News
SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy likely to launch NASA telescope after ULA skips competition
On the heels of what will likely be NASA’s most significant telescope launch for at least a decade, the space agency appears to be about to select the launch provider for its next most expensive space telescope – a contract that SpaceX seems all but guaranteed to win.
Tory Bruno, CEO of the United Launch Alliance (ULA), revealed on February 15th that SpaceX’s chief competitor won’t even attempt to compete for the contract to launch NASA’s Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (NGRST; formerly the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope or WFIRST). Named after Nancy Roman, who played a foundational role in the creation and launch of NASA’s famous Hubble Space Telescope, the Roman Space Telescope could potentially be the second most expensive NASA spacecraft launched this decade.
WFIRST was made possible when the US National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) chose to donate one of two Hubble-class spy telescopes it had merely sitting around and gathering dust to NASA in the mid-2010s. From a mechanical perspective, the telescope will be very similar to Hubble. However, in the decades since HST’s launch, electronics and sensor technology have dramatically improved, allowing NASA to pack instruments capable of simultaneously imaging 100 times the field of view HST is capable of into a similar package.
Additionally, instead of the Hubble’s primary focus on ultraviolet and visible wavelengths, the Roman Space Telescope will observe in infrared wavelengths, making it a perfect complement to the brand-new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), which is also exclusively focused on the infrared spectrum. Combined, they could operate hand in hand, with NGRST acting like a surveyor or scout and JWST enabling a much closer look at noteworthy discoveries. Additionally, thanks to the inclusion of an unprecedentedly capable in-space coronagraph instrument, NGRST will be able to block out the light of stars, making it a game-changing tool for exoplanet discovery – exoplanets that JWST may then be able to image in even more detail with its much larger mirror.
The telescope must first be built and then make it to orbit, however. Expected to weigh at least 4.2 tons (~9250 lb) and designed to operate at the L2 Sun-Earth Lagrange point hundreds of thousands of miles from our planet, only large American rockets are an option for the $4.3 billion Roman Space Telescope’s launch. After a recent delay, that launch has slipped to no later than May 2027. However, NASA appeared to be in the final stages of selecting a launch provider as of late last month [PDF], meaning that the space agency may not be able to take advantage of potential launch options planned to debut over the next few years.
That includes Blue Origin’s New Glenn and Relativity Space’s Terran R. However, even ULA’s Vulcan Centaur rocket appears to have been precluded due to rules that generally mean that only rockets certified for NASA launches today can be awarded a contract to launch a high-value spacecraft. As such, while there is a good chance that one or all of the above rockets will have launched repeatedly and potentially achieved NASA LSP certification by 2027, they have little hope of winning a 2022 competition for a 2027 launch when facing a competitor with a rocket that’s already certified.
In this case, that competitor is SpaceX, whose Falcon Heavy rocket is certified for even the most risk-averse NASA LSP (Launch Service Program) missions. In just the last two years, SpaceX has won contracts to launch NASA’s Psyche asteroid explorer (Aug 2022), VIPER Moon rover (Q4 2023), GOES-U weather satellite (Q2 2024), Europa Clipper (Q4 2024), and the PPE and HALO modules of the Gateway lunar space station (Q4 2024). In fact, because ULA has already promised all of its remaining Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V rockets and because ULA’s Vulcan and Blue Origin’s New Glenn have yet to launch at all, SpaceX is actually the only US launch provider with rockets that are both available for future NASA launches and certified to launch and compete for them.
For some upcoming missions, it’s possible that NASA will wait much closer to the launch date in order to ensure a more competitive environment, but that’s not always possible if the design of an exceptionally sensitive payload (like a large space telescope) must be optimized for a specific vehicle. In the case of the Roman Space Telescope, that means that without a major departure from established rules and norms, SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket is all but guaranteed to win the contract to launch it.
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
