News
SpaceX nears big US govt. missions as ULA handwaves about risks of competition
Speaking at the 2018 Von Braun Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama, ULA COO John Elbon expressed worries that the US National Security Space (NSS) apparatus could be put at significant risk if it comes to rely too heavily on the commercial launch industry to assure access to space.
Given that the US military’s launch capabilities rest solely on SpaceX and ULA and will remain that way for at least three more years, Elbon’s comment was effectively an odd barb tossed in the direction of SpaceX and – to a lesser extent – Blue Origin, two disruptive and commercially-oriented launch providers.
-
- The history of ULA and its Delta IV rocket is far wilder than most would expect. (Tom Cross)
-
- The first stage of Parker Solar Probe’s Delta IV Heavy rocket prepares to be lifted vertical. (ULA)
Reading between the lines
For the most part, Elbon’s brief presentation centered around a reasonable discussion of ULA’s track record and future vehicle development, emphasizing the respectable reliability of its current Atlas V and Delta IV rockets and the ‘heritage’ they share with ULA’s next-generation Vulcan vehicle. However, the COO twice brought up an intriguing concern that the US military launch apparatus could suffer if it ends up relying too heavily on ‘commercially-sustained’ launch vehicles like Falcon 9/Heavy or New Glenn.
To provide historical context and evidence favorable to his position, Elbon brought up a now-obscure event in the history of the launch industry, where – 20 years ago – companies Lockheed Martin and Boeing reportedly “set out to develop … Atlas V and Delta IV” primarily to support the launch of several large satellite constellations. The reality and causes of the US launch industry’s instability in the late ’90s and early ’00s is almost indistinguishable from this narrative, however.
Despite the many veils of aerospace and military secrecy surrounding the events that occurred afterward, the facts show that – in 1999 – Boeing (per acquisition of McDonnell Douglas) and Lockheed Martin (LM) both received awards of $500M to develop the Delta IV and Atlas V rockets, and the military further committed to buying a full 28 launches for $2B between 2002 and 2006. Combined, the US military effectively placed $3B ($4.5B in 2018 dollars) on the table for its Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program with the goal of ensuring uninterrupted access to space for national security purposes.
-
- Crew Dragon arrives at ISS. (SpaceX)
-
- Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft. (Boeing)
-
- A mockup of Boeing’s Starliner capsule is explored by one of NASA’s Commercial Crew astronauts, clad in a Boeing spacesuit. (Boeing)
-
- SpaceX’s Commercial Crew pressure suit seen on NASA astronauts during testing. (SpaceX)
Rocketing into corporate espionage
“The robust commercial market forecast led the Air Force to reconsider its acquisition strategy. The EELV acquisition strategy changed from a planned down-select to a single contractor and a standard Air Force development program [where the USAF funds vehicle development in its entirety] to a dual commercialized approach that leveraged commercial market share and contractor investment.” – USAF EELV Fact Sheet, March 2017
The above quote demonstrates that there is at least an inkling of truth in Elbon’s spin. However, perhaps the single biggest reason that the EELV program and its two awardees stumbled was gross, inexcusable conduct on the part of Boeing. In essence, the company’s space executives conspired to use corporate espionage to gain an upper-hand over Lockheed Martin, knowledge which ultimately allowed Boeing to severely low-ball the prices of its Delta IV rocket, securing 19 of 28 available USAF launch contracts.
-
Ultimately, Lockheed Martin caught wind of Boeing’s suspect behavior and filed a lawsuit that began several years of USAF investigations and highly unpleasant revelations, while Boeing also had at least 10 future launch contracts withdrawn to the tune of ~$1B (1999). USAF investigations discovered that Boeing had lied extensively to the Air Force for more than four years – the actual volume of information stolen would balloon wildly from Boeing’s initial reports of “seven pages of harmless data” to 10+ boxes containing more than 42,000 pages of extremely detailed technical and proprietary information about Lockheed Martin’s Atlas V rocket proposal.
