

News
SpaceX Falcon 9 crushes next-gen ULA Vulcan rocket on cost in first competition
The United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) next-generation Vulcan Centaur rocket appears to have made it through what could be described as its first real competition with SpaceX and its Falcon 9 workhorse.
The US Space Force (or Air Force) awarded both rockets two launch contracts each on March 9th, marking the second award under “Phase 2” of a new National Security Space Launch (NSSL; formerly Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle or EELV) agreement. The culmination of a multi-year competition, NSSL Phase 2 calcified in late 2020 when the US military ultimately chose ULA and SpaceX as its primary launch providers for the better part of the next decade.
The final Phase 2 agreement followed Phase 1, in which the USAF committed up to $2.3 billion to assist Blue Origin, Northrop Grumman, and ULA in their efforts to develop future military launch capabilities. SpaceX submitted a proposal but didn’t win funds. Even though the ULA-SpaceX dichotomy was already a more or less fixed outcome before the competition even began, the US military still managed to dole out almost $800 million to Blue Origin and Northrop Grumman before announcing that neither provider had been selected for Phase 2.
Notably, as part of Phase 1, ULA is on track to receive nearly $1 billion in USSF/USAF aid to develop its next-generation Vulcan Centaur rocket and ensure that it meets all of the military’s exacting, unique requirements. SpaceX, on the other hand, received a sum total of $0 from that opaque slush fund to meet the exact same requirements as ULA.
For Phase 2, the US military arbitrarily split the roughly two-dozen launch contracts up for grabs into a 60/40 pile. Even more bizarrely, the USAF did everything in its power to prevent two of the three rockets it had just spent more than $1.7 billion to help develop from receiving any of those two or three-dozen available launch contracts – all but literally setting $800M of that investment on fire. Short of comical levels of blind ineptitude, verging on criminal negligence, the only possible explanation for the US military’s behavior with NSSL Phase 1 and Phase 2 is a no-holds-barred effort to guarantee that ULA and its Vulcan Centaur rocket would have zero real competition.
The arbitrary 60:40 split of the final Phase 2 contract ‘lot’ further supports that argument. A government agency objectively interested in securing the best possible value and redundancy for its taxpayer-provided money would logically exploit a $1.7B investment as much as possible instead of throwing two-thirds of its ultimate value in the trash. On its own, a block-buy scenario – even with a leading goal of selecting two providers – is fundamentally inferior to an open competition for each of the dozens of launch contracts at hand.
Further, selecting the block-buy option and failing to split those contracts 50:50 makes it even clearer that the USAF’s only steadfast NSSL Phase 2 goal was to guarantee ULA enough Vulcan launch contracts for the company to be comfortable and (most likely) not lose money on a rocket that has yet to demonstrate an ability to compete on the commercial launch market.
Amazingly, despite multiple handicaps in the form of a 60:40 contract split and what amounts to a $1B subsidy that explicitly disadvantages its only competitor, ULA’s Vulcan rocket still appears to be ~40% more expensive than SpaceX’s Falcon 9. In the latest round of NSSL Phase 2 contracts, seemingly the first in which ULA’s Vulcan Centaur rocket was selected, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 received two East Coast launch contracts worth slightly less than $160M, averaging out to less than $80M each.
Outfitted with four of a possible zero, two, four, or six strap-on solid rocket boosters (SRBs), Vulcan Centaur received two launch contracts for $224M – an average of $112M each. Assuming ULA wins exactly 60% (~15) of the Phase 2 launch contracts up for grabs and receives no more than $1 billion in USAF development funding through NSSL Phase 1, some $67 million will have to be added to the cost of each announced Vulcan launch contract to get a truly accurate picture. In the case of the rocket’s first two contracts, the real average cost of each Vulcan Centaur launch could thus be closer to $179M ($112M+$67M).
According to ULA CEO Tory Bruno, both Vulcan missions are to “high-energy orbits,” whereas a USAF official told Spaceflight Now that SpaceX’s two Falcon 9 contracts were to “lower-energy orbits.” In Vulcan’s defense, if Bruno’s “high-energy orbit” comment means a circular geostationary orbit (GEO) or a very heavy payload to an elliptical geostationary transfer orbit (GTO), it’s possible that SpaceX would have had to use Falcon Heavy to complete the same contracts. Against Falcon Heavy’s established institutional pricing and excluding ULA’s $1B Phase 1 subsidy, Vulcan Centaur is reasonably competitive.
