Connect with us

News

SpaceX nears big US govt. missions as ULA handwaves about risks of competition

Falcon 9 B1045 rolls out to Pad 40 ahead of its first launch in April 2018. (NASA/SpaceX)

Published

8 years ago

on

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.

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.

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

Advertisement
-

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)

 

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.

Advertisement
-

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.

ULA’s Delta Heavy seen during the August 2018 launch of NASA’s Parker Solar Probe. (Tom Cross)

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.

 

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.

A recording of the Von Braun Symposium’s Commercial Space panel can be viewed here at timestamp 01:11:40.

Advertisement
-
Related Topics:

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla ruined other cars for me: one year Model Y ownership review

Published

4 hours ago

on

September 10, 2026

By

Credit: Joey Klender

I picked up my Tesla Model Y one year ago, on August 30, and for roughly a year, I have had this vehicle prove to me that any other carmaker’s product is ruined for me forever.

One year and over 16,000 miles later, the Tesla Model Y is easily the best car I’ve ever had. Of course, everyone always says that about the car they currently drive, but for the longest time, I truly believed some of the other cars I drove — my 1998 Volkswagen Jetta K2, or my 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid — would never be topped.

Most of this was due to nostalgia, but dependability also played a role.

My Tesla has taken over the number one spot. Everyone I talk to about my car always has a lot of questions, and they’re usually the same ones that someone else asked me: “Is it really so cheap to drive?” “How much does it cost to charge?” “Does it really drive itself?” “How long is the warranty on your battery?”

I never mind answering those questions because it is an opportunity to educate someone on EVs. There are a lot of things about EVs that I hear from people, and I can’t help but chuckle at times. However, I hope this review clears some of those things up, because I truly want everyone to know how great this vehicle really is.

How my Tesla has changed my life

I was in two car accidents in high school, and I was a passenger in both. I am very happy I went through those as a teenager, because if I didn’t, I think I’d probably be much less aware of the road, how other drivers are so unbelievably unaware of others, and how inconsiderate most drivers are.

I’ve always considered myself a good driver because I was always taught to be defensive. Because of those two accidents, I am a tad jumpy in passenger seats, even with people like my parents, who drove me around for 16 years before I got my Learner’s Permit. On a drive home from Florida to Pennsylvania with my Dad two years ago, he actually told me at one point to “stop being so jumpy.”

Truth is, I trust my Dad behind the wheel more than anyone. But the older I’ve gotten, the more I just prefer to drive myself.

That is, until I met my Tesla and Full Self-Driving. I still remember the first drive I took after taking delivery: I immediately typed in my Fiancèe’s (my wife in 30 days!!!) favorite lunch spot, picked up her favorite meal, and pulled into the hospital where she delivers babies. I can remember thinking after 15 minutes, “Okay, that’s enough for me; I’ll drive manually now.”

Advertisement
-

Over the next 2-3 weeks, that length of time slowly but steadily increased. Every passing week, I got a tad more comfortable with the car driving me. Now, I have had FSD log 75% of my 13,000 miles since v14. I barely drive my car manually, and that’s exactly how I like it.

My Tesla has changed the way I drive and how I choose to travel.

Advertisement
-

In the past, I was always one of those anxious drivers, overly concerned about the parking situation, never wanting to drive in cities, and avoiding anything that made me a little uncomfortable when on the road. FSD has changed that completely.

It has made traveling fun, driving less stressful, and parking a non-issue. I truly love this car and what it has done for me and my driving anxiety.

Advertisement
-

Maintenance and Cost Savings

A buddy of mine who took delivery of a Model Y right after me, also his first EV, texted me yesterday and said, “When do I take this thing for service? I don’t even know what it needs.”

This year I have spent $67.41 on service for my car:

  • Free Front Camera Housing Cleaning
  • $65 for a Tire Rotation at home from Tesla (easily avoidable if I just would have gone to a tire place or did it myself, but it was less than 20 degrees outside and the Service Tech did it at 7 am while I was asleep)
  • $2.41 on a jug of Windshield Washer Fluid at Sheetz with my reward points

No spark plugs, no oil changes, no anything. Combine it with what you save on charging at home, and my ownership experience overall has been relatively cheap. I pay no more than I did for my Bronco for the car payment (around $400 per month), and my insurance went up about $60, but within the first four months I was given a safe driving discount by my agent. This brought it to about a $40 increase.

Now let’s factor in what I’ve saved in gas for the year:

According to my Charge Stats in the Tesla App, I’ve saved $836 over the course of the year by driving a Tesla over an ICE vehicle. If you look at the graph, you’ll notice my Supercharger utilization dropped significantly in April, which makes sense.

Advertisement
-

This is when I started charging at home. Those savings would likely be closer to $1,500 if I had been charging at home all along.

Real-World Range

I never reset any Trip on my Tesla when I bought it, so all of these efficiency stats are for the life of the vehicle thus far through 16,063 miles.

My Tesla has a lifetime average of 260.1 Wh/mi (watt-hours per mile), which equates to 3.84 mi/kWh (miles per kilowatt-hour). This is pretty average, and I know I could be more efficient, but I use climate control liberally (it’s always on, even if the windows are down), and I love to let FSD drive me around in Hurry Mode.

