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 just gave what is perhaps its biggest signal yet that the launch of the Cybercab, its autonomous ride-hailing-geared car, is imminent.
The Cybercab has been spotted outside of Gigafactory Texas in massive numbers over the past few days, with hundreds of units being stored on property just days after the vehicle received a Certificate of Conformity from the EPA.
Today, things were a bit different.
Cybercabs spotted on Giga Texas property today had an addition: a Cybercab decal on the side, reminiscent of the “Robotaxi” ones that were placed on Model Ys just as the company launched its ride-sharing platform about a year ago.
Giga Texas drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer noticed the change today:
Tesla Cybercabs are now getting “Cybercab” logos on the side of them!
Tesla did the same with Model Ys that were given “Robotaxi” logos: https://t.co/DanANtw1m7 pic.twitter.com/FqOhH0S9Ks
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 19, 2026
Tesla could be signaling that the Cybercab is preparing to enter the Robotaxi fleet in the coming weeks or months with this move. It seems more symbolic than anything; Tesla is ready to throw Cybercabs in the ride-hailing platform just as it did with Model Ys last year.
The addition of the Certificate of Conformity awarded to the Cybercab is another major factor working to Tesla’s advantage. The company now has permission from the EPA to allow the vehicle to operate on public roads and enter the chain of commerce. It’s officially street legal.
Tesla Cybercab specs revealed: range, curb weight, range ratings, and more
The big question that remains is whether Tesla will be able to operate the car without a safety monitor, especially considering it plans to put the car out there without a steering wheel or pedals. With the Cybercab only having a seating capacity of two, it is hard to believe Tesla will even consider putting a Safety Monitor in the car.
It did recently self-certify as Level 4 and has the ability to operate driverless vehicles in the State of Texas under a law that took effect on May 28. You can read more about that here:
Tesla’s Robotaxi dreams just took a massive step toward reality
We’d imagine Cybercabs will be on the roads as soon as July, but August will likely be a better estimate of when the car will be entered into the Cybercab fleet. It all depends at where Tesla is, as they’ve truly prioritized safety with the rollout of the Robotaxi platform.
Elon Musk has publicly questioned Moody’s credit assessments following the rating agency’s decision to assign SpaceX a Baa1 investment-grade rating, two notches above Tesla’s Baa3. The comments came amid discussions comparing the two companies’ financial profiles.
SpaceX earned its first-time Baa1 rating with a stable outlook from Moody’s. The agency highlighted the company’s leadership in orbital launches, the growing recurring revenue from its Starlink satellite network, strong vertical integration, U.S. government contracts, and emerging opportunities in AI infrastructure.
These factors were cited as supporting robust cash flows, margin expansion, and financial flexibility.
Musk responded directly: “Tesla’s credit rating is ridiculously low tbh,” and added, “Yeah, makes no sense. Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt, and is consistently profitable!” His remarks underscored Tesla’s balance sheet strength and profitability at a time when many traditional automakers continue to report losses in the shift to electric vehicles.
Yeah, makes no sense.
Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt and is consistently profitable!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 19, 2026
Tesla maintains a leading position in the global EV market, with diversification into energy and storage, battery technology, and robotics through projects like Optimus. Recent financial updates show the company generated positive free cash flow of $1.4 billion in Q1 2026, supported by operating cash flow of $3.9 billion. Cash and short-term investments stood at approximately $44.7 billion.
Moody’s has affirmed Tesla’s Baa3 issuer rating with a stable outlook in periodic reviews, acknowledging the company’s EV leadership, technology strengths, including AI for autonomous vehicles, solid profitability, and strong liquidity.
Tesla (TSLA) scores Baa3 Moody’s rating for ‘stable’ outlook
However, the agency has also noted challenges in the automotive segment and expectations for margin pressures.
Musk’s critique highlights a common debate about how traditional rating methodologies apply to high-growth, capital-intensive technology companies. SpaceX benefits from long-term government-backed contracts and diversified, recurring revenue streams, while Tesla’s valuation reflects heavy investment in future technologies such as autonomy and robotics.
Both ratings remain investment-grade, yet the one-notch difference has fueled online discussion about potential inconsistencies in evaluating innovative firms.
The exchange comes as SpaceX explores financing options following its recent valuation milestones, while Tesla continues executing on its multi-year roadmap. Musk’s pointed response serves as a reminder that credit ratings, though influential for borrowing costs, represent one lens through which markets assess corporate strength—and that company leaders often view their financial positions through the lens of long-term innovation and cash generation rather than short-term risk metrics alone.
A new report from Reuters claims that a transport authority in Sweden is pushing back against the approval of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite because it will travel over speed limits.
The report says the Swedish Transport Administration (TRV) recommends the European Union votes against FSD’s approval. TRV believes it should not be approved until Tesla disables FSD’s ability to speed.
TRV sent a letter to the European Union’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV), which is set to meet on June 30 to discuss the potential approval of the Tesla FSD suite in the country. Tesla, which has received various approvals in Europe over the past two months, has not provided a comment.
Teslas operating on FSD do travel over the speed limit, depending on the Speed Profile that is chosen. Drivers have the ability to disengage FSD at any point; Tesla specifically states that those supervising the suite are responsible for its actions.
Let’s cut to the chase: humans operating any vehicle speed almost daily in the United States. Realistically, speed limits in the U.S. are more frequently treated as speed minimums. However, other countries are different, and driving behaviors are less aggressive.
TRV believes that “allowing automated systems to systematically exceed legal speed limits…risks undermining both the legal framework and the expected safety benefits of vehicle automation,” the report stated. It’s surprising that Tesla has not received this claim from other countries previously.
This could be a good argument to bring Max Speed back, the setting that previously allowed the driver to choose the absolute fastest the car would travel.
This would still put the responsibility of supervision in the hands of the driver. It would allow the driver to choose whether the car would travel over the speed limit or not, acknowledging that they set the speed, and if they get pulled over, there would be no ability to argue it.
However, it does not seem as if this is something Tesla will do, especially considering many U.S. drivers have requested the feature in an effort to eliminate speeding or at least tone it down. The company has not shown any interest in bringing it back.
Tesla has approvals for FSD in Europe in Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
Elon Musk says this part of Tesla ‘makes no sense’