Ultimately, even with several significant cards stacked against it, SpaceX appears likely to continue crushing entrenched competitors like ULA and Arianespace on cost while still offering performance and results equivalent to or better than even than their “next-generation” rockets.
Elon Musk
Tesla is stumped on how to engineer this Optimus part, but they’re close

Tesla has been stumped on how to engineer one crucial part of the Optimus bot, but CEO Elon Musk says the company is “on the cusp” of achieving something great with the project.
During the Q3 2025 Earnings Call, Tesla CEO Elon Musk revealed the company is moving closer to a major breakthrough with the Optimus project, and said they are “on the cusp of something really tremendous.”
However, it seems there is one specific portion of the robot that has truly stumped engineers at the company: the hand, fingers, and forearm.
Musk went into great detail about how incredibly complex and amazing the human hand is, highlighting its dexterity and capability, as its ability to perform a wide variety of tasks is especially impressive:
“I don’t want to downplay the difficulty, but it’s an incredibly difficult thing, especially to create a hand that is as dexterous and capable as the human hand, which is incredible. The human hand is an incredible thing. The more you study the human hand, the more incredible you realize it is, and why you need four fingers and a thumb, why the fingers have certain degrees of freedom, why the various muscles are of different strengths, and fingers are of different lengths. It turns out that those are all there for a reason.”
It’s been pretty apparent that Tesla has made massive strides in the Optimus project, especially considering it has been able to walk down hills, learn things like Kung Fu, and even perform service tasks like serving food and drinks.
However, a recent look at a Gen 2.5 version of Optimus posted by Marc Benioff, the CEO of Salesforce, showed that Tesla was likely using mannequin hands until it developed something that was both useful and aesthetically pleasing:
Very likely that these are non-functional to not give away any major details about next-gen Optimus
The hands are amongst the most complex and important parts of the entire project https://t.co/YgoeNjamvI
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) September 3, 2025
Musk continued on the call last night that the Tesla team was confronted with an “incredibly difficult” challenge from an engineering perspective, and the hands and actuators for that specific part were tough to figure out:
“Making the hand and forearm, because most of the actuators, just like the human hand, the muscles that control your hand are actually primarily in your forearm. The Optimus hand and forearm is an incredibly difficult engineering challenge. I’d say it’s more difficult than the rest of the robot from an electromechanical standpoint. The forearm and hand are more difficult than the entire rest of the robot. But really, in order to have a useful generalized robot, you do need an incredible hand.”
The CEO continued that developing a useful and effective robot was “crucial to the future of the company,” and that he works with Optimus’s design team each Friday night.
News
Elon Musk sets definitive Tesla Cybercab production date and puts a rumor to rest
“The single biggest expansion in production will be the Cybercab, which starts production in Q2 next year.” -Elon Musk

Tesla CEO Elon Musk finally set a definitive date for Tesla Cybercab production and, at the same time, put a substantial rumor regarding the vehicle that has been circulating within the community to rest.
Tesla’s Cybercab was unveiled last October as the company’s two-seater, affordable option that would ultimately be the car used for autonomous travel. It was initially slated for production in late 2025 or early 2026.
Tesla is ramping up its hiring for the Cybercab production team
However, Tesla has finally said it will start production of the Cybercab in Q2 2026, a more concrete date for the company, as it has moved the entire project forward in recent weeks by testing it at the Fremont Test Track and conducting crash safety assessments.
Musk said on the Q3 2025 Earnings Call:
“The single biggest expansion in production will be the Cybercab, which starts production in Q2 next year. That’s really a vehicle that’s optimized for full autonomy. It, in fact, does not have a steering wheel or pedals and is really an enduring optimization on minimizing cost per mile for fully considered cost per mile of operation.”
In that quote, Musk also put a rumor that has been circulating within the community to rest. Some started to speculate whether Cybercab would be sold with a steering wheel and pedals, as many of the elements of the car seemed to hint toward not being exclusively autonomous, including side mirrors being equipped, among other things.
