, although some spartan covered production facilities are simultaneously being built.
Blue Origin: BE-4 for all
On the near-opposite side of the spectrum, Blue Origin and ULA have formed a partnership in the sense that both companies will ultimately use the same Blue Origin-built engines to power the boosters of their own next-generation launch vehicles. ULA has decided to acquire Blue-built BE-4 engines for its Vulcan Heavy rocket, motivated primarily by the fact that the company will no longer be able to legally import the Russian-built RD-180 used on Atlas V after 2022 as a result of US sanctions.
First and foremost, though, Blue Origin is developing BE-4 as the primary propulsion of the company’s own two-stage super heavy-lift rocket, known as New Glenn. New Glenn’s first stage will be powered by 7 of the extremely powerful oxygens, utilizing liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquid oxygen to produce at least 2,450 kN (550,000 lbf) of thrust. Altogether, New Glenn will lift off with a maximum thrust of 17,100 kN (3.85m lbf) of thrust at sea level.
Unintuitively, New Glenn will actually produce a full 33% less thrust than SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy (~23,000 kN or 5.1M lbf) at liftoff but will likely be able to crush Falcon Heavy’s performance to higher orbits while still in a reusable configuration. This is thanks in large part to the greater efficiency of a single-core rocket, as well as the greater efficiency of its methane-powered BE-4 boost-stage engines and hydrogen-powered BE-3U upper stage engines. According to Blue, New Glenn will be able to launch 45,000 kg to LEO and 13,000 kg to GTO while still recovering the booster, compared to Falcon Heavy’s 8,000-10,000 kg GTO performance.
New Glenn will stand 95 meters (313 ft) tall and feature the largest payload fairing in operation, measuring 7m (23 ft) wide and in diameter. New Glenn’s booster will follow in the footsteps of Blue Origin’s relatively tiny New Shepard and will rely on actuating fins for in-atmosphere maneuvering, as well as two fixed wing-like strakes that will partially function as wings during recovery. New Glenn will also feature six retractable landing legs and land on a modified ship, much like SpaceX’s Falcon family.
While Blue Origin has scarcely published a word or photo on New Glenn’s production progress since its September 2016 reveal, the company does provide small updates on the status of its BE-4 engine every few months, including a photo of a recent full-power engine test completed on August 2nd at Blue’s Van Horn, Texas facilities.
ULA: Vulcan Heavy
ULA’s next-generation Vulcan Heavy rocket will feature two such BE-4 engines but will be fully expendable for at least 4-6 years after its nominal 2021 launch debut. ULA will continue to lean on their well-worn preference for supplementing liquid propulsion with 2-6 strap-on solid rocket boosters (SRBs), adding as much as ~12,000 kN (2.7M lbf) to booster’s two BE-4s, themselves producing 4,800 kN (1.1M lbf) of thrust
In its largest configuration, Vulcan Heavy will stand 69.2 m (227 ft) tall – just a tad shorter than Falcon 9 – and be capable of launch up to 15 tons (~33,000 lb) to GTO and 30.3 tons (67,000 lb) to LEO.
ULA CEO Tory Bruno recently took to Twitter to provide a small Vulcan development update, revealing that the first Vulcan booster was recently completed at the company’s Decatur, Alabama factory. This particularly booster is a structural test article (STA) and will never fly, but it’s still a huge milestone for ULA’s next-generation rocket.
The photos give a great idea of scale as the Vulcan booster is pictured alongside one of the company’s significantly smaller Atlas V booster, 3.8m compared to Vulcan’s 5.4m diameter.
Ultimately, this modern space race will hopefully benefit the spaceflight industry as a whole, particularly with respect to the introduction of New Glenn, hopefully giving SpaceX’s reusable Falcon 9 and Heavy rockets some real technological competition. ULA’s Vulcan is aiming for a H1 2021 debut, followed by New Glenn in late-2021 or 2022.
SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy is already operational and just completed its third launch in June 2019, with several more launch contracts on the books from late-2020 onwards. Its Starship/Super Heavy rocket is in a bit of a chaotic state at the moment, but CEO Elon Musk believes an orbital launch attempt could come as early as early-2020. Meanwhile, NASA is very slowly making its way to the launch debut of its Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, likely to slip into 2022.
With any luck, the early 2020s will be greeted by the operational debuts of two, three, four, or even more extremely capable rockets offering largely unprecedented launch costs. For now, we wait…
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
News
SpaceX’s Starfall just went from secret to storefront
SpaceX now pitches Starfall missions with 1,000 kg payloads, weeks of microgravity, and Starlink connectivity.
SpaceX has put up a dedicated commercial page for Starfall, its disk shaped reentry capsule, laying out for the first time what customers actually get when they book a flight. The page, live at spacex.com/starfall, pitches “affordable, routine access to microgravity” and invites companies to get in touch about flying manufacturing, research or testing payloads.
