SpaceX
SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy win $297M in US military launch contracts
SpaceX and competitor United Launch Alliance (ULA) have been awarded three US military launch contracts apiece with an overall value of $297M (SpaceX) and $442M (ULA). While unconfirmed, this could mark the fourth launch contract awarded to Falcon Heavy in just half a year.
Set to nominally launch between 2021 and 2022, SpaceX received two contracts from the National Reconnaissance Office (NROL-85 and -87) and one from the USAF (AFSPC-44), while ULA received two missions from the USAF (SBIRS-5 and -6) and one from NRO (SILENTBARKER). While the announcement did not specify launch vehicle arrangements, it’s safe to assume that ULA will be flying SBIRS on Atlas V, while SpaceX will likely fly both NROL payloads on Falcon 9.
JUST IN: Air Force awards $739 million in launch contracts to ULA and SpaceX – https://t.co/6tMHINEk57 https://t.co/NYI2qbF68Y
— Sandra Erwin (@Sandra_I_Erwin) February 19, 2019
“SpaceX is proud that the Air Force has chosen our company to support our country’s defense with these critical national security space launches and to continue providing the best value in launch with the proven Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy vehicles.” – SpaceX President & COO Gwynne Shotwell, 02/19/2019
“This is a full and open competition. … At present, ULA is the only launch provider certified for the SILENTBARKER and AFSPC-44 missions. However, it is anticipated that in the near future SpaceX will be launching the Falcon Heavy, which may be capable of meeting the SILENTBARKER and AFSPC-44 requirements.” – USAF SMC, 02/02/2018
In official comments made in a follow-up to the finalized RFP (requests for proposals) for the launch contracts the US military awarded On Feb. 19, 2019, the USAF Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) offered some insight into the thought processes going on behind the scenes of the procurement initiative. While almost nothing is known about the payloads themselves, SMC appeared to confirm that SILENTBARKER (believed to be NROL-107) and AFSPC-44 could only be launched on ULA rockets at the time (Feb. 2018), although SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy was also reportedly an option. Provided just a few days before Falcon Heavy’s launch debut, SMC’s tentative inclusion of FH was understandable.
- After launching NROL-76 in May 2017, B1032 returned to Landing Zone-1 for a successful landing. (SpaceX)
- Atlas V 551 prepares to launch USAF satellite AEHF-4. (ULA)
- SBIRS GEO 3 (Flight 4) encapsulation. (USAF)
- GPS III SV01 is encapsulated in Falcon 9’s fairing. (SpaceX)
For a bit of historical context, SpaceX completed its first NRO mission (NROL-76) in May 2017 for an unknown sum, although safe estimates peg the Falcon 9 launch cost somewhere around $80-100M. SpaceX’s first official USAF EELV mission, the first upgraded GPS III satellite, was completed in December 2018 for around $82M (2016) and won an additional three GPS III launch contracts at an average per-mission value of ~$97M. Each GPS III satellite is estimated to cost no less than $573M, while the last four SBIRS (Space-Based Infrared System) geostationary satellites infamously wound up costing more than $1.7 billion apiece as a consequence of prime contractor Lockheed Martin incurring multiple delays and breaching price targets. SBIRS-5 and -6 were said by a Lockheed Martin executive to likely cost “20% less” than SBIRS 1-4, implying that each spacecraft will carry a price tag of at least $1.4B.
Given the sheer cost of the spacecraft and the Air Force’s stance on the SBIRS constellation being a critical part of ballistic missile early-warning defenses, it’s not particularly surprising that Atlas V was chosen over Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy, a decision likely made to minimize latent risk – however little.

Falcon Heavy – contract #6?
In June 2018, the USAF announced that it had officially certified Falcon Heavy for Air Force missions and awarded SpaceX’s newest launch vehicle a $130M contract to launch its Air Force Space Command-52 spacecraft (AFSPC-52) in 2020. Weighing around 6350 kg (14,000 lbs), Falcon Heavy is tasked with placing the spacecraft into a geostationary transfer orbit of 185 by 35,188 kilometers (115 by 21,900 miles), a mission profile that curiously should be within the performance capabilities of an expendable Falcon 9. If AFSPC-44 is similar to -52, it could be launched by either SpaceX rocket and SMC’s vague $297M award fails to answer any questions thanks to the uncertainty of SpaceX NRO contract pricing. Still, it can be easily determined that SpaceX’s average launch cost ($99M) trounces ULA’s ($147M) by nearly 50%, potentially saving the US government and taxpayer a bit less than $150M.