🚨 The 🐐 @JoeTegtmeyer caught this Tesla Cybercab strolling around Giga Texas —
— with a steering wheel?! pic.twitter.com/PUvmpFp3Re
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 24, 2025
It has been interesting to see some consider whether Tesla would sell the vehicle with the elements that would enable human control, especially as there have been a handful of images of the vehicle on company property with a steering wheel spotted.
However, Musk doubled down on the autonomous nature of the Cybercab with this confirmation during the earnings call, something that many investors likely wanted to hear because it was, in a way, a vote of confidence for the company’s path to autonomy.
Investor's Corner
Tesla (TSLA) Q3 2025 earnings: Wall Street’s reactions
Tesla’s third-quarter 2025 results delivered the highest quarterly revenue in company history, and Wall Street analysts are taking notice.

Tesla’s third-quarter 2025 results delivered record quarterly revenues, and Wall Street is taking notice.
The automaker reported $28.1 billion in revenue, topping estimates of $26.4 billion, while non-GAAP EPS landed at $0.50 versus $0.54 expected. Despite the slight earnings miss, Tesla’s free cash flow surged to nearly $4.0 billion and total cash on hand jumped to $41.6 billion, a new high.
The following are some of Wall Street’s reactions to Tesla’s third-quarter results.
Mizuho
Mizuho analyst Vijay Rakesh maintained an “Outperform” rating on Tesla and raised the firm’s price target to $485 from $460 per share, pointing to Tesla’s next-generation autonomy roadmap. “We see 2026E better with stronger FSD traction and deliveries. TSLA is focusing on AI5/HW5 with ~40x gains gen/gen, while ramping Robotaxis and FSD into 2026E–27E.”
Rakesh also highlighted that Mizuho sees Tesla as “well-positioned” to lead “physical AI with Cybercab/FSD traction, humanoid longer term, offset by near-term demand headwinds.”
Wedbush
Wedbush analyst Dan Ives reiterated his “Outperform” rating and $600 price target on Tesla. As per the analyst, “Tesla reported its FY3Q25 results featuring beats on the top-line while missing bottom-line expectations as the company benefitted from a pull-forward in its delivery segment with greater strength across EMEA and APAC while making gradual progress with its autonomous and energy businesses.”
He also pointed to Musk’s upcoming compensation vote as a key inflection point: “We believe it will be approved by a wide margin despite some opposition,” Ives noted. “That will be incremental to keeping Musk as a war-time CEO as the company enters a critical AI expansion phase.”
Baird
Baird analyst Ben Kallo reiterated his “Outperform” rating and $548 per share price target for Tesla following the company’s Q3 2025 earnings results. He praised Tesla’s energy segment for delivering record results.
“Energy demand is particularly high given grid constraints in several regions and a rapid build-out of infrastructure. We expect this piece of the business to capture more attention in the remainder of 2025 and moving into 2026 with the tipping points for longer-term initiatives (Optimus, robotaxi, etc.) more opaque,” Kallo noted.
Deepwater
Meanwhile, Deepwater’s Gene Munster struck a more measured tone. “The September numbers and earnings call were largely uneventful,” Munster said, adding that Tesla’s decision to move cautiously with robotaxis in Austin is the right one.
“Shares of TSLA traded down following Elon’s comment that he remains paranoid about the safety of Robotaxi given any accidents would represent a significant step back in terms of the public’s confidence in the fleet,” he wrote. Munster, however, emphasized that Tesla’s cash position is a major strength: “They have enough cash to will Elon’s vision into reality. It may take a lot longer than many expect, but they’ve got the cash to get there.”
-
Elon Musk6 days ago
SpaceX posts Starship booster feat that’s so nutty, it doesn’t even look real
-
Elon Musk5 days ago
Tesla Full Self-Driving gets an offer to be insured for ‘almost free’
-
News5 days ago
Elon Musk confirms Tesla FSD V14.2 will see widespread rollout
-
News6 days ago
Tesla is adding an interesting feature to its centerscreen in a coming update
-
News1 week ago
Tesla launches new interior option for Model Y
-
News1 week ago
Tesla widens rollout of new Full Self-Driving suite to more owners
-
Elon Musk6 days ago
Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s $1 trillion pay package hits first adversity from proxy firm
-
News4 days ago
Tesla might be doing away with a long-included feature with its vehicles