“If you rewind the clock 20 years, there were folks on a panel like this having dialogue about commercial launch, and there were envisioned several constellations that were going to require significant commercial launch. Lockheed Martin and Boeing set out to develop launch vehicles that were focused on that very robust commercial market – in the case of McDonald Douglas at the time, which later became Boeing, the factory in Decatur was…sized to crank out 40 [rocket boosters] a year, a couple of ships were bought to transport those…significant infrastructure put in place to address that envisioned launch market.” – John Elbon, COO, United Launch Alliance (ULA)
-
- ULA’s Decatur, Alabama factory now produces both Delta IV and Atlas 5. (ULA)
-
- ULA’s Atlas 5 launched AEHF-4 for the USAF earlier this month. (ULA)
In reality, Boeing was so desperate to secure USAF launches – despite the fact that it knew full well that Delta IV was too expensive to be sustainably competitive – that dozens of employees were eventually roped into a systematic, years-long, highly-illegal program of corporate espionage specifically designed to beat out government launch competitor Lockheed Martin. Humorously, Delta IV was not even Boeing’s design – rather, Boeing acquired designer McDonnell Douglas in late 1996, five days before the USAF announced the decision to reject Boeing and another company’s EELV proposals, narrowing down to two finalists (McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed Martin).
Seven years after the original lawsuit snowballed, Boeing settled with Lockheed Martin for a payment of more than $600M in 2006, accepting responsibility for its employees’ actions but admitting no corporate wrongdoing. Five years after that settlement, John Elbon became Vice President of Boeing’s Space Exploration division. This is by no means to suggest that Elbon is in any way complicit, having spent much of his 30+ years at Boeing managing the company’s involvement in the International Space Station, but more serves as an example of how recent these events are and why their consequences almost certainly continue to reverberate loudly within the US space industry.
SpaceX forces change
Worsened significantly by the consequences of Boeing’s lies about the actual operational costs of its Delta IV rocket (it had planned to secretly write off a loss on each rocket in order to steal USAF market share from LockMart), the commercial market for the extremely expensive rocket was and still is functionally nonexistent. 35 out of the family’s 36 launches have been contracted by the US military (30), NOAA (3), or NASA (2); the rocket’s first launch, likely sold at a major discount to Eutelsat, remains its one and only commercial mission.
Atlas V, typically priced around 30% less than comparable Delta IV variants, has had a far more productive career, albeit with very few commercial launches since the Dec. 2006 formation of the United Launch Alliance. Since 2007, just 5 of Atlas V’s 70 launches have been for commercial customers. Frankly, although Atlas V was appreciably more affordable than Delta IV, neither rocket was ever able to sustainably compete with Europe’s Ariane 5 workhorse – Ariane 5 cost more per launch, but superior payload performance often let Arianespace manifest two large satellites on a single launch, approximately halving the cost for each customer. Russia’s affordable (but only moderately reliable) Proton rockets also played an important role in the commercial launch industry prior to SpaceX’s arrival.
After fighting tooth and nail for years to break ULA’s US governmental launch monopoly, SpaceX’s first dedicated National Security Space launch finally occurred less than a year and a half ago, in May 2017. SpaceX has since placed a USAF spaceplane and a classified NSS-related satellite into orbit and been awarded launch contracts for critical USAF payloads, most notably winning five of five competed GPS III satellite launches, to begin as early as mid-December. Falcon 9 will cost the USAF roughly 30% less than a comparable Atlas 5 contract, $97M to ULA’s ~$135M.
