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
Musk company boycott proposal at City Council meeting gets weird and ironic
The City of Davis in California held a weekly city council meeting on Tuesday, where it voted on a proposal to ban Musk-operated companies. It got weird and ironic.
A city council meeting in California that proposed banning the entry of new contracts with companies controlled by Elon Musk got weird and ironic on Tuesday night after councilmembers were forced to admit some of the entities would benefit the community.
The City of Davis in California held a weekly city council meeting on Tuesday, where it voted on a proposal called “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies.”
The proposal claimed that Musk ” has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”
We reported on it on Tuesday before the meeting:
California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX
However, the meeting is now published online, and it truly got strange.
While it was supported by various members of the community, you could truly tell who was completely misinformed about the influence of Musk’s companies, their current status from an economic and competitive standpoint, and how much some of Musk’s companies’ projects benefit the community.
City Council Member Admits Starlink is Helpful
One City Council member was forced to admit that Starlink, the satellite internet project established by Musk’s SpaceX, was beneficial to the community because the emergency response system utilized it for EMS, Fire, and Police communications in the event of a power outage.
After public comments were heard, councilmembers amended some of the language in the proposal to not include Starlink because of its benefits to public safety.
One community member even said, “There should be exceptions to the rule.”
🚨 After the City of Davis, California, held its City Council meeting on Tuesday and voted on a resolution called “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” it was forced to admit that it needs… pic.twitter.com/hQiCIX3yll
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 19, 2026
Community Members Report Out of Touch Mainstream Media Narratives
Many community members very obviously read big bold headlines about how horribly Tesla is performing in terms of electric vehicles. Many pointed to “labor intimidation” tactics being used at the company’s Fremont Factory, racial discrimination lawsuits, and Musk’s political involvement as clear-cut reasons why Davis should not consider his companies for future contracts.
However, it was interesting to hear some of them speak, very obviously out of touch with reality.
Musk has encouraged unions to propose organizing at the Fremont Factory, stating that many employees would not be on board because they are already treated very well. In 2022, he invited Union leaders to come to Fremont “at their convenience.”
The UAW never took the opportunity.
Some have argued that Tesla prevented pro-union clothing at Fremont, which it did for safety reasons. An appeals court sided with Tesla, stating that the company had a right to enforce work uniforms to ensure employee safety.
Another community member said that Tesla was losing market share in the U.S. due to growing competition from legacy automakers.
“Plus, these existing auto companies have learned a lot from what Tesla has done,” she said. Interestingly, Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis have all pulled back from their EV ambitions significantly. All three took billions in financial hits.
One Resident Crosses a Line
One resident’s time at the podium included this:
Another member of the community did this…a member of the City Council admonished him and it came to a verbal spat https://t.co/zWvKCiCkie pic.twitter.com/1L334qq9av
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 19, 2026
He was admonished by City Council member Bapu Vaitla, who said his actions were offensive. The two sparred verbally for a few seconds before their argument ended.
City Council Vote Result
Ultimately, the City of Davis chose to pass the motion, but they also amended it to exclude Starlink because of its emergency system benefits.
Elon Musk
California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX
A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”
A California City Council is planning to weigh whether it would adopt a resolution that would place a ban on its engagement with Elon Musk companies, like Tesla and SpaceX.
The City of Davis, California, will have its City Council weigh a new proposal that would adopt a resolution “to divest from companies owned and/or controlled by Elon Musk.”
This would include a divestment proposal to encourage CalPERS, the California Public Employees Retirement System, to divest from stock in any Musk company.
A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”
It claims that Musk “has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”
If adopted, Davis would bar the city from entering into any new contracts or purchasing agreements with any company owned or controlled by Elon Musk. It also says it will not consider utilizing Tesla Robotaxis.
Hotel owner tears down Tesla chargers in frustration over Musk’s politics
A staff report on the proposal claims there is “no immediate budgetary impact.” However, a move like this would only impact its residents, especially with Tesla, as the Supercharger Network is open to all electric vehicle manufacturers. It is also extremely reliable and widespread.
Regarding the divestment request to CalPERS, it would not be surprising to see the firm make the move. Although it voted against Musk’s compensation package last year, the firm has no issue continuing to make money off of Tesla’s performance on Wall Street.
The decision to avoid Musk companies will be considered this evening at the City Council meeting.
The report comes from Davis Vanguard.
It is no secret that Musk’s political involvement, especially during the most recent Presidential Election, ruffled some feathers. Other cities considered similar options, like the City of Baltimore, which “decided to go in another direction” after awarding Tesla a $5 million contract for a fleet of EVs for city employees.
Elon Musk
Starlink restrictions are hitting Russian battlefield comms: report
The restrictions have reportedly disrupted Moscow’s drone coordination and frontline communications.
SpaceX’s decision to disable unauthorized Starlink terminals in Ukraine is now being felt on the battlefield, with Ukrainian commanders reporting that Russian troops have struggled to maintain assault operations without access to the satellite network.
The restrictions have reportedly disrupted Moscow’s drone coordination and frontline communications.
Lt. Denis Yaroslavsky, who commands a special reconnaissance unit, stated that Russian assault activity noticeably declined for several days after the shutdown. “For three to four days after the shutdown, they really reduced the assault operations,” Yaroslavsky said.
Russian units had allegedly obtained Starlink terminals through black market channels and mounted them on drones and weapons systems, despite service terms prohibiting offensive military use. Once those terminals were blocked, commanders on the Ukrainian side reported improved battlefield ratios, as noted in a New York Post report.
A Ukrainian unit commander stated that casualty imbalances widened after the cutoff. “On any given day, depending on your scale of analysis, my sector was already achieving 20:1 (casuality rate) before the shutdown, and we are an elite unit. Regular units have no problem going 5:1 or 8:1. With Starlink down, 13:1 (casualty rate) for a regular unit is easy,” the unit commander said.
The restrictions come as Russia faces heavy challenges across multiple fronts. A late January report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that more than 1.2 million Russian troops have been killed, wounded, or gone missing since February 2022.
The Washington-based Institute for the Study of War also noted that activity from Russia’s Rubikon drone unit declined after Feb. 1, suggesting communications constraints from Starlink’s restrictions may be limiting operations. “I’m sure the Russians have (alternative options), but it takes time to maximize their implementation and this (would take) at least four to six months,” Yaroslavsky noted.







