Connect with us

News

SpaceX Falcon 9 crushes next-gen ULA Vulcan rocket on cost in first competition

Even with several handicaps in its favor, a recent batch of military launch contractors suggest that ULA's Vulcan rocket will never be able to compete commercially with SpaceX's Falcon 9. (ULA/SpaceX)

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

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.

ULA delivered its first Vulcan booster prototype in February 2021, at least 12-18 months behind schedule. The rocket is unlikely to fly before Q1 2022. (ULA)

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).

Vulcan Centaur Heavy is imagined launching with six SRBs. (ULA)

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.

Advertisement

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla hits FSD hackers with surprise move

In recent weeks, the company has begun remotely disabling FSD capabilities on affected vehicles, and in some instances, permanently revoking access even for owners who paid thousands of dollars for the feature.

Published

on

Tesla is cracking down on hackers who have figured out a way to utilize third-party programs to activate Full Self-Driving (FSD) in their vehicles — despite the suite not being approved for use in their country.

Tesla has launched a sweeping enforcement campaign against owners using third-party hardware hacks to activate FSD software in countries where the advanced driver-assistance system remains unregulated or unapproved.

In recent weeks, the company has begun remotely disabling FSD capabilities on affected vehicles, and in some instances, permanently revoking access even for owners who paid thousands of dollars for the feature.

Reports of the crackdown have surfaced across Europe, China, Japan, South Korea, and the UK, marking a significant escalation in Tesla’s efforts to enforce regional software restrictions.

FSD is Tesla’s flagship supervised autonomy package, which is available in several countries across the world. Currently limited by regulatory hurdles, it has not received full approval in most markets outside of the United States due to various things, such as safety standards, data privacy, and local traffic laws.

However, the company is working to expand its availability globally. Nevertheless, Tesla has installed the necessary hardware on vehicles globally, but locks the features based on geographic location.

Some owners have taken accessing FSD into their own hands, using jailbreak or bypass devices.

These “jailbreak” tools, typically €500 USB-style modules that plug into the vehicle’s Controller Area Network (CAN) bus, intercept signals to spoof approvals and unlock FSD, including advanced navigation, Autopark, and Summon features.

Hackers in Poland, Ukraine, and elsewhere have distributed the devices, with some claiming they work on HW3 and HW4 vehicles and can be unplugged to restore stock settings. In China alone, over 100,000 owners reportedly installed such modifications.

Tesla’s response has been swift and uncompromising. Recently, the company began sending in-car notifications and emails warning owners that unauthorized modifications violate terms of service, compromise vehicle safety systems, and expose cars to cybersecurity risks.

The email communication read:

“Your vehicle has detected an unauthorized third-party device. As a precaution, some driver assistance functions have been disabled for safety reasons. A software update will be available soon. Once you install the update, some features may be enabled again.”

Vehicles detected using the hacks have had FSD capabilities remotely disabled without refund. In some cases, owners report permanent bans, even if they had legitimately purchased the software package.

Tesla’s hardline stance underscores its commitment to regulatory compliance and safety.

Tesla has long argued that unsupervised FSD requires rigorous validation, and premature activation could endanger drivers and bystanders.

The crackdown sends a clear-cut message to those who are bypassing the FSD safeguards, but there are greater implications for Tesla if something were to go wrong. This is an understandable way to protect the company’s reputation for its FSD suite.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla developing small, affordable SUV, report claims

This latest rumor deserves heavy scrutiny. Tesla has already walked away from a mass-market $25,000 EV once before.

Published

on

Credit: Tine Rusc

Tesla is developing a small, affordable SUV, a new report claims, speculating that the automaker is planning to add yet another vehicle to its lineup at a price point similar to the Model 3 and Model Y, but smaller and more compact.

But it does not make a whole lot of sense, especially considering a handful of things CEO Elon Musk said and the overall plan for Tesla’s future.

Reuters reported that Tesla is in the early stages of developing an all-new, smaller, cheaper electric SUV. Citing four sources familiar with the matter, the story claims the vehicle would be shorter than the Model Y, built in China, and represent a fresh platform rather than a variant of the Model 3 or Y.

Suppliers have reportedly been contacted to discuss details, though Tesla has not commented. The move appears aimed at broadening affordability amid slowing EV demand and intensifying competition, particularly from Chinese rivals.

This latest rumor deserves heavy scrutiny. Tesla has already walked away from a mass-market $25,000 EV once before.

In 2024, the company scrapped its long-teased “Redwood” project for a budget-friendly car. Elon Musk explained the decision bluntly during an earnings call: a conventional low-cost model would be “pointless” and “completely at odds with what we believe.”

In other words, chasing a bare-bones cheap EV runs counter to Tesla’s core mission of accelerating sustainable energy through cutting-edge technology and autonomy rather than volume-driven price wars.

