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.
News
Tesla Semi gets new product launch as mass manufacturing hits Plaid Mode
While the 1.2 MW Megacharger handles quick 30-minute en-route boosts, the Basecharger serves as a reliable overnight solution for longer dwell times at warehouses, distribution centers, fleet yards, and even, potentially, homes.
The Tesla Semi is getting a new production launch as mass manufacturing on the all-electric truck is gearing up to hit Plaid Mode.
Tesla has introduced a game-changing addition to its commercial charging lineup with the new 125 kW Basecharger for Semi. Launched this week as part of the new “Semi Charging for Business” program, this compact unit is purpose-built for depot and overnight charging of Tesla Semi trucks.
While the 1.2 MW Megacharger handles quick 30-minute en-route boosts, the Basecharger serves as a reliable overnight solution for longer dwell times at warehouses, distribution centers, fleet yards, and even, potentially, homes.
Our new 125 kW Basecharger is designed for longer dwell times and overnight charging of Semis. It’s the “home charging” for heavy-duty fleets.
It features a fully integrated design that eliminates the need for a separate AC-to-DC cabinet, simplifying installation. The 6 meter… https://t.co/ovy1C4PsRW pic.twitter.com/vBUCNMzs57
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) May 1, 2026
Delivering up to 60 percent of the Semi’s range in roughly four hours, perfect for overnight top-ups during mandated driver rest periods or while trucks are loaded or unloaded. Its fully integrated design eliminates the need for bulky separate AC-to-DC cabinets.
Tesla engineers tucked one of the power modules from a V4 Supercharger Cabinet directly inside the sleek post, resulting in a compact footprint. It also features a six-meter cable for layout flexibility. This is one thing that must have been learned through the V4 Supercharger rollout.
Installation and operating costs drop dramatically thanks to daisy-chaining. Up to three Basechargers can share a single 125 kVA breaker, slashing electrical infrastructure requirements. The unit outputs 150 amps continuous across an 180–1,000 VDC range, matching the Semi’s high-voltage architecture while supporting the MCS 3.2 standard.
Tesla Semi sends clear message to Diesel rivals with latest move
Priced from $40,000 for a minimum order of two units, the Basecharger is far more affordable than the $188,000 Megacharger setup for two posts. Deliveries begin in early 2027. Buyers also receive Tesla’s full network-level software, remote monitoring, maintenance, and a guaranteed 97 percent or higher uptime—critical for fleet reliability.
This launch arrives as Tesla accelerates high-volume Semi production at its Nevada factory, targeting 50,000 units annually. By pairing affordable depot charging with ultra-fast highway options, Tesla removes one of the biggest obstacles to electrifying Class 8 trucking: infrastructure cost and complexity.
Fleet operators stand to gain lower electricity rates during off-peak hours, dramatically reduced maintenance compared to diesel, and quieter yards at night. The Basecharger isn’t just another charger—it’s the practical bridge that makes large-scale electric semi adoption economically viable.
With the Basecharger handling “home” duties and Megachargers powering the road, Tesla is delivering a complete ecosystem that could finally tip the scales toward zero-emission freight. For trucking companies ready to go electric, the future just got a whole lot more charger-friendly.
News
Tesla revises new Intervention Reporting system with Full Self-Driving
It is the second revision to the program as Tesla is trying to make it easier to decipher driver and owner complaints, but also to make it easier to report issues within the suite for them.
Tesla has revised its new Intervention Reporting system within the Full Self-Driving suite that now categorizes reasons that drivers take over when the semi-autonomous driving functionality is active.
It is the second revision to the program as Tesla is trying to make it easier to decipher driver and owner complaints, but also to make it easier to report issues within the suite for them.
With the initial rollout of Full Self-Driving v14.3.2, Tesla included a new reporting menu that gave four options for an intervention: Preference, Comfort, Critical, and Other. A slightly revised version of Full Self-Driving with the same ID number then came out a few days later, changing the “Other” option to “Navigation” after numerous complaints from owners.
It appears Tesla has listened to those owners once again and has not only made it smaller and more compact, but also easier to report the issues than previously.
The new menu is now embedded within the request for a Voice Memo from Tesla, and does not block the entire screen, as the second rollout of the menu was:
Thank you Tesla! The new intervention screen is much better! @Tesla_AI pic.twitter.com/1lea9G27N1
— Dirty Tesla (@DirtyTesLa) May 1, 2026
There will likely be one additional revision to the Interventions Menu, as we have coined it here at Teslarati.
Unfortunately, at times, there are no reasons for an intervention at all, but the menu does not give an option to simply disregard the reporting and forces the driver to choose one of the options. We, as well as other notable Tesla influencers, indicated that there is not always a reason for an intervention.
For example, I choose to back into my parking spot in my neighborhood at least some of the time for the reason of charging. I usually hit “Preference” for this, but it sends a false positive to Tesla that there was a reason I took over that I was unhappy with.
Tesla begins probing owners on FSD’s navigation errors with small but mighty change
Instead, I’m simply performing a maneuver that is not yet available to us. When Tesla allows drivers to choose the orientation at which their car enters a parking spot, I and many others won’t have to deal with this menu.
Others are still skeptical that it will help resolve any issues whatsoever and prefer to disregard the menu altogether. It does seem as if Tesla will issue another revision in the coming days to allow this to happen.
Lifestyle
California hits Tesla Cybercab and Robotaxi driverless cars with new law
California just gave police power to ticket driverless cars, including Tesla’s Cybercab fleet.
California DMV formally adopted new rules on April 29, 2026 that allow law enforcement to issue “notices of noncompliance”, or in other words ticket autonomous vehicle companies when their cars commit moving violations. The rules take effect July 1, 2026 and officially closes a regulatory gap that previously let driverless cars operate on public roads with nearly no traffic enforcement consequences.
Until now, state traffic laws only applied to human “drivers,” which meant that when no person was behind the wheel, police had no mechanism to issue a ticket. Officers were limited to citing driverless vehicles for parking violations only. A well-known example came in September 2025, when a San Bruno officer watched a Waymo robotaxi execute an illegal U-turn and could do nothing but notify the company.
Under the new framework, when an officer observes a violation, the autonomous vehicle company is effectively treated as the driver. Companies must report each incident to the DMV within 72 hours, or 24 hours if a collision is involved. Repeated violations can result in fleet size restrictions, operational suspensions, or full permit revocation. Local officials also gained new authority to geofence driverless vehicles out of active emergency zones within two minutes and require a live emergency response line answered within 30 seconds.
Tesla Cybercab ramps Robotaxi public street testing as vehicle enters mass production queue
California’s new enforcement rules arrive at a pivotal moment for Tesla. The company is ramping Cybercab production at Giga Texas toward hundreds of units per week, targeting at least 2 million units annually at full capacity, while simultaneously pushing to expand its Robotaxi service to dozens of U.S. cities by end of 2026. Unsupervised FSD for consumer vehicles is currently targeted for Q4 2026, and when it arrives, Tesla’s fleet may not have a human to absorb legal accountability, under the July 1 rules.
Tesla has confirmed plans to expand its Robotaxi service to seven new cities in the first half of 2026, including Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Miami, Orlando, Tampa, and Las Vegas, with the service already running without safety drivers in Austin. Musk has said he expects robotaxis to cover between a quarter and half of the United States by end of year.
Tesla Semi gets new product launch as mass manufacturing hits Plaid Mode
Tesla revises new Intervention Reporting system with Full Self-Driving
