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.
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.
Investor's Corner
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.
Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.
The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.
Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.
Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.
There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.
The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.
The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.
Elon Musk
Ukraine says Starlink is cutting out its military drones as Poland calls out Elon Musk
Ukrainian officials allege SpaceX limited military Starlink speeds, disrupting drone missions; SpaceX has not commented.
Ukrainian officials are accusing SpaceX of placing a speed limit on the military version of Starlink that their forces use to fly drones, but SpaceX has not confirmed that any change was made. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said in a Telegram post on Wednesday that Starshield terminals have begun losing service when they move faster than about 100 miles per hour, according to a Reuters report. “Our defense forces did not receive a warning about this limitation, and this led to the disruption of several missions,” he wrote.
Ukraine’s 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters that connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at just 68 to 75 mph, which made the drones harder to control. Volunteer Serhiy Sternenko, citing military reports, said the dropouts are now starting at 37 to 43 mph. These accounts come from Ukrainian officials and military sources and have not been independently verified. Regular civilian terminals were reportedly not affected, according to EUalive.
.@POTUS: We told Zelensky, ‘You can do whatever you want to Russia, but don’t hit the refineries because that’s a world problem.’ And what does he do? He goes and hits the diesel fuel. He better damn well stop. https://t.co/CdRlMcPlKr
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) October 10, 2026
SpaceX has not publicly commented or explained what, if anything, changed. Beskrestnov and other Ukrainian officials believe the issue is intentional and point to the timing. Washington has been pressing Kyiv to stop long range strikes on Russian oil refineries after President Trump called for an “energy ceasefire,” and Musk posted on Saturday that “Zelensky has gone too far.” EUalive noted that neither Ukrainian nor Polish officials have presented evidence that the limit was ordered by Washington or by SpaceX, so the link to politics remains an allegation. Other explanations, such as a technical or policy change affecting fast moving terminals, have not been ruled out.
Poland’s foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, responded on X by quote tweeting a Kyiv Independent report and writing: “Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again? As your European customers, we are watching you.” Poland is the largest funder of Ukraine’s Starlink service, having supplied more than 29,000 terminals and covering operating costs Sikorski has put at roughly $50 million a year. The wording echoes their 2025 clash, when Musk told Sikorski to “be quiet, small man.” At the time of writing, neither Musk nor SpaceX had responded to the claims.
Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again?
As your European customers, we are watching you.— Radosław Sikorski 🇵🇱🇪🇺 (@sikorskiradek) October 14, 2026
The dispute sits on top of a long history. Musk confirmed in February 2022 that Starlink was active in Ukraine after a request from a Ukrainian minister. That October, SpaceX asked the Pentagon to share the bill and Musk said the cost was approaching $20 million a month, before he reversed course and said SpaceX would keep paying. In December 2024 the Pentagon moved some of those terminals onto the Starshield service, the government version now at the center of the complaints.
SpaceX has also changed how its network treats certain terminals in Ukraine before, and that time it was with Kyiv’s cooperation. In February, Ukrainian officials confirmed that terminals believed to be used by Russian troops were disabled after coordination with SpaceX, a step that Ukrainian commanders later said hurt Russian assaults. Whether anything similar is behind the latest reports is unclear, which is why Kyiv is asking for answers.
Ukraine is already looking at backups. Defense tech company Stetman is developing its own satellite system, UASAT-NANO, and officials in Europe have discussed alternatives to Starlink since early 2025, though none match its scale yet.
Elon Musk
FAA kicks off review of SpaceX’s bid to fly Starship nearly every day
FAA is reviewing SpaceX’s plan for 456 Starship launches a year, up from 25 today.
The FAA said Tuesday that it will prepare an environmental impact statement on SpaceX’s proposal to run as many as 456 Starship launches and 912 landings a year from Starbase, Texas. SpaceX is currently authorized for 25 launches and 50 landings annually, which makes the request roughly 18 times the existing ceiling. The notice of intent is set to publish in the Federal Register on Wednesday.
The plan comes in two phases. Phase 1 would allow up to 100 launches and 200 landings a year, on any day and at any hour. Phase 2, which the FAA says could arrive within several years, would raise the limit to the full 456 launches, still at any hour but only on weekdays. The agency noted that 912 landings is the upper limit for the Texas facility no matter where a given mission begins, and that Starship and Super Heavy could come down at the launch site or in the Gulf and open ocean.
A draft statement will be released for public comment at a later date, and the FAA has not said when. According to the Federal Registar, written comments are due November 30 on regulations.gov under docket FAA-2026-12808, with in person scoping meetings on November 17 in Brownsville and November 19 in Port Isabel, plus a virtual session on November 18. The review will weigh air quality, wildlife, coastal resources, water, noise, and aviation, and the FAA said any increase beyond this proposal would need its own separate review.
The numbers look large next to what Starbase has actually done. Starship has flown three times from Texas this year, including Flight 14 on September 28, the first orbital flight, which deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites. Bloomberg reported that Starbase has never launched more than five times in a calendar year. The current cap of 25 comes from an FAA approval in May 2025. In February, the agency also approved up to 44 Starship launches a year from Launch Complex 39A in Florida, so Phase 1 in Texas alone would more than double that allowance.
Musk has said Starship could eventually fly more than once per hour within less than a decade, per Bloomberg. The nearer term target is Flight 15. Musk said on October 10 that it is hopefully four to six weeks away and will try to catch the ship with the tower, as Teslarati covered. That flight still runs under the existing 25 launch limit, and so would every Starbase launch for as long as the new review takes.
As of mid morning Pacific time on Tuesday, SpaceX had not posted about the filing on its own account.