-
-
- The aft connection mechanisms on Falcon Heavy Flight 1 and Flight 2 appear to be quite similar. It’s possible that SpaceX has chosen to reuse aspects of the hardware recovered on Flight 1’s two side boosters. (SpaceX)
-
- Falcon 9 Block 5 booster B1046 seen during both of its post-launch landings. (SpaceX/SpaceX)
A bit more than two decades after Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas and began a calculated effort to steal trade secrets from Lockheed Martin, Elbon – now COO of the Boeing/Lockheed Martin-cooperative ULA – seems to fervently believe that the most critical mistake made in the late 1990s and early 2000s was the USAF’s decision to partially support the development of two separate rockets. Elbon concluded his remarks on the topic with one impressively unambiguous summary of ULA’s position:
“We have to make sure that we don’t get too much supply and not enough demand so that the [launch] providers can’t survive in a robust business environment, and then we lose the capability as a country to do the launches we need to do … [That’s] the perspective we have at ULA and it’s based on the experience that we’ve been through in the past.”
In his sole Delta IV vs. Atlas V case-study, what ULA now seems to think might have been “too much supply” under the USAF’s EELV program appears to literally be the fundamental minimum conditions needed for competition to exist at all – two companies offering two competing products. Short of directly stating as much, it’s difficult to imagine a more concise method of revealing the apparent belief that competition – at all – is intrinsically undesirable or risky.
Lemonade has expanded its innovative Autonomous Car insurance program to Tennessee, giving Tesla owners in the state a substantial discount on Full Self-Driving (FSD) miles. Announced on August 3, the product offers 50 percent off every mile driven with FSD activated, positioning the digital insurer as a leader in pricing insurance around autonomous technology.
The program, marketed as Lemonade Autonomous Car insurance, uses a direct connection via Tesla’s Fleet API (with customer permission) to automatically distinguish FSD-engaged miles from manual driving. Policyholders pay a low base rate when the vehicle is stationary and a few cents per mile when moving, with the 50 percent reduction applied specifically to FSD miles.
If you’re driving a Tesla in Tennessee, FSD miles now cost 50% less to insure with Lemonade. Autonomous Car is now live in TN.https://t.co/4CDTuhyORi pic.twitter.com/QZk4LBIs6f
— Lemonade (@Lemonade_Inc) August 3, 2026
Coverage includes standard protections such as liability, collision, comprehensive, roadside assistance, and Tesla-specific benefits like access to certified repair shops and emergency crash services. Eligible vehicles require Hardware 4, as well as recent firmware.
Lemonade first unveiled the product on January 21 of this year, describing it as a first-of-its-kind offering designed for self-driving cars, starting with Tesla FSD. It began rolling out in Arizona on January 26, followed by Oregon about a month later. Subsequent expansions brought it to Indiana in early June 2026 and Colorado later that month.
Tennessee marks the fifth state.
-
Tesla Full Self-Driving gets outrageous insurance offer with insanely cheap rates
The discount rests on Lemonade’s strong belief in the safety of Tesla’s FSD system. The company cites Tesla’s data showing that FSD-driven miles are twice as safe as those driven manually, or associated with roughly a 50 percent crash reduction.
Lemonade Co-founder and President Shai Wininger has emphasized this distinction: “Traditional insurers treat a Tesla like any other car, and AI like any other driver. But a car that sees 360 degrees, never gets drowsy, and reacts in milliseconds can’t be compared to a human.”
He added that “Teslas driven with FSD are involved in far fewer accidents” and committed that as FSD software improves and becomes safer, Lemonade’s prices will drop further.
Tesla Full Self-Driving gets an offer to be insured for ‘almost free’
This approach leverages Lemonade’s existing pay-per-mile technology and AI-driven risk models, which analyze nuanced vehicle data including software version and sensor performance. The company expects the model to reward higher FSD usage with greater savings while supporting mixed households that include both Tesla and non-Tesla vehicles under one policy. Bundling with home, renters, or pet insurance can yield additional discounts.
As autonomous driving technology advances, Lemonade’s state-by-state expansion of usage-based pricing that directly reflects real-world safety data represents a notable shift in how insurers evaluate risk.