The specs are short and specific. Each Starfall mission carries up to 1,000 kg of payload, supplies 1 kW of power and connects through an Ethernet interface. Mission length is tailored to the customer, and the payload stays online the entire time through Starlink, which means researchers can pull data from an experiment while it is still in orbit instead of waiting for splashdown.
SpaceX is launching a secret spacecraft that could change how things are made in space
SpaceX is aiming the service at three markets. Biomedical customers are told they can grow stem cell organoids, replacement tissue and layered biomaterials. Pharmaceutical companies are pitched on protein and small molecule drug crystals, which form smaller and more uniform shapes without gravity driven convection. Materials science rounds out the list, with semiconductors and other next generation materials grown in vacuum and microgravity.
The page also makes clear which rocket SpaceX is counting on. “By launching on Starship, Starfall brings a reliable and scalable cadence previously unavailable to the market,” the company wrote, contrasting weeks of continuous microgravity with the seconds offered by drop towers and parabolic flights. No price or first operational flight date is listed.
The commercial push is a sharp turn from how Starfall started. SpaceX said almost nothing about the capsule ahead of its first flight in June, and nearly everything known came from FAA and FCC filings describing a disk about 10.2 feet wide and 2.5 feet tall that can return 2,200 pounds of cargo. By its second flight on the Bandwagon-5 rideshare in October, Starfall was listed by name on the mission page, though SpaceX still did not say what it carried.
Customers appear to be lining up. SpaceX said in its third quarter results that it signed three commercial Starfall missions during the quarter. On the earnings call, President Gwynne Shotwell described the capsule as providing “routine relatively low cost access to microgravity environments for scientific research, including improving our understanding of diseases like cancer and diabetes,” and said the three new missions would fly on Starship.
The branding effort extends past the website. SpaceX added a Starfall T-shirt to its online store on Monday as part of a batch of new merchandise, giving the program a place next to Starship, Starlink and Starshield in the company’s lineup.
The move also puts SpaceX in more direct competition with companies it launches. Varda Space Industries, which has built much of the in-space manufacturing market so far, flew its W-Series 7 capsule on the same Bandwagon-5 mission as Starfall in October. Varda’s capsules are roughly three times smaller than Starfall, and SpaceX controls the ride to orbit for both.
Starfall’s near term cadence depends on Starship. SpaceX is preparing for Flight 15 after completing static fires of Ship 42 and its Super Heavy booster in late October, and is aiming to catch both stages with the launch tower on that flight.
Elon Musk said weeks ago during SpaceX’s third-quarter earnings call that the company’s Grok Bot, its autonomous AI Agent platform, was showing “the fastest growth of a product” that he’d ever seen in his life.
Now, SpaceXSI is scaling back Grok Bot users’ weekly limits, much to the surprise of those who have relied on it to take away monotonous tasks in their lives.
Elon Musk’s terse November 1 reply on X captured a sharp tension in the early days of agentic AI. Responding to a user who asked for a Grok Bot usage reset after hitting 100 percent with four days still left on the weekly cycle, Musk wrote: “The cost of serving Grok Bot was unsustainably high relative to revenue.”
@DogecoinNorway The cost of serving Grok Bot was unsustainably high relative to revenue
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 1, 2026
The post arrived amid a wave of similar complaints from paying subscribers whose meters had jumped unexpectedly toward or to the limit, sometimes overnight and with little corresponding activity. It also stood in clear contrast to statements Musk had made only days and weeks earlier.
On the SpaceX third-quarter earnings call in mid-to-late October, Musk had described Grok Bot in almost the opposite terms. He called it “the fastest growth of a product that I’ve ever seen in my life” and said he had “never seen anything grow this fast.”
Company figures put paid weekly users at roughly 800,000 earlier in the month, more than doubling over the prior period. Daily active users had climbed from under 100,000 in early September to over 600,000 by late October.
Musk emphasized that the product has no free tier and that users appear to be getting real value beyond what they pay. In other remarks, he noted that usage per user was rising rather than declining, the opposite of the usual decay pattern for new software.
Grok Bot, launched around August, functions as an always-available agent with its own persistent cloud computer; it can schedule, research, shop, browse, and execute multi-step workflows even after the user steps away. Access is bundled into X subscription tiers (roughly $30, $100, and $200 per month) and certain Cursor plans, drawing from shared weekly usage pools whose exact sizes have not been publicly detailed.
The economics of that model are what Musk’s November 1 post put in the spotlight. Agentic systems burn far more compute than ordinary chatbot exchanges. Each task can trigger repeated model calls, tool use, web actions, and sustained background work.
