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

5 years ago

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.

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.

Advertisement
-->
SpaceX, ULA win multibillion-dollar military launch contract years in the making

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.

Related Topics:

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

Investor's Corner

Tesla analyst realizes one big thing about the stock: deliveries are losing importance

Published

2 hours ago

on

December 15, 2025

By

Credit: Joe Tegtmeyer | YouTube

Tesla analyst Dan Levy of Barclays realized one big thing about the stock moving into 2026: vehicle deliveries are losing importance.

As a new era of Tesla seems to be on the horizon, the concern about vehicle deliveries and annual growth seems to be fading, at least according to many investors.

Even CEO Elon Musk has implied at times that the automotive side, as a whole, will only make up a small percentage of Tesla’s total valuation, as Optimus and AI begin to shine with importance.

He said in April:

“The future of the company is fundamentally based on large-scale autonomous cars and large-scale and large volume, vast numbers of autonomous humanoid robots.”

Levy wrote in a note to investors that Tesla’s Q4 delivery figures “likely won’t matter for the stock.” Barclays said in the note that it expects deliveries to be “soft” for the quarter.

In years past, Tesla analysts, investors, and fans were focused on automotive growth.

Cars were truly the biggest thing the stock had to offer: Tesla was a growing automotive company with a lot of prowess in AI and software, but deliveries held the most impact, along with vehicle pricing. These types of things had huge impacts on the stock years ago.

In fact, several large swings occurred because of Tesla either beating or missing delivery estimates:

  • January 3, 2022: +13.53%, record deliveries at the time
  • January 3, 2023: -12.24%, missed deliveries
  • July 2, 2024: +10.20%, beat delivery expectations
  • October 3, 2022: -8.61%, sharp miss due to Shanghai factory shutdown
  • July 2, 2020: +7.95%, topped low COVID-era expectations with sizeable beat on deliveries

It has become more apparent over the past few quarters that delivery estimates have significantly less focus from investors, who are instead looking for progress in AI, Optimus, Cybercab, and other projects.

These things are the future of the company, and although Tesla will always sell cars, the stock is more impacted by the software the vehicle is running, and not necessarily the vehicle itself.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla removes Safety Monitors, begins fully autonomous Robotaxi testing

This development, in terms of the Robotaxi program, is massive. Tesla has been working incredibly hard to expand its fleet of Robotaxi vehicles to accommodate the considerable demand it has experienced for the platform.

Published

15 hours ago

on

December 14, 2025

By

Credit: @Mandablorian | X

Tesla has started Robotaxi testing in Austin, Texas, without any vehicle occupants, the company’s CEO Elon Musk confirmed on Sunday. Two Tesla Model Y Robotaxi units were spotted in Austin traveling on public roads with nobody in the car.

The testing phase begins just a week after Musk confirmed that Tesla would be removing Safety Monitors from its vehicles “within the next three weeks.” Tesla has been working to initiate driverless rides by the end of the year since the Robotaxi fleet was launched back in June.

Two units were spotted, with the first being seen from the side and clearly showing no human beings inside the cabin of the Model Y Robotaxi:

Another unit, which is the same color but was confirmed as a different vehicle, was spotted just a few moments later:

The two units are traveling in the general vicinity of the South Congress and Dawson neighborhoods of downtown Austin. These are located on the southside of the city.

This development, in terms of the Robotaxi program, is massive. Tesla has been working incredibly hard to expand its fleet of Robotaxi vehicles to accommodate the considerable demand it has experienced for the platform.

However, the main focus of the Robotaxi program since its launch in the Summer was to remove Safety Monitors and initiate completely driverless rides. This effort is close to becoming a reality, and the efforts of the company are coming to fruition.

It is a drastic step in the company’s trek for self-driving technology, as it plans to expand it to passenger vehicles in the coming years. Tesla owners have plenty of experience with the Full Self-Driving suite, which is not fully autonomous, but is consistently ranked among the best-performing platforms in the world.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla refines Full Self-Driving, latest update impresses where it last came up short

We were able to go out and test it pretty extensively on Saturday, and the changes Tesla made from the previous version were incredibly impressive, especially considering it seemed to excel where it last came up short.