- SpaceX Facebook group member Joshua Murrah also captured what is likely the third Falcon Heavy booster’s Florida arrival. (Joshua Murrah, 02/11/19)
- SpaceX Facebook group member Joshua Murrah captured two great photos of the second Falcon Heavy side booster to arrive in Florida in the last month. (Joshua Murrah, 01/17/19)
- The second (and third) flight of Falcon Heavy is even closer to reality as a new side booster heads to Florida after finishing static fire tests in Texas. (Reddit /u/e32revelry)
- Falcon Heavy clears the top of the tower in a spectacular fashion during its debut launch. (Tom Cross/Pauline Acalin)
Aside from AFSPC-52 and perhaps AFSPC-44, Falcon Heavy received an additional two commercial contracts from Swedish communications firm Ovzon and US company Viasat in October 2018. Following its February 2018 debut, the rocket’s next two missions (Arabsat 6A and USAF STP-2) are also imminent, with current info pointing to launch targets in March and April 2019, respectively. Combined, Falcon Heavy may now have six solid launch contracts manifested from 2019 to 2021. Meanwhile, NASA and international partners ESA and JAXA (among others) continue to express interest in and work towards the creation of a miniature crewed space station (“Gateway”) in an unusual orbit around the Moon, an aspiration the success of which will heavily depend on affordable commercial launches of a variety of Gateway components and resupply missions, at minimum.
If NASA’s Gateway and crewed Moon lander programs survive the United States’ 2020 election cycle, Falcon Heavy could be called into action as early as 2022 and have numerous additional contract opportunities in the 4+ years following. Ultimately, the US military’s Feb. 19 launch awards confirm that the taxpayer continues to reap the benefits of competition SpaceX has reintroduced into the monopolized US launch industry, while also reiterating the health and commercial value of SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy investment.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes!
Elon Musk
Elon Musk responds to SpaceX’s ESG rating and says its rockets won’t go electric
It is safe to say SpaceX won’t be going for electric rockets anytime soon.
In a characteristically blunt reply on X, SpaceX frontman Elon Musk stated, “Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible,” following reports that MSCI had assigned SpaceX its lowest possible ESG rating of CCC.
The assessment, issued just this past week, coinciding closely with SpaceX’s public market debut, placed the company on par with nations like Russia in sustainability scoring and cited significant risks in environmental, social, and governance areas.
MSCI flagged SpaceX’s exposure to rocket emissions and other operational impacts, alongside governance concerns such as concentrated control by Musk and limited shareholder protections. Musk’s terse comment directly addressed the environmental pillar, underscoring a core physical constraint that ESG frameworks often overlook when evaluating high-thrust industries.
Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 21, 2026
Electric propulsion systems do exist and are widely used in space. Ion thrusters and Hall-effect thrusters accelerate ionized propellant, typically xenon or krypton, using electric fields, achieving very high specific impulse, often exceeding 3,000 seconds compared to roughly 300–450 seconds for chemical rockets.
This efficiency makes them ideal for satellite station-keeping, orbit raising, and deep-space missions where low thrust over long durations is sufficient. SpaceX’s own Starlink satellites employ electric propulsion for these purposes.
However, launching from Earth’s surface demands something entirely different: enormous thrust delivered rapidly to overcome gravity and atmospheric drag. A typical orbital-class booster must generate thrust far exceeding its weight, often in the millions of Newtons within seconds.
Chemical rockets achieve this through exothermic combustion of dense propellants, producing high-mass-flow, high-velocity exhaust. Electric systems, by contrast, expel very small amounts of mass at extremely high speeds. Generating equivalent thrust would require impractical onboard power levels, massive energy storage or generation systems, and prohibitive added mass, rendering the approach infeasible with current or near-term technology.
Musk has previously expressed a similar sentiment, noting a desire for electric orbital rockets while acknowledging the inescapable requirements of Newton’s third law and energy delivery. The distinction is clear: electric propulsion excels once a vehicle is already in space; it cannot replace the high-thrust chemical phase required to reach orbit from the ground.
The episode illustrates broader critiques of ESG ratings. Proponents argue they incentivize better risk management and long-term sustainability. Detractors, including Musk—who has previously called ESG a “scam”—contend that such metrics can penalize essential activities when no practical alternative exists, potentially discouraging innovation in sectors like space access.
Elon Musk dubs the S&P 500 ESG as “outrageous scam” after Tesla gets booted from index
SpaceX has sought to mitigate launch-related impacts through reusability: Falcon 9 boosters have flown more than 30 times in some cases, dramatically lowering the manufacturing and emissions burden per kilogram delivered to orbit. Starship’s design further emphasizes rapid reusability and methane propellant, which can theoretically be produced via sustainable pathways.
Ultimately, Musk’s remark serves as a reminder that certain engineering realities persist regardless of scoring systems. As humanity expands its presence in space for communications, science, and exploration, balancing genuine environmental progress with technological necessity remains a central challenge.
ESG frameworks may evolve, but the fundamental limits of electric launch propulsion are unlikely to change soon.
Investor's Corner
SpaceX is launching a secret spacecraft that could change how things are made in space
SpaceX’s secret disk-shaped Starfall capsule is targeting a market no reentry vehicle has cracked.
