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.
Tesla has rolled out a new Supercharging safety feature in the United States, one that will answer concerns that some owners may have if they need to leave in a pinch.
It is also a suitable alternative for non-Tesla chargers, like third-party options that feature J1772 or CCS to NACS adapters.
The feature has been available in Europe for some time, but it is now rolling out to Model 3 and Model Y owners in the U.S.
With Software Update 2026.2.3, Tesla is launching the Unlatching Charge Cable function, which will now utilize the left rear door handle to release the charging cable from the port. The release notes state:
“Charging can now be stopped and the charge cable released by pulling and holding the rear left door handle for three seconds, provided the vehicle is unlocked, and a recognized key is nearby. This is especially useful when the charge cable doesn’t have an unlatch button. You can still release the cable using the vehicle touchscreen or the Tesla app.”
The feature was first spotted by Not a Tesla App.
This is an especially nice feature for those who commonly charge at third-party locations that utilize plugs that are not NACS, which is the Tesla standard.
For example, after plugging into a J1772 charger, you will still be required to unlock the port through the touchscreen, which is a minor inconvenience, but an inconvenience nonetheless.
Additionally, it could be viewed as a safety feature, especially if you’re in need of unlocking the charger from your car in a pinch. Simply holding open the handle on the rear driver’s door will now unhatch the port from the car, allowing you to pull it out and place it back in its housing.
This feature is currently only available on the Model 3 and Model Y, so Model S, Model X, and Cybertruck owners will have to wait for a different solution to this particular feature.
News
LG Energy Solution pursuing battery deal for Tesla Optimus, other humanoid robots: report
Optimus is expected to be one of Tesla’s most ambitious projects, with Elon Musk estimating that the humanoid robot could be the company’s most important product.
A recent report has suggested that LG Energy Solution is in discussions to supply batteries for Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot.
Optimus is expected to be one of Tesla’s most ambitious projects, with Elon Musk estimating that the humanoid robot could be the company’s most important product.
Humanoid robot battery deals
LG Energy Solution shares jumped more than 11% on the 28th after a report from the Korea Economic Daily claimed that the company is pursuing battery supply and joint development agreements with several humanoid robot makers. These reportedly include Tesla, which is developing Optimus, as well as multiple Chinese robotics companies.
China is already home to several leading battery manufacturers, such as CATL and BYD, making the robot makers’ reported interest in LG Energy Solution quite interesting. Market participants interpreted the reported outreach as a signal that performance requirements for humanoid robots may favor battery chemistries developed by companies like LG.
LF Energy Solution vs rivals
According to the report, energy density is believed to be the primary reason humanoid robot developers are evaluating LG Energy Solution’s batteries. Unlike electric vehicles, humanoid robots have significantly less space available for battery packs while requiring substantial power to operate dozens of joint motors and onboard artificial intelligence processors.
LG Energy Solution’s ternary lithium batteries offer higher energy density compared with rivals’ lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, which are widely used by Chinese EV manufacturers. That advantage could prove critical for humanoid robots, where runtime, weight, and compact packaging are key design constraints.
News
Tesla receives approval for FSD Supervised tests in Sweden
Tesla confirmed that it has been granted permission to test FSD Supervised vehicles across Sweden in a press release.
Tesla has received regulatory approval to begin tests of its Full Self-Driving Supervised system on public roads in Sweden, a notable step in the company’s efforts to secure FSD approval for the wider European market.
FSD Supervised testing in Sweden
Tesla confirmed that it has been granted permission to test FSD Supervised vehicles across Sweden following cooperation with national authorities and local municipalities. The approval covers the Swedish Transport Administration’s entire road network, as well as urban and highways in the Municipality of Nacka.
Tesla shared some insights into its recent FSD approvals in a press release. “The approval shows that cooperation between authorities, municipalities and businesses enables technological leaps and Nacka Municipality is the first to become part of the transport system of the future. The fact that the driving of the future is also being tested on Swedish roads is an important step in the development towards autonomy in real everyday traffic,” the company noted.
With approval secured for FSD tests, Tesla can now evaluate the system’s performance in diverse environments, including dense urban areas and high-speed roadways across Sweden, as noted in a report from Allt Om Elbil. Tesla highlighted that the continued development of advanced driver assistance systems is expected to pave the way for improved traffic safety, increased accessibility, and lower emissions, particularly in populated city centers.
Tesla FSD Supervised Europe rollout
FSD Supervised is already available to drivers in several global markets, including Australia, Canada, China, Mexico, New Zealand, and the United States. The system is capable of handling city and highway driving tasks such as steering, acceleration, braking, and lane changes, though it still requires drivers to supervise the vehicle’s operations.
Tesla has stated that FSD Supervised has accumulated extensive driving data from its existing markets. In Europe, however, deployment remains subject to regulatory approval, with Tesla currently awaiting clearance from relevant authorities.
The company reiterated that it expects to start rolling out FSD Supervised to European customers in early 2026, pending approvals. It would then be unsurprising if the company secures approvals for FSD tests in other European territories in the coming months.
Tesla rolls out new Supercharging safety feature in the U.S.
LG Energy Solution pursuing battery deal for Tesla Optimus, other humanoid robots: report
