News
SpaceX’s attempts to buy bigger Falcon fairings complicated by contractor’s ULA relationship
According to a report from SpaceNews, SpaceX recently approached global aerospace supplier RUAG with the intention of procuring a new, larger payload fairing for its Falcon 9 and Heavy rockets.
RUAG is a prolific supplier of rocket fairings, spacecraft deployment mechanisms, and other miscellaneous subassemblies and components, and US company United Launch Alliance (ULA) has relied on RUAG for fairings and various other composites work for its Atlas V, Delta IV, and (soon) Vulcan launch vehicles. According to SpaceNews, that close relationship with ULA forced RUAG to turn SpaceX away, owing to ULA’s argument that the specific fairing technology SpaceX was pursuing is ULA’s intellectual property. The ramifications of this development are not earthshaking but they’re still worth exploring.
Update: A more recent report by SpaceNews seemingly revealed that RUAG has no such exclusivity or IP agreement with ULA. Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that the reality is probably somewhere in between RUAG’s official statement and the more incendiary information that preceded it. As a commercial entity, RUAG is in no way obligated to supply hardware or services to any prospective buyer, and the political and economic ties between ULA and RUAG are likely more influential than public statements will ever acknowledge.
“In a June 12 letter to Smith, the company’s CEO Peter Guggenbach makes the case that legislation forcing access to suppliers is unnecessary in this case because RUAG does not have an exclusive arrangement with ULA and is willing to work with SpaceX or any other launch providers.
“For this competition, we are in the process of submitting or have submitted proposals to multiple prime contractors regarding launch vehicle fairings. In those agreements, we share technical data to support a prime contractor’s bid while protecting our intellectual property.”
RUAG vice president Karl Jensen told SpaceNews the company has a “significant partnership” with ULA but is looking to work with others too. “We have an offer to SpaceX,” he said. “We don’t know if they’ll accept it.”
SpaceNews, 06/13/2019
Additionally, it’s likely that SpaceX is interested in procuring a few RUAG fairings not for the 5.4m diameter – the actual usable diameter is almost the same as Falcon 9’s own fairing – but for the added height, up to ~16.5m compared to F9’s ~11m.
Stay ahead of the curve and be the first to learn about new industry trends each week!
Follow along as our team gives you their take on the biggest stories of the week.New fairing needed
According to rules behind the latest phase of the US Air Force military launch competition (LSA Phase 2), competitors – likely to include ULA (Vulcan), Blue Origin (New Glenn), Northrop Grumman (Omega), and SpaceX (Falcon 9/Heavy) – will have to offer a larger, 5.4-meter (17 ft) diameter payload fairing to compete for any of the several dozen launch contracts up for grabs.
SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Heavy rockets were designed with a 5.2m-diameter fairing that flew on the very first Falcon 9 launch and continues to be SpaceX’s only fairing today, albeit with several major modifications and upgrades since its 2010 debut. Blue Origin plans to jump straight into 7m-diameter fairing development for its large New Glenn launch vehicle, expected to launch for the first time no earlier than (NET) 2021.
Procured from RUAG, ULA has several fairing options, including its largest, a 5.4m-diameter fairing that flies on Atlas V 500-series vehicles and also flies on Arianespace’s Ariane 5. Northrop Grumman’s (formerly Orbital ATK’s) Omega will feature a 5.25m-diameter fairing if the rocket makes it to flight hardware production.
Although most of the two-dozen or so satellites to be launched as part of LSA Phase 2 are likely small enough to fit Falcon’s 5.2m fairing and Omega’s 5.25m fairing, SpaceX (and Northrop Grumman) would presumably miss out on opportunities to launch those larger (and likely higher-profile) satellites, effectively handing the contracts to Blue Origin or ULA. SpaceX is thus faced with a conundrum that has three possible solutions.
- Build a brand new fairing with a significantly larger diameter (5.4m+) and be forced to buy tens of millions of dollars of custom tooling and new manufacturing space for a handful of rare launches with a rocket family meant to be made redundant by Starship/Super Heavy.
- Buy a handful of 5.4m-diameter fairings from RUAG, the only practical commercial source on Earth.
- Forgo the ability to compete for the few launches that require a larger fairing.
With #2 reportedly removed by ULA’s interference for dubious reasons, the the remaining options are unsavory at best. It’s possible that SpaceX will willingly design, build and certify an entirely new Falcon fairing for US military launches, but the expense of that process – likely $50M-$100M or more – means that it would probably be contingent upon SpaceX receiving the $500M it has recently begun lobbying for.
For reference, all three of the launch providers SpaceX is competing against – ULA, NGIS, and Blue Origin – were respectively awarded ~$970M, ~$790M, and $500M by the US Air Force to complete the development of their respective launch vehicles. SpaceX can technically compete in the ~30 launch contract competition to follow, but the company wouldn’t receive a penny of development funding to meet the same requirements its competitors are being paid hundreds of millions of dollars for. In lieu of this undeniable imbalance, SpaceX – via Congressman Adam Smith – secured language in the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act that would provide the company $500M (equivalent to Blue Origin’s award) if they win one of Phase 2’s two block-buy contracts.
Despite the fact that the USAF has plans to spend more than $2B assisting the development of three new rockets, LSA Phase 2 procurement has been inexplicably structured in such a way that only two companies/rockets can win, with one receiving 60% of contracts and the other receiving 40%. In other words, with that baffling award structure and under the assumption that SpaceX wins one of the slots, two of the three rockets the USAF is throwing money at will either die on the drawing board (Omega) or have a significantly lower chance of achieving military launch certification (New Glenn).
Ultimately, it’s clear that building an entirely new fairing would be valuable for SpaceX, even if it might be extremely expensive and of dubious strategic merit alongside the simultaneously development of Starship/Super Heavy, a vehicle that will feature a reusable 9m-diameter payload bay. Whether or not SpaceX bites that particular bullet, the LSA Phase 2 competition remains as baffling and fascinating as ever.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