When growth is as rapid as Musk celebrated, the absolute compute bill scales quickly even if average revenue per user stays fixed under flat monthly subscriptions. Industry observers noted the opportunity cost as well: the same GPUs can be rented to other AI labs at higher rates.
A simple back-of-the-envelope comparison circulating after the post illustrated the gap: if every reported daily user paid the top tier, annualized subscription revenue would still be modest relative to the scale of compute infrastructure SpaceX is building and leasing to companies like Anthropic.
Some users also reported possible dashboard anomalies around the same period, though Musk’s framing treated the underlying cost-revenue imbalance as the core issue rather than a pure metering glitch.
The juxtaposition is the core of this exchange. Within roughly two weeks of publicly framing Grok Bot as an unprecedented success with strong unit economics and no free tier, Musk acknowledged that serving the same product had become unsustainable relative to the revenue it generates.
For the broader industry, the episode underscores a structural challenge of the agent era: demand is real and growing faster than many expected, yet the cost of fulfilling that demand through always-on, multi-step agents can outrun subscription pricing before companies can adjust limits, introduce metered billing, or raise prices.
Musk’s reply did not promise an immediate reset or higher allowances; it simply stated the constraint. In doing so, it supplied a rare, explicit public data point on the unit economics of a high-profile AI agent just as adoption numbers were still being celebrated as the fastest in Musk’s experience.
The tension between rapid, paid growth and the compute required to deliver it is now on the record.
News
Tesla owners who tap Emergency Drive Away for fun are in for a surprise
Tapping Activate on Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away reportedly triggers a $539 service bill without moving.
Tesla owners who press Activate on Emergency Drive Away may be on the hook for a service bill even if their car never leaves the Supercharger stall.
Yaro, who posts about Tesla service cases on X as @Tutrifour, said a customer called after tapping Activate while still plugged into a Supercharger. The owner was about to pull away, remembered the cable was still connected and stopped. The car never moved, but the touchscreen showed a red alert reading “Emergency Drive Away has been activated” with “Service is required” underneath. A Service Mode screenshot showed the active alert BMS_a228_EmergencyDriveAwayServiceRequired, which Yaro said only Tesla Service can clear.
Here is a lesson to Tesla owners. Don’t press Activate on the new Emergency Drive Away feature on your Tesla because service charges $539 to inspect the charge port and to clear the alert. Yes, even if you didn’t move the car an inch. https://t.co/NZJENw4SQv
— Yaro (@Tutrifour) October 30, 2026
The cost of clearing it was the bigger surprise. “Don’t press Activate on the new Emergency Drive Away feature on your Tesla because service charges $539 to inspect the charge port and to clear the alert. Yes, even if you didn’t move the car an inch,” Yaro wrote. The $539 figure comes from that single case, and Tesla has not published a set price for the inspection or commented on the post. Yaro also noted that the car would still charge with the alert on screen.
Tesla launched Emergency Drive Away on October 1 with software update 2026.38.3, letting drivers pull away from a U.S. Supercharger with the cable still attached, as Teslarati reported. To use it, a driver shifts into Drive while connected, holds the brake and taps Activate. The prompt warns that driving with the cable connected will damage the vehicle and the Supercharger, and that short camera recordings will be shared with Tesla.
Tesla Charging has been clear about what follows a real activation. Repairs to a Supercharger stall can run up to $25,000 depending on the site, a service visit for the car’s charge port is mandatory, and deliberate misuse “will invoke additional penalties.” What the company had not spelled out is that the service requirement is triggered the moment Activate is pressed, not the moment the cable breaks away.
From an engineering standpoint, that is the cautious choice. Once Activate is pressed, the car cannot be sure the charge port latch was not stressed, so flagging it for inspection removes the guesswork. It also means the button carries a price on its own, which is a stronger deterrent against casual use than any warning screen.
Customer called because they have an active alert after tapping ACTIVATE on the new Emergency Drive Away feature. They didn’t actually drive away but were about to until they “remembered” they had the charge cable connected.
This alert can only be cleared by Tesla Service. https://t.co/SkHyJJPFwU
— Yaro (@Tutrifour) October 28, 2026
The report follows the feature’s first known real world use, when a driver in Austin during F1 weekend appeared to trigger it by accident and dragged the Supercharger cable along with the car. The Reddit user who filmed it said the driver seemed to have only half read the prompts.
For owners, the takeaway is to treat the red prompt as a stop sign. If it appears after shifting out of Park by mistake, shift back and unplug the normal way from the touchscreen, the Tesla app or the button on the charge handle. Activate is meant for moments when staying at the stall is the bigger risk, and Tesla is now pricing it that way.
SpaceX’s Starfall just went from secret to storefront
Grok Bot users hit with weekly limits early, Elon Musk explains what happened