Published

1 day ago

on

December 14, 2025

By

Credit: TESLARATI

Tesla released Full Self-Driving v14.2.1.25 on Friday night to Early Access Program (EAP) members. It came as a surprise, as it was paired with the release of the Holiday Update.

We were able to go out and test it pretty extensively on Saturday, and the changes Tesla made from the previous version were incredibly impressive, especially considering it seemed to excel where it last came up short.

Tesla supplements Holiday Update by sneaking in new Full Self-Driving version

With Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.1, there were some serious regressions. Speed Profiles were overtinkered with, causing some modes to behave in a strange manner. Hurry Mode was the most evident, as it refused to go more than 10 MPH over the speed limit on freeways.

It would routinely hold up traffic at this speed, and flipping it into Mad Max mode was sort of over the top. Hurry is what I use most frequently, and it had become somewhat unusable with v14.2.1.

It seemed as if Speed Profiles should be more associated with both passing and lane-changing frequency. Capping speeds does not help as it can impede the flow of traffic. When FSD travels at the speed of other traffic, it is much more effective and less disruptive.

With v14.2.1.25, there were three noticeable changes that improved its performance significantly: Speed Profile refinements, lane change confidence, and Speed Limit recognition.

Speed Profile Refinement

Speed Profiles have been significantly improved. Hurry Mode is no longer capped at 10 MPH over the speed limit and now travels with the flow of traffic. This is much more comfortable during highway operation, and I was not required to intervene at any point.

With v14.2.1, I was sometimes assisting it with lane changes, and felt it was in the wrong place at the wrong time more frequently than ever before.

However, this was one of the best-performing FSD versions in recent memory, and I really did not have any complaints on the highway. Speed, maneuvering, lane switching, routing, and aggressiveness were all perfect.

Lane Changes

v14.2.1 had a tendency to be a little more timid when changing lanes, which was sort of frustrating at times. When the car decides to change lanes and turn on its signal, it needs to pull the trigger and change lanes.

It also changed lanes at extremely unnecessary times, which was a real frustration.

There were no issues today on v14.2.1.25; lane changes were super confident, executed at the correct time, and in the correct fashion. It made good decisions on when to get into the right lane when proceeding toward its exit.

It was one of the first times in a while that I did not feel as if I needed to nudge it to change lanes. I was very impressed.

Speed Limit Recognition

So, this is a complex issue. With v14.2.1, there were many times when it would see a Speed Limit sign that was not meant for the car (one catered for tractor trailers, for example) or even a route sign, and it would incorrectly adjust the speed. It did this on the highway several times, mistaking a Route 30 sign for a 30 MPH sign, then beginning to decelerate from 55 MPH to 30 MPH on the highway.

This required an intervention. I also had an issue leaving a drive-thru Christmas lights display, where the owners of the private property had a 15 MPH sign posted nearly every 200 yards for about a mile and a half.

The car identified it as a 55 MPH sign and sped up significantly. This caused an intervention, and I had to drive manually.

It seems like FSD v14.2.1.25 is now less reliant on the signage (maybe because it was incorrectly labeling it) and more reliant on map data or the behavior of nearby traffic.

A good example was on the highway today: despite the car reading that Route 30 sign and the Speed Limit sign on the center screen reading 30 MPH, the car did not decelerate. It continued at the same speed, but I’m not sure if that’s because of traffic or map data:

A Lone Complaint

Tesla has said future updates will include parking improvements, and I’m really anxious for them, because parking is not great. I’ve had some real issues with it over the past couple of months.

Today was no different:

Full Self-Driving v14.2.1.25 is really a massive improvement over past versions, and it seems apparent that Tesla took its time with fixing the bugs, especially with highway operation on v14.2.1.

Continue Reading