-
Tesla owners in the five available states – Arizona, Oregon, Indiana, Colorado, and now Tennessee – can obtain quotes quickly through the Lemonade app or website, potentially lowering the overall cost of ownership for vehicles equipped with advanced driver-assistance systems. Further states are expected as regulatory approvals progress.
Tesla has continued to flex the strength, rigidity, and robustness of its all-electric pickup, the Cybertruck. In fact, since 2019, Cybertruck’s ability to avoid dents, dings, and even gunfire has been one of the main selling points Tesla has used to attract buyers who are looking for a vehicle that can handle the most intense challenges.
But that does not mean Tesla is not still actively trying to make it even better.
In a new hardware update, Tesla has decided to change the material of the Cybertruck’s underbody panels from aluminum to carbon fiber, a move that aims to not only increase pricing efficiency but also improve strength.
RELATED:
Cybertruck Lead Engineer Wes Morrill confirmed the change was made to the Cybertruck recently after it was spotted by Coleton Guerin of Out of Spec. This particular trim level was a Cyberbeast, but it is being applied to all trims to keep supply chain efficiency high and have less variance across trim levels.
Morrill said that Tesla tested different materials for the underbody panel protection, and carbon fiber performed better than aluminum, which is what the company was using since its first deliveries in 2023.
-
Additionally, there are some efficiency improvements because Tesla can better form the areas around the bolts to keep underbody airflow cleaner than previously.
good eye – it’s a new material. Testing showed it to be more durable than the aluminum while being lower weight and cost. Also slight efficiency improvement since we can better form the areas around the bolts to keep the underbody airflow cleaner than what stamped aluminum allows
— Wes (@wmorrill3) July 30, 2026
Carbon fiber is traditionally lighter and more durable than aluminum, which is why it is such a popular material among luxury automakers, and EV makers will utilize some of the materials around battery packs to save weight.
This is the first instance of Tesla utilizing carbon fiber on the Cybertruck’s exterior to help with overall performance and strength. As previously mentioned, Tesla used aluminum to protect the underside of the body, but it is pretty typical for the company to continue making engineering changes that will improve the car in the future.
Tesla released Full Self-Driving version 14.3.7 yesterday, and after about 90 miles of testing today, it is evident there are some definite fixes from version 14.3.6, which I wrote about last week and called a regression.
Within the first 40 minutes of my drive on v14.3.7, it saved me from getting into an accident with an unaware Dodge Charger driver, and some of the things Tesla seemed to miss in v14.3.6 were definitely improved. All in all, the release so far has some really great performance, and I’m looking forward to testing it further.
For now, here’s everything I noticed with v14.3.7:
Overall Improvement
Just generally speaking from a ride perspective, this was a really great experience. A lot of the hesitancy I experienced on v14.3.6 was gone. There were no instances of brake-stabbing, wheel-jerking, or any uncertain or unconfident movements. It was void of anything that I felt made it timid with v14.3.6.
The one thing I do hope to see down the road is a smaller need to adjust Speed Profiles so often. Because Tesla calls FSD “Supervised,” I’m okay with needing to hit the scroll wheel a few times a drive.
However, I hope that things can be incrementally improved upon with speed. Sometimes it’s too fast; other times it’s too slow. It’s a difficult thing to hone in and refine, but I hope it eventually gets there.
I didn’t notice any significant left lane camping or any behaviors that were completely out of line. I am hopeful that this opinion does not change, but after driving a few days with this version and putting it in a variety of different situations, you are exposed to more behaviors, some of which are not necessarily what I’d prefer.
-
The big things to notice, at least in my experience thus far, are that the major issues with previous versions — meaning the braking stabbing and wheel jerking — simply weren’t there. That’s enough to already consider this progress compared to .6.
Manual Signal Override is More Responsive
On .6, I had quite a few issues with FSD ignoring my manually input turn signals. If Tesla wants to call it “Supervised,” then the car should not ignore any input the driver gives. If I touch the accelerator on FSD, the car speeds up.
