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 discloses interesting collaboration partner for Supercharging
This BOXABL collaboration would be a great way to add a rest stop to a rural Supercharging location, and could lead to more of these chargers across the U.S.
Tesla disclosed an interesting collaboration partner in an SEC filing, which looks like an indication of a potential project at Supercharger sites.
Tesla said on Tuesday in the filing that it was entering an agreement with BOXABL to design and build a Micromenity structure. Simply put, this is a modular building, usually a few hundred square feet in size, and it has been seen at Superchargers in Europe.
In Magnant, France, Tesla opened a small building at a Supercharger that is available to all EV owners. There are snacks and drinks inside, including ice cream, coffee, a gaming console, and restrooms. It gives people an opportunity to get up and out of their cars while charging.
This building was not built by BOXABL, but instead by bk World Lounges. It is likely the final Supercharging stop before people get to Paris, as it is located 250 kilometers, or 155 miles, from the City of Light.
Voir cette publication sur Instagram
Magnant has 56 stalls, so it is a large Supercharging stop compared to most. The building could be a sign of things to come, especially as Tesla has opened up larger Supercharger stations along major roadways.
It is for just a single building, as the Scope of Work within the filing states “a comprehensive package for one Micromenity building.”
NEWS: BOXABL, a company that creates modular, prefabricated buildings, has entered into an agreement with @Tesla.
This is Tesla formally contracting BOXABL to design, engineer, and build a pilot “Micromenity” structure, a compact, modular building unit.
While some info in the… pic.twitter.com/RabJczGpEp
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) December 9, 2025
Superchargers are commonly located at gas stations, shopping centers, and other major points of interest. However, there are some stops that are isolated from retail or entertainment.
This BOXABL collaboration would be a great way to add a rest stop to a rural Supercharging location, and could lead to more of these chargers across the U.S.
Tesla has done a lot of really great things for Supercharging this year.
Along with widespread expansion, the company launched the “Charging Passport” this week, opened the largest Supercharger in the world in Lost Hills, California, with 168 chargers, opened the Tesla Diner, a drive-in movie restaurant in Los Angeles, and initiated access to the infrastructure to even more automakers.
Elon Musk
Tesla CEO Elon Musk confirms Robotaxi safety monitor removal in Austin: here’s when
Musk has made the claim about removing Safety Monitors from Tesla Robotaxi vehicles in Austin three times this year, once in September, once in October, and once in November.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk confirmed on Tuesday at the xAI Hackathon that the company would be removing Safety Monitors from Robotaxis in Austin in just three weeks.
This would meet Musk’s timeline from earlier this year, as he has said on several occasions that Tesla Robotaxis would have no supervision in Austin by the end of 2025.
On Tuesday, Musk said:
“Unsupervised is pretty much solved at this point. So there will be Tesla Robotaxis operating in Austin with no one in them. Not even anyone in the passenger seat in about three weeks.”
Musk has made the claim about removing Safety Monitors from Tesla Robotaxi vehicles in Austin three times this year, once in September, once in October, and once in November.
In September, he said:
“Should be no safety driver by end of year.”
The safety driver is just there for the first few months to be extra safe.
Should be no safety driver by end of year.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 4, 2025
On the Q3 Earnings Call in October, he said:
“We are expecting ot have no safety drivers in at least large parts of Austin by the end of this year.”
Finally, in November, he reiterated the timeline in a public statement at the Shareholder Meeting:
“I expect Robotaxis to operate without safety drivers in large parts of Austin this year.”
Currently, Tesla uses Safety Monitors in Austin in the passenger’s seat on local roads. They will sit in the driver’s seat for highway routes. In the Bay Area ride-hailing operation, there is always a Safety Monitor in the driver’s seat.
Three weeks would deliver on the end-of-year promise, cutting it close, beating it by just two days. However, it would be a tremendous leap forward in the Robotaxi program, and would shut the mouths of many skeptics who state the current iteration is no different than having an Uber.
Tesla has also expanded its Robotaxi fleet this year, but the company has not given exact figures. Once it expands its fleet, even more progress will be made in Tesla’s self-driving efforts.
News
SpaceX reportedly mulling IPO, eyeing largest of all time: report
“I do want to try to figure out some way for Tesla shareholders to participate in SpaceX. I’ve been giving a lot of thought to how to give people access to SpaceX stock,” Musk said.
SpaceX is reportedly mulling an initial public offering, eyeing what would be the largest valuation at the time of availability of all time, a new report from Bloomberg said on Tuesday.
It is one of many reports involving one of Elon Musk’s companies and a massive market move, as this is not the first time we have seen reports of an IPO by SpaceX. Musk himself has also dispelled other reports in the past of a similar nature, including an xAI funding round.
SpaceX and Musk have yet to comment on the report. In the past, untrue reports were promptly replied to by the CEO; this has not yet gained any response, which is a good sign in terms of credibility.
However, he said just a few days ago that stories of this nature are inaccurate:
“There has been a lot of press claiming SpaceX is raising money at $800B, which is not accurate. SpaceX has been cash flow positive for many years and does periodic stock buybacks twice a year to provide liquidity for employees and investors. Valuation increments are a function of progress with Starship and Starlink and securing global direct-to-cell spectrum that greatly increases our addressable market. And one other thing that is arguably most significant by far.”
There has been a lot of press claiming @SpaceX is raising money at $800B, which is not accurate.
SpaceX has been cash flow positive for many years and does periodic stock buybacks twice a year to provide liquidity for employees and investors.
Valuation increments are a…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 6, 2025
Musk has discussed a potential IPO for SpaceX in recent months, as the November 6 shareholder meeting, as he commented on the “downsides” of having a public company, like litigation exposure, quarterly reporting pressures, and other inconveniences.
Nevertheless, Musk has also said he wants there to be a way for Tesla shareholders to get in on the action. At the meeting in early November, he said:
“I do want to try to figure out some way for Tesla shareholders to participate in SpaceX. I’ve been giving a lot of thought to how to give people access to SpaceX stock.”
Additionally, he added:
“Maybe at some point., SpaceX should become a public company despite all the downsides of being public.”
Musk has been historically reluctant to take SpaceX public, at times stating it could become a barrier to colonizing Mars. That does not mean it will not happen.
Bloomberg’s report cites multiple unidentified sources who are familiar with the matter. They indicate to the publication that SpaceX wants to go public in mid-to-late 2026, and it wants to raise $30 billion at a valuation of around $1.5 trillion.
This is not the first time SpaceX has discussed an IPO; we reported on it nine years ago. We hope it is true, as the community has spoken for a long time about having access to SpaceX stock. Legendary investor Ron Baron is one of the lucky few to be a SpaceX investor, and said it, along with Tesla, is a “lifetime investment.”
Tesla bull Ron Baron reveals $100M SpaceX investment, sees 3-5x return on TSLA
The primary driver of SpaceX’s value is Starlink, the company’s satellite internet service. Starlink contributes 60-70 percent of SpaceX’s revenue, meaning it is the primary value engine. Launch services, like Falcon 9 contracts, and the development of Starship, also play supporting roles.
Tesla discloses interesting collaboration partner for Supercharging
Tesla CEO Elon Musk confirms Robotaxi safety monitor removal in Austin: here’s when
