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’s last chance version of the flagship Model X is officially gone

The Signature Edition was no ordinary Model X Plaid. Offered exclusively by invitation to select existing Tesla owners, it represented the final production batch of the current-generation Model X before manufacturing at Fremont ends.

Published

on

Tesla enabled a last-chance version of its two flagship vehicles, the Model S and Model X, over the past few weeks. The Model X, the company’s original SUV, is officially gone.

Tesla has officially closed the book on its most exclusive send-off for the Model X. The limited-run Model X Signature Edition—priced at $159,420 before fees and limited to just 100 units—is now sold out, with reservations closed as of April 16.

The Signature Edition was no ordinary Model X Plaid. Offered exclusively by invitation to select existing Tesla owners, it represented the final production batch of the current-generation Model X before manufacturing at Fremont ends.

Every unit featured an exclusive Garnet Red exterior paint, unique badging, and a standard six-seat configuration. With full Plaid powertrain specs—Tri-Motor All-Wheel Drive, over 1,000 horsepower, and blistering acceleration—it was positioned as a collector’s item for loyalists who wanted one last shot at owning a piece of Tesla history.

The timing is no coincidence.

Tesla announced earlier this year that it would discontinue regular production of both the Model S and Model X to repurpose the Fremont factory’s dedicated lines for mass production of its Optimus humanoid robots.

Elon Musk has repeatedly emphasized that Optimus could ultimately become more valuable to the company than its vehicle business, with ambitions to build hundreds of thousands of units annually.

The Signature Editions served as a final “runout” series: 250 for the Model S and only 100 for the Model X, all built to the highest Plaid specification before the line is converted.

Deliveries of the remaining Signature units are scheduled to begin in May 2026. For buyers who secured one, it’s the ultimate swan song for a vehicle that helped define Tesla’s early luxury EV dominance.

Launched in 2015, the Model X introduced falcon-wing doors, a panoramic windshield, and class-leading performance that turned heads and set benchmarks. While newer models like the Cybertruck and refreshed Model Y have taken center stage, the Model X Plaid remained a halo product for those seeking maximum range, space, and speed in an SUV package.

With inventory of standard Model X units already nearly exhausted across the U.S., the rapid sell-out of the Signature Edition underscores enduring demand for Tesla’s premium flagships even as the company pivots toward robotics and autonomy.

For enthusiasts, these 100 garnet-red SUVs will likely become instant collector’s items—tangible reminders of the vehicles that built the brand before Tesla’s next chapter fully begins. The last chance is gone, but the legacy endures.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla Optimus V3 hand and arm details revealed in new patents

Two new patents, which were coincidentally filed on the same day as the “We, Robot” event back in October 2024, protect Tesla’s mechanically actuated, tendon-driven architecture.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla China

Tesla is planning to soon reveal its latest and greatest version of the Optimus humanoid robot, and a series of new patents for the hands and arms, with the former being, admittedly, one of the most challenging parts of developing the project.

Two new patents, which were coincidentally filed on the same day as the “We, Robot” event back in October 2024, protect Tesla’s mechanically actuated, tendon-driven architecture.

The designs relocate heavy actuators to the forearm, route cables through a sophisticated wrist design, and employ innovative joint assemblies to achieve human-like dexterity while enabling lightweight construction and high-volume manufacturing.

Core Tendon-Driven Hand Architecture

The primary patent, which is titled “Mechanically Actuated Robotic Hand,” details a cable/tendon-driven system.

Actuators are positioned in the forearm rather than the hand. Each finger features four degrees of freedom (DoF), while the wrist adds two more.

Three thin, flexible control cables (tendons) per finger extend from the forearm actuators, pass through the wrist, and connect to the finger segments. Integrated channels within the finger phalanges guide these cables selectively—routing behind some joints and forward of others—to enable independent bending without unintended motion.

Patent diagrams illustrate thick cable bundles emerging from the wrist into the palm and fingers, with labeled pivots and routing guides. This setup closely mirrors human forearm-muscle and tendon anatomy, where most hand control originates proximally.

Advanced Wrist Routing Innovation

One of the standout features is the wrist’s cable transition mechanism. Cables shift from a lateral stack on the forearm side to a vertical stack on the hand side through a specialized transition zone.

This geometry significantly reduces cable stretch, torque, friction, and crosstalk during combined yaw and pitch wrist movements — common failure points in simpler tendon systems that cause imprecise or jerky motion.

By minimizing these issues, the design supports smoother, more reliable multi-axis wrist operation, essential for complex real-world tasks.