Musk’s own recent statements reinforce skepticism about a compact SUV pivot. Just two weeks ago, on March 25, he responded to fan requests for a minivan by posting on X: “Something way cooler than a minivan is coming.”

Elon Musk says Tesla is developing a new vehicle: ‘Way cooler than a minivan’

The remark came in the context of family-hauling needs, with Musk highlighting the Cybertruck’s ability to seat multiple child seats. It signals Tesla’s focus is shifting toward more spacious, innovative people-movers—not shrinking its lineup.

U.S. demand data echoes this logic.

The long-wheelbase Model Y L—a six-seat, stretched variant offering extra room for families—has generated massive interest wherever offered. Fans in the U.S. have basically begged for the Model Y L to make its way to the States, or for the company to develop a full-size SUV.

The Model Y L is selling well in China, where it is manufactured.

Delivery wait times for the Model Y L stretched into February 2026 as orders poured in. Tesla recently expanded the trim to eight new Asian markets, yet it remains unavailable in the United States, where consumer appetite for a larger, more practical SUV is reportedly strong.

American buyers have consistently favored bigger vehicles; the Model Y already outsells most competitors precisely because it delivers crossover utility without compromise. A compact model shorter than today’s bestseller would likely miss this mark entirely.

Tesla’s product strategy has long emphasized differentiation through autonomy, range, and desirability rather than racing to the bottom on price. Stripped-down variants of the Model 3 and Y have already struggled to ignite broad demand.

A new compact SUV built in China might sound logical on paper for cost-sensitive buyers, but it risks repeating past missteps—diluting brand cachet while ignoring clear signals from Musk and the market.

History suggests Tesla talks about affordable cars more often than it delivers them. Whether this Reuters scoop evolves into metal or joins the $25k project on the scrap heap remains to be seen.

For now, the smart money is on Tesla doubling down on “way cooler” vehicles that actually fit American families—and Tesla’s ambitious vision—rather than a smaller SUV that feels like yesterday’s news.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla CEO Elon Musk says next FSD release is the one we’ve been waiting for

On Thursday, Musk teased the capabilities and next steps for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software, focusing squarely on the incremental improvements of the current v14.3 suite, as well as the looming arrival of v15.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla CEO Elon Musk teased the capabilities of a future Full Self-Driving release, but it seems like we are getting what Yogi Berra once called “DĂ©jĂ  vu all over again.”

On Thursday, Musk teased the capabilities and next steps for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software, focusing squarely on the incremental improvements of the current v14.3 suite, as well as the looming arrival of v15.

He confirmed that upcoming point releases of v14.3 will deliver additional polish to the current build, smoothing out remaining edges in an already capable system. These iterative updates, Musk noted, are designed to refine performance without requiring a full version overhaul.

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3: First Impressions

Yet the real headline was Musk’s forecast for v15.

“V15 will far exceed human levels of safety, even in completely unsupervised and complex situations,” he wrote.

He clarified that v15 will be powered by Tesla’s long-awaited large model, an AI architecture with roughly 10x the parameters of the smaller model currently in widespread use. The leap, Musk explained, stems from the unusually rapid progress of the compact model, which has advanced so quickly that the larger counterpart has yet to catch up in real-world deployment.

However, it is becoming a pattern that is, by now, familiar to anyone following Tesla’s autonomous driving roadmap.

Musk has consistently and repeatedly framed each successive major release as the one poised to deliver game-changing autonomy. Earlier versions were similarly positioned as a movement toward the final piece of the puzzle, only for attention to pivot to the next milestone once they arrived.

The refrain has become a recurring feature of FSD communication: current software is impressive, the point releases will sharpen it further, but the true breakthrough lies one major iteration ahead.

Musk’s latest comments fit squarely into that cadence. While v14.3 point releases are expected to tighten supervised driving behaviors in the coming weeks, v15 is cast as the version that finally crosses the threshold into unsupervised operation at human-or-better safety levels across demanding scenarios.

The 10x parameter scale of the underlying large model is presented as the key technical enabler, promising richer reasoning and more robust decision-making than anything deployed to date.

Whether v15 ultimately fulfills that promise remains to be seen. Tesla’s history shows that each new target generates fresh excitement—and occasional skepticism—about timelines.

Fans realize Musk’s timelines for FSD are exciting, but rarely met:

For now, Musk’s message is familiar: the immediate focus is polishing v14.3 through targeted point releases, while the 10x-parameter large model in v15 represents the next decisive step toward fully unsupervised, superhuman safety.

Hopefully, Tesla can come through, but we can only believe that once v15 gets here, v16 will be the next big step toward autonomy.

Drivers can expect continued refinement in the short term and a significantly more ambitious leap once the large model is ready. The cycle continues, but the stakes, Musk insists, keep rising.

Continue Reading