SpaceX is targeting Tuesday, June 23 for the first flight of Starfall, a reentry capsule the company has developed almost entirely in private. The Falcon 9 launch window opens at 6:43 a.m. ET from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, with a backup window available the same time on June 24. SpaceX has made no public announcement about the vehicle, only providing launch details. Everything known about it has come through FAA and FCC regulatory filings.
What makes Starfall different starts with its shape. Rather than the traditional cone used by Dragon and every other cargo return capsule in operation, Starfall is a flat disk that measures roughly 10.2 feet (3.1 meters) wide and just 2.5 feet (0.75 meters) tall, and weighing 4,630 pounds (2,100 kg) and capable of returning up to 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms) of payload from orbit. The disk geometry maximizes structural efficiency and payload volume relative to mass, and the heat shield mechanically jettisons just before splashdown, allowing recovery teams to retrieve both the capsule and the shield separately from the Pacific Ocean.
The difference with Starfall from existing competitors, such as Varda Space Industries, which has largely built the orbital manufacturing market and returns heavy payloads per flight is that Starfall’s specification is roughly 30 times more per mission, and is designed to be mass-produced and launched on either Falcon 9 or Starship. That combination of volume and launch access is something no standalone startup can replicate, and it puts SpaceX in direct competition with the companies that currently pay it to reach orbit.
SpaceX to launch military missile tracking satellites through new Space Force contract
The intended market is orbital manufacturing: pharmaceuticals, protein crystals, semiconductors, and advanced optical fiber that physically cannot be produced in the presence of gravity. FAA documents describe Starfall’s long-term purpose as building a “self-sustaining commercial in-space manufacturing market” and as a potential successor to the industrial capabilities of the International Space Station, which is set to retire in the late 2020s. Military rapid global cargo delivery is a parallel application under active discussion with the Pentagon.
The reason some industries seek manufacturing in space comes down to gravity. On Earth, gravity causes materials to settle, separate, and deform during production. In microgravity, those constraints disappear.
SpaceX’s already controls launch access, which means it currently functions as the landlord for every competitor in the orbital manufacturing return space. Starfall converts that landlord position into vertical ownership, and it would no longer just carry other companies’ capsules to orbit, but rather operate the capsule, own the return logistics, and capture the service revenue directly. Viewed alongside Starlink, Colossus, and the xAI merger, Starfall fits a consistent pattern: SpaceX identifying infrastructure layers that others depend on and moving to own them outright. Orbital manufacturing return is the next layer on that list.
If Tuesday’s reentry, parachute sequence, and recovery demonstration goes as planned, the second FAA-approved test flight follows. A successful pair of demos would position SpaceX to begin offering Starfall as a commercial service, likely first to pharmaceutical and materials science customers before scaling toward the military and broader manufacturing segments.
Elon Musk
President Trump touts new Air Force One with Musk technology
President Donald Trump unveiled an upgraded Boeing 747-8 at Joint Base Andrews on June 19, 2026, describing the Qatar-gifted aircraft as an interim Air Force One equipped with advanced communications systems, including Starlink, Elon Musk’s SpaceX satellite internet service.
The plane, valued at around $400 million and modified for presidential use, serves as a bridge until the delayed VC-25B replacements arrive. Trump highlighted its luxury features and new technology during remarks to service members.
Trump stated:
“We have communication equipment up there that nobody’s ever seen before. It’s the highest level and, uh, including Starlink. My friend Elon is going to be very happy, but, uh, Starlink and we have, uh, four or five different sets of double and triple communications like people haven’t seen.”
He added:
“And it represents what can happen with hard work, innovation, and aggressive timelines because we did this quickly and yet there’s never been communication like is on this plane.”
🚨 President Trump confirmed today that the new Air Force One is equipped with Starlink:
“We have communication equipment up there that nobody’s ever seen before, it’s the highest level and including Starlink…my friend Elon is going to be very happy.” pic.twitter.com/IhkDmtr5hL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 20, 2026
The aircraft features a redesigned red, white, and blue livery and has been outfitted with Starlink satellite connectivity alongside other secure systems.
Trump praised the plane’s uniqueness, calling it among the world’s most luxurious. The gift from Qatar and subsequent modifications have drawn attention, with the jet positioned as a solution for presidential travel. It is expected to support operations, including potential ceremonial roles such as Fourth of July flyovers.
The event marked the formal introduction of the converted jet, which will help maintain capabilities while the primary Air Force One fleet undergoes modernization. Defense observers note the inclusion of commercial satellite technology like Starlink as part of efforts to ensure resilient communications, crucial to keep the country running as the President is in the sky.
President Trump’s comments underscored appreciation for rapid upgrades and innovation in equipping the aircraft. The plane remains a U.S. government asset and is slated for eventual transfer related to presidential library purposes after its service.







