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 Model 3 named New Zealand’s best passenger car of 2025
Tesla flipped the switch on Full Self-Driving (Supervised) in September, turning every Model 3 and Model Y into New Zealand’s most advanced production car overnight.
The refreshed Tesla Model 3 has won the DRIVEN Car Guide AA Insurance NZ Car of the Year 2025 award in the Passenger Car category, beating all traditional and electric rivals.
Judges praised the all-electric sedan’s driving dynamics, value-packed EV tech, and the game-changing addition of Full Self-Driving (Supervised) that went live in New Zealand this September.
Why the Model 3 clinched the crown
DRIVEN admitted they were late to the “Highland” party because the updated sedan arrived in New Zealand as a 2024 model, just before the new Model Y stole the headlines. Yet two things forced a re-evaluation this year.
First, experiencing the new Model Y reminded testers how many big upgrades originated in the Model 3, such as the smoother ride, quieter cabin, ventilated seats, rear touchscreen, and stalk-less minimalist interior. Second, and far more importantly, Tesla flipped the switch on Full Self-Driving (Supervised) in September, turning every Model 3 and Model Y into New Zealand’s most advanced production car overnight.
FSD changes everything for Kiwi buyers
The publication called the entry-level rear-wheel-drive version “good to drive and represents a lot of EV technology for the money,” but highlighted that FSD elevates it into another league. “Make no mistake, despite the ‘Supervised’ bit in the name that requires you to remain ready to take control, it’s autonomous and very capable in some surprisingly tricky scenarios,” the review stated.
-->At NZ$11,400, FSD is far from cheap, but Tesla also offers FSD (Supervised) on a $159 monthly subscription, making the tech accessible without the full upfront investment. That’s a game-changer, as it allows users to access the company’s most advanced system without forking over a huge amount of money.
News
Tesla starts rolling out FSD V14.2.1 to AI4 vehicles including Cybertruck
FSD V14.2.1 was released just about a week after the initial FSD V14.2 update was rolled out.
It appears that the Tesla AI team burned the midnight oil, allowing them to release FSD V14.2.1 on Thanksgiving. The update has been reported by Tesla owners with AI4 vehicles, as well as Cybertruck owners.
For the Tesla AI team, at least, it appears that work really does not stop.
FSD V14.2.1
Initial posts about FSD V14.2.1 were shared by Tesla owners on social media platform X. As per the Tesla owners, V14.2.1 appears to be a point update that’s designed to polish the features and capacities that have been available in FSD V14. A look at the release notes for FSD V14.2.1, however, shows that an extra line has been added.
“Camera visibility can lead to increased attention monitoring sensitivity.”
Whether this could lead to more drivers being alerted to pay attention to the roads more remains to be seen. This would likely become evident as soon as the first batch of videos from Tesla owners who received V14.21 start sharing their first drive impressions of the update. Despite the update being released on Thanksgiving, it would not be surprising if first impressions videos of FSD V14.2.1 are shared today, just the same.
-->Rapid FSD releases
What is rather interesting and impressive is the fact that FSD V14.2.1 was released just about a week after the initial FSD V14.2 update was rolled out. This bodes well for Tesla’s FSD users, especially since CEO Elon Musk has stated in the past that the V14.2 series will be for “widespread use.”
FSD V14 has so far received numerous positive reviews from Tesla owners, with numerous drivers noting that the system now drives better than most human drivers because it is cautious, confident, and considerate at the same time. The only question now, really, is if the V14.2 series does make it to the company’s wide FSD fleet, which is still populated by numerous HW3 vehicles.
News
Waymo rider data hints that Tesla’s Cybercab strategy might be the smartest, after all
These observations all but validate Tesla’s controversial two-seat Cybercab strategy, which has caught a lot of criticism since it was unveiled last year.
Toyota Connected Europe designer Karim Dia Toubajie has highlighted a particular trend that became evident in Waymo’s Q3 2025 occupancy stats. As it turned out, 90% of the trips taken by the driverless taxis carried two or fewer passengers.
These observations all but validate Tesla’s controversial two-seat Cybercab strategy, which has caught a lot of criticism since it was unveiled last year.
Toyota designer observes a trend
Karim Dia Toubajie, Lead Product Designer (Sustainable Mobility) at Toyota Connected Europe, analyzed Waymo’s latest California Public Utilities Commission filings and posted the results on LinkedIn this week.
“90% of robotaxi trips have 2 or less passengers, so why are we using 5-seater vehicles?” Toubajie asked. He continued: “90% of trips have 2 or less people, 75% of trips have 1 or less people.” He accompanied his comments with a graphic showing Waymo’s occupancy rates, which showed 71% of trips having one passenger, 15% of trips having two passengers, 6% of trips having three passengers, 5% of trips having zero passengers, and only 3% of trips having four passengers.
The data excludes operational trips like depot runs or charging, though Toubajie pointed out that most of the time, Waymo’s massive self-driving taxis are really just transporting 1 or 2 people, at times even no passengers at all. “This means that most of the time, the vehicle being used significantly outweighs the needs of the trip,” the Toyota designer wrote in his post.
-->Cybercab suddenly looks perfectly sized
Toubajie gave a nod to Tesla’s approach. “The Tesla Cybercab announced in 2024, is a 2-seater robotaxi with a 50kWh battery but I still believe this is on the larger side of what’s required for most trips,” he wrote.
With Waymo’s own numbers now proving 90% of demand fits two seats or fewer, the wheel-less, lidar-free Cybercab now looks like the smartest play in the room. The Cybercab is designed to be easy to produce, with CEO Elon Musk commenting that its product line would resemble a consumer electronics factory more than an automotive plant. This means that the Cybercab could saturate the roads quickly once it is deployed.
While the Cybercab will likely take the lion’s share of Tesla’s ride-hailing passengers, the Model 3 sedan and Model Y crossover would be perfect for the remaining 9% of riders who require larger vehicles. This should be easy to implement for Tesla, as the Model Y and Model 3 are both mass-market vehicles.
Tesla Model 3 named New Zealand’s best passenger car of 2025
Tesla starts rolling out FSD V14.2.1 to AI4 vehicles including Cybertruck
