News
SpaceX competitor ULA readies for final launch of 30-year-old Delta II rocket
Long-time SpaceX competitor United Launch Alliance (ULA) is nearly ready for the final launch of its Boeing subsidiary’s Delta II family of rockets, culminating a nearly 30-year history mostly dominated by routine success.
If completed without failure, the launch of NASA’s ICESat-2 satellite – built to track global ice-sheet variation with a huge space-based laser – will mark Delta II’s 100th consecutive success and the rocket’s 153rd fully successful launch overall, an immensely impressive and laudable achievement regardless of the vehicle’s lack of competitive advantage in the modern launch industry.
A teary farewell to Delta II this weekend, so in the run up we're going to give her a send off with a trip down memory lane per the vehicle's evolution from Thor.
Standby for a 7,000 word (yep!) feature article from William Graham on Thursday, with a ton of cool info/old photos. pic.twitter.com/g43PS6kHcr
— NSF – NASASpaceflight.com (@NASASpaceflight) September 13, 2018
Shockingly tiny when compared with modern launch vehicles like Delta IV, Atlas V, and Falcon 9, Delta II measures roughly 39 meters (~128 ft) tall, 2.4 meters (8 ft) in diameter, and weighs 160 metric tons (~350,000 lb) when fully fueled, just over half as tall and significantly less than 30% as heavy as SpaceX’s Falcon 9.
Contracted by NASA in 2013, Delta II’s ICESat-2 launch cost the agency roughly $97 million (2013 USD), although the cost of launch has shrunk in relation to the satellite, which suffered at least $200 million of overruns and 12+ months of delays due to difficulties developing the spacecraft’s impressive space-based LIDAR system. For comparison, NASA contracted a Falcon 9 launch (for the TESS exoplanet observatory, launched in April 2018) from SpaceX for $87 million in 2016, while the USAF has secured several launch contracts with SpaceX for far more complex GPS satellite launches at a cost of almost exactly $97 million apiece.
-
- The final Delta II rocket is awaiting its last launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base this Saturday. (NASA/Randy Beaudoin)
-
- A Delta II Heavy rocket seen launching NASA’s THEMIS satellite in 2007. (NASA)
-
- Falcon 9 Block 5 booster B1049 returned to Port Canaveral today, ~60 hours after launch. Falcon 9 is dramatically cheaper than the aging Delta II. (Tom Cross)
Aging rockets, changing markets
Put simply, the contrast in capabilities offered for equivalent prices soundly demonstrates exactly why Delta II is being phased out. Although capable of better performance with a third upper stage and nine much larger solid rocket boosters (SRBs), that ‘Heavy’ variant of Delta II cost NASA an incredible $150 million per launch in 2009. For the versions of Delta II closer to $100 million per launch, the rocket is able to place 2500-3200 kg (5500-7000 lb) in low Earth orbit and not much at all to any higher energy destinations, which demand a third stage or a heavier rocket. At a comparable price (or much lower in SpaceX’s case), Atlas V and Falcon 9 are able to launch far larger payloads to far higher orbits.
This was by no means the case when Delta II debuted in 1989, and the McDonnell Douglas-built rocket readily earned its impressive reputation as a relatively reliable, capable, and (more or less) affordable launch vehicle compared alongside other rockets available in the ’90s. Delta II wound up as a ULA rocket (sort of) thanks to Boeing and McDonnell Douglas’ 1997 corporate merger, followed in 2006 by Lockheed Martin and Boeing’s cooperative formation of the United Launch Alliance. ULA thus operates Delta II, Delta IV, and Atlas V, all featuring multiple variants and very few distinguishing capabilities when compared amongst themselves.
-
- Delta II is trucked to the launch pad ahead prior to launch. (NASA)
-
- The business end of Delta II. (ULA)
-
- ULA technicians install one of four solid rocket boosters on ICESat-2’s Delta II launch vehicle. (NASA)
-
- ULA technicians install one of four solid rocket boosters on ICESat-2’s Delta II launch vehicle. (NASA)
The cost of maintaining all those highly duplicative rockets and unique factories and engineering expertise is fundamentally unnatural and reliant upon some sort of noncompetitive market forces (i.e. launch monopolies assured through “block buys” of multiple rockets from NASA and the US military), forces that have been mortally challenged by SpaceX’s reintroduction of competition to the American launch industry.