Companion Patents on Appendage and Joint Design

Two supporting patents provide additional depth. “Robotic Appendage” covers the overall forearm-to-palm-to-finger assembly, with a palm body movably coupled to the forearm and finger phalanges linked by tensile cables returning to forearm actuators. Tensioning these cables repositions the phalanges precisely.

“Joint Assembly for Robotic Appendage” describes curved contact surfaces on mating structures paired with a composite flexible member. This allows smooth pivoting while maintaining consistent tension, enhancing durability, and simplifying assembly for mass production.

Executive Insights on Hand Development Challenges

Tesla executives have consistently described the hand as the most difficult component of Optimus.

Elon Musk has called it “the majority of the engineering difficulty of the entire robot,” emphasizing that human hands possess roughly 27–28 DoF with an intricate tendon network powered largely by forearm muscles. He has likened the challenge to something “harder than Cybertruck or Model X… somewhere between Model X and Starship.”

Elon Musk shares ridiculous fact about Optimus’ hand demos

In mid-2025, Musk acknowledged that Tesla was “struggling” to finalize the hand and forearm design. By early 2026, he stated that the company had overcome the “hardest” problems, including human-level manual dexterity, real-world AI integration, and volume production scalability.

He estimated the electromechanical hand represents about 60 percent of the overall Optimus challenge, compounded by the lack of an existing supply chain for such precision components.

These patents directly tackle the acknowledged pain points: relocating actuators reduces hand mass and inertia for better speed and efficiency; advanced wrist routing and joint geometry address friction and crosstalk; and simplified, stackable parts visible in the diagrams indicate readiness for high-volume manufacturing.

Implications for Optimus Production and Leadership

Collectively, the patents portray the Optimus v3 hand not as a mere prototype, but as a production-oriented system engineered from first principles.

The 22-DoF architecture, forearm-driven tendons, and crosstalk-minimizing wrist deliver a clear competitive edge in dexterity. They align with Musk’s view that high-volume manufacturing is one of the three critical elements missing from most other humanoid projects.

For Optimus to become the most capable humanoid robot, its hand needed to replicate the useful and applicable design of the human counterpart.

These filings demonstrate that Tesla has transformed years of engineering challenges into patented, elegant solutions — positioning the company strongly in the race toward general-purpose robotics.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla intertwines FSD with in-house Insurance for attractive incentive

Every mile logged under FSD now carries a documented financial value—lower risk, lower cost—based on Tesla’s internal driving data rather than external crash statistics alone.

Published

on

tesla interior operating on full self driving
Credit: TESLARATI

Tesla intertwined its Full Self-Driving (Supervised) suite with its in-house Insurance initiative in an effort to offer an attractive incentive to drivers.

Tesla announced that its new Safety Score 3.0 will automatically have a perfect score of 100 with every mile driven with Full Self-Driving (Supervised) enabled.

The change is designed to boost customers’ average safety scores and deliver noticeably lower monthly premiums.

The move marks the clearest link yet between Tesla’s autonomous driving technology and its proprietary insurance product. Tesla Insurance already relies on real-time vehicle data—such as acceleration, braking, following distance, and speed—to calculate a Safety Score between 0 and 100. Higher scores have long translated into cheaper rates.

Under the previous system, however, even brief manual interventions could drag down the average, frustrating owners who rely heavily on FSD. Version 3.0 eliminates that penalty for supervised autonomous miles, effectively treating FSD-driven segments as the safest possible driving behavior.

The incentive is immediate and financial. Drivers who keep FSD engaged for the majority of their trips will see their overall score rise, potentially shaving hundreds of dollars off annual premiums.

Tesla framed the update as a direct response to customer feedback, many of whom had complained that the old scoring model punished the very behavior it was meant to encourage.

For now, the program applies only to new policies in six states: Indiana, Tennessee, Texas, Arizona, Virginia, and Illinois.

Existing policyholders are not yet included, a point that drew swift questions from the Tesla community. Many owners in other states, including California and Georgia, expressed hope that the benefit would expand nationwide soon.

The announcement arrives as Tesla continues to roll out FSD Supervised updates and push for regulatory approval of more advanced autonomy. By tying insurance savings directly to FSD usage, the company is putting its own actuarial weight behind the technology’s safety claims.

Every mile logged under FSD now carries a documented financial value—lower risk, lower cost—based on Tesla’s internal driving data rather than external crash statistics alone.

Tesla has not disclosed exact premium reductions or the full rollout timeline beyond the six launch states.

Still, the message is clear: the more drivers trust FSD Supervised, the more Tesla Insurance will reward them. In an era when legacy insurers remain cautious about autonomous tech, Tesla is betting that its own data will prove the safest miles are the ones driven hands-free.

Continue Reading