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.7 obeying manual turn signals https://t.co/6eqToXpQfC pic.twitter.com/vHBlFQ4PDV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 2, 2026
The car did a great job of obeying my turn signals when I wanted it to change lanes, which is welcome.
Parking Lot Performance
Before .6, I traditionally took over in nearly every parking lot my car entered, because I knew it would not park somewhere that I wanted, and usually, it was just a tad too timid in this setting.
The one bright spot of .6 was how well it handled parking lots. This continued with v14.3.7:
-
I’m always really happy to see progress at all, but once parking preferences come to FSD, as long as this performance is still around, that could potentially be the biggest improvement I’ve seen in FSD in the year I’ve been using it personally on a daily basis.
Full Self-Driving Averts Disaster
A Dodge Charger changed into my lane without checking if I was there, running me off the road. FSD made the initial avoidance maneuver; I grabbed the wheel out of instinct, looked in my side mirror to ensure I had nobody following closely behind, hit the brake, and straightened the car back up to avoid a curb:
🚨 Guys this is why you all NEED to stay vigilant behind the wheel, even on Tesla Full Self-Driving
Human drivers are UNHINGED and have no idea what they’re doing anymore. This was a kid obviously younger than 20 years old with zero awareness.
First drive with v14.3.7 https://t.co/1vTbCMpCn8 pic.twitter.com/lz7KKEF6bj
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 2, 2026
-
There have been quite a few responses to this video stating that I should never have grabbed the wheel. To be honest, I really wish I had not done so, because I do believe FSD would have avoided any sort of collision with anything, including the car or the curb.
However, this was the first time I had ever been this close to being hit while using FSD. My natural reaction was to take over. I think if I had had something like this happen before, my reaction might have been different.
Hitting the brake avoided hitting the curb, while FSD swerved to avoid the car. My concern after the car was clear of my front end was the curb. All in all, I’m really happy with how things turned out, and I think anyone could be a critic of how I handled it. I only had a split second to really make a decision, and thankfully, any damage was avoided.
It is clear FSD managed to avoid the car coming down before I was able to. I truly credit FSD for avoiding the collision.
What Needs to Improve
Better Recognition of Potholes, Uneven Roads, Sharp Changes in Roadway/Bumps
On Friday, my Fianceè and I were in the car, and FSD was driving us. We crossed over a roadway that has a traffic light, and FSD was traveling at 40 MPH on Standard, 5 MPH over the speed limit. Everything was more than reasonable.
However, the road we were crossing at the light has a major bump both as you start and finish crossing it. Without a speed reduction, your car can go airborne. The Tesla did just this on Friday on v14.3.6; it was an uncomfortable bounce that pretty much confirmed I would not ever let FSD go over again unless we were sitting at that intersection when there is a red light.
I even tried scrolling down into Sloth quickly, but I ended up just taking over:
-
This is that big bounce that I mentioned in the quoted post.
It’s just a tad too drastic to take at the speed FSD wants to go over it. You can see me quickly swipe down into Sloth, but I intervened. https://t.co/K20PK9ysBg pic.twitter.com/81Oc82ZJcZ
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 2, 2026
A few people have said it remains related to the vision-based approach and its difficulty comprehending 3D. This is a huge issue because this can cause serious damage at certain speeds.
Navigation
Nothing new here. I still turn off “Online Routing” quite frequently to get the car to take logical routes from time to time.
Auto Wipers
Auto Wipers are just plain bad. I really hope Tesla just uses a rain sensor. I thought they had improved at one point, but I still get dry wipes, Speed 4 on a drizzle, and Speed 2 on a steady rain. In reality, these should be switched.
You can watch our full review of Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.7 below:
-
🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.7 saved me from an accident! FULL REVIEW: https://t.co/1vTbCMpCn8 pic.twitter.com/9mHmKVoMVA
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 2, 2026
Tesla Full Self-Driving insurance program with heavy discount expands
Tesla quietly made the Cybertruck even stronger