ICESat-2 is scheduled to launch on Delta II on Saturday, September 15th at 5:46 AM PDT/12:46 UTC. Stay tuned for more information on ICESat-2’s giant space LIDAR payload and mission goals, as well as Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin’s photos of the fairly historic rocket launch.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
Tesla rolled out Full Self-Driving version 14.2 yesterday to members of the Early Access Program (EAP). Expectations were high, and Tesla surely delivered.
With the rollout of Tesla FSD v14.2, there were major benchmarks for improvement from the v14.1 suite, which spanned across seven improvements. Our final experience with v14.1 was with v14.1.7, and to be honest, things were good, but it felt like there were a handful of regressions from previous iterations.
While there were improvements in brake stabbing and hesitation, we did experience a few small interventions related to navigation and just overall performance. It was nothing major; there were no critical takeovers that required any major publicity, as they were more or less subjective things that I was not particularly comfortable with. Other drivers might have been more relaxed.
With v14.2 hitting our cars yesterday, there were a handful of things we truly noticed in terms of improvement, most notably the lack of brake stabbing and hesitation, a major complaint with v14.1.x.
However, in a 62-minute drive that was fully recorded, there were a lot of positives, and only one true complaint, which was something we haven’t had issues with in the past.
The Good
Lack of Brake Stabbing and Hesitation
Perhaps the most notable and publicized issue with v14.1.x was the presence of brake stabbing and hesitation. Arriving at intersections was particularly nerve-racking on the previous version simply because of this. At four-way stops, the car would not be assertive enough to take its turn, especially when other vehicles at the same intersection would inch forward or start to move.
This was a major problem.
However, there were no instances of this yesterday on our lengthy drive. It was much more assertive when arriving at these types of scenarios, but was also more patient when FSD knew it was not the car’s turn to proceed.
Can report on v14.2 today there were ZERO instances of break stabbing or hesitation at intersections today
It was a significant improvement from v14.1.x
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 21, 2025
This improvement was the most noticeable throughout the drive, along with fixes in overall smoothness.
Speed Profiles Seem to Be More Reasonable
There were a handful of FSD v14 users who felt as if the loss of a Max Speed setting was a negative. However, these complaints will, in our opinion, begin to subside, especially as things have seemed to be refined quite nicely with v14.2.
Freeway driving is where this is especially noticeable. If it’s traveling too slow, just switch to a faster profile. If it’s too fast, switch to a slower profile. However, the speeds seem to be much more defined with each Speed Profile, which is something that I really find to be a huge advantage. Previously, you could tell the difference in speeds, but not in driving styles. At times, Standard felt a lot like Hurry. Now, you can clearly tell the difference between the two.
It seems as if Tesla made a goal that drivers should be able to tell which Speed Profile is active if it was not shown on the screen. With v14.1.x, this was not necessarily something that could be done. With v14.2, if someone tested me on which Speed Profile was being used, I’m fairly certain I could pick each one.
Better Overall Operation
I felt, at times, especially with v14.1.7, there were some jerky movements. Nothing that was super alarming, but there were times when things just felt a little more finicky than others.
v14.2 feels much smoother overall, with really great decision-making, lane changes that feel second nature, and a great speed of travel. It was a very comfortable ride.
The Bad
Parking
It feels as if there was a slight regression in parking quality, as both times v14.2 pulled into parking spots, I would have felt compelled to adjust manually if I were staying at my destinations. For the sake of testing, at my first destination, I arrived, allowed the car to park, and then left. At the tail-end of testing, I walked inside the store that FSD v14.2 drove me to, so I had to adjust the parking manually.
This was pretty disappointing. Apart from parking at Superchargers, which is always flawless, parking performance is something that needs some attention. The release notes for v14.2. state that parking spot selection and parking quality will improve with future versions.
Any issues with parking on your end? 14.1.7 didn’t have this trouble with parking pic.twitter.com/JPLRO2obUj
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 21, 2025
However, this was truly my only complaint about v14.2.
You can check out our full 62-minute ride-along below:
Elon Musk
SpaceX issues statement on Starship V3 Booster 18 anomaly
The incident unfolded during gas-system pressure testing at the company’s Massey facility in Starbase, Texas.
SpaceX has issued an initial statement about Starship Booster 18’s anomaly early Friday. The incident unfolded during gas-system pressure testing at the company’s Massey facility in Starbase, Texas.
SpaceX’s initial comment
As per SpaceX in a post on its official account on social media platform X, Booster 18 was undergoing gas system pressure tests when the anomaly happened. Despite the nature of the incident, the company emphasized that no propellant was loaded, no engines were installed, and personnel were kept at a safe distance from the booster, resulting in zero injuries.
“Booster 18 suffered an anomaly during gas system pressure testing that we were conducting in advance of structural proof testing. No propellant was on the vehicle, and engines were not yet installed. The teams need time to investigate before we are confident of the cause. No one was injured as we maintain a safe distance for personnel during this type of testing. The site remains clear and we are working plans to safely reenter the site,” SpaceX wrote in its post on X.
Incident and aftermath
Livestream footage from LabPadre showed Booster 18’s lower half crumpling around the liquid oxygen tank area at approximately 4:04 a.m. CT. Subsequent images posted by on-site observers revealed extensive deformation across the booster’s lower structure. Needless to say, spaceflight observers have noted that Booster 18 would likely be a complete loss due to its anomaly.
Booster 18 had rolled out only a day earlier and was one of the first vehicles in the Starship V3 program. The V3 series incorporates structural reinforcements and reliability upgrades intended to prepare Starship for rapid-reuse testing and eventual tower-catch operations. Elon Musk has been optimistic about Starship V3, previously noting on X that the spacecraft might be able to complete initial missions to Mars.
Investor's Corner
Tesla analyst maintains $500 PT, says FSD drives better than humans now
The team also met with Tesla leaders for more than an hour to discuss autonomy, chip development, and upcoming deployment plans.
Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) received fresh support from Piper Sandler this week after analysts toured the Fremont Factory and tested the company’s latest Full Self-Driving software. The firm reaffirmed its $500 price target, stating that FSD V14 delivered a notably smooth robotaxi demonstration and may already perform at levels comparable to, if not better than, average human drivers.
The team also met with Tesla leaders for more than an hour to discuss autonomy, chip development, and upcoming deployment plans.
Analysts highlight autonomy progress
During more than 75 minutes of focused discussions, analysts reportedly focused on FSD v14’s updates. Piper Sandler’s team pointed to meaningful strides in perception, object handling, and overall ride smoothness during the robotaxi demo.
The visit also included discussions on updates to Tesla’s in-house chip initiatives, its Optimus program, and the growth of the company’s battery storage business. Analysts noted that Tesla continues refining cost structures and capital expenditure expectations, which are key elements in future margin recovery, as noted in a Yahoo Finance report.
Analyst Alexander Potter noted that “we think FSD is a truly impressive product that is (probably) already better at driving than the average American.” This conclusion was strengthened by what he described as a “flawless robotaxi ride to the hotel.”
Street targets diverge on TSLA
While Piper Sandler stands by its $500 target, it is not the highest estimate on the Street. Wedbush, for one, has a $600 per share price target for TSLA stock.
Other institutions have also weighed in on TSLA stock as of late. HSBC reiterated a Reduce rating with a $131 target, citing a gap between earnings fundamentals and the company’s market value. By contrast, TD Cowen maintained a Buy rating and a $509 target, pointing to strong autonomous driving demonstrations in Austin and the pace of software-driven improvements.
Stifel analysts also lifted their price target for Tesla to $508 per share over the company’s ongoing robotaxi and FSD programs.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2 – Full Review, the Good and the Bad
SpaceX issues statement on Starship V3 Booster 18 anomaly