Even when I’m driving manually, it’s because I’m on a dry, windy road and I want to take advantage of the awesome suspension and damping that the Model offers. Driving that car on a back road with some twists is one of the most fun things to do.

To achieve really excellent range and efficiency ratings, you really have to be more conservative with some things, and those are sacrifices I’m personally not willing to make. I want the A/C or Heat on, and I occasionally will increase drag by driving with the windows down.

I prefer Hurry mode on FSD, and I’m willing to sacrifice a few miles of range for that certain style of driving.

Advertisement
-

Interior, Visibility, Accessories, and More

My Favorite Interior Ever

The Model Y interior, like every Tesla interior, is not for everyone. Personally, I was never a fan of the minimalistic approach prior to ownership. As ridiculous as it is, I liked a simple knob for adjusting the temperature and fan speed. Even so, to this day, it takes me longer to pull up the climate settings to adjust things in my Tesla than it ever did in cars with a million knobs and buttons.

I can’t tell you how many times my finger has missed the On/Off button on the climate screen in the Model Y because of dips, bumps, turns, and just normal movement during operation. Do I like the way things are controlled in my Tesla? Yes, of course. Plus, Grok is so integrated into the car now that I could truly never have to touch the screen again for anything other than starting Self-Driving.

However, I still find that there are valid arguments for people who like knobs and buttons. As ugly as it might be to me now, I think it is a tad more intuitive because it’s much harder to miss and much easier to make a quick adjustment than with a touchscreen.

With that being said, the touchscreen is great. It is so responsive and is as good as using an iPhone. There is no delay like most automotive touchscreens, where it feels sort of clunky for 2026.

Advertisement
-

I love to watch TV and Movies or YouTube on it when I’m parked anywhere. My Fiancèe and I have made it a date night several times over the past year: we’ll pick a spot to eat, get it to go, and enjoy it in the car while watching something. It’s great in the Fall when the leaves are turning orange.

The interior is, overall, a great part of the car. It’s very easy to keep clean, and when it’s clean, it truly feels like you’re in a spacecraft. It is one of the coolest interiors out there, maybe not as luxurious as some high-end Mercedes-Benz or BMW models, but it has a clean and simple feel that is better than many cars in its weight class.

I will say I do miss the Textile seats of the Model Y Standard, but I do not miss them when I am hot. I would still take the Vegan Leather because of the ventilated seats.

Rear Window Visibility is Pointless

If you like a rear windshield, just be aware of the fact that the Model Y basically does not have one. It almost feels pointless to be there, and the Model Y L has something that is much more “standard” in terms of rear windshields in a crossover/SUV:

Advertisement
-

It doesn’t mean much to me because the rear camera is great. However, I have found myself just annoyed with the fact that it’s even there to begin with.

Accessories I Bought

I went for 3D MaxPider car mats throughout, some center console storage, trunk storage, and matching window tint on the front windows. I also bought Tesla’s Pet Liner, which is great because it comes with door coverage and a bit of a barrier. My pup, Finn, climbs right over it and prefers the front seat, so I fold it in half, and it still covers the passenger seat very well:

They’re all pretty standard accessories, but the one thing I use the most is actually this phone mount from Amazon.

Advertisement
-

It’s great for making FSD content for TikTok or throwing my phone on it just to hold. I never use it to watch anything (I’m wildly against that concept), and I usually use the wireless charging mat that comes standard. It is really great and convenient, and the magnet is super strong.

Cabin Noise, Sound System Quality

The Model Y Premium comes with acoustic-lined glass, which really dampens a lot of the road noise. My car has one of the quieter cabins I’ve ever been in. I can still remember my 2008 Escape Hybrid and how loud it was in there; I thought my Tesla would be that way, but boy was I wrong.

It is such a peaceful ride that even sitting at stoplights behind loud, obnoxious Hondas with shopping cart handles as spoilers does not bother me. A buddy of mine in a 2021 Model Y said upon his first ride in my car that it was a “night and day” difference between the two.

As far as the sound system goes, two of the more outgoing people in my life who love loud music and concerts recently said to me that “the Tesla is quite a time” because of how immersive the listening experience is. The bass is excellent; the ambient lighting truly rounds out the experience.

Even my Dad, who is somewhat of a speaker snob (I can remember going to Tweeter as a boy with him to look at receivers, and he’s always had massive speakers in the house for cranking up some music) has commented on how good the sound quality is. I remember when I bought a Honda Civic a few years ago- his first ride in it- he said, “Damn, the speakers in here suck.”

He wasn’t wrong. They were awful. But in the Tesla, they’re damn good.

Advertisement
-

Should you buy a Model Y?

Look, I will recommend this car to anyone who asks. I tell my friends constantly that I love my Model Y so much, especially because it just gets better and better over time.

But I also understand the skepticism. I’ll admit one of the most disappointing things about this car is how much range I lose in the winter. In a 40-mile round-trip drive to get wings with some friends in January, I lost 120 miles of range. This is something that would not deter me from buying this car, but at the time, I also didn’t have home charging. Ownership, at that point, was a bit of a pain in the butt.

The thing is, to me, it’s still better than driving a gas car. I just have more fun in a Tesla.

A friend of mine recently bought a new car, and she said she went with a Chevy Equinox because it was a larger vehicle and she has a child. I told her, “I don’t think I’ll ever buy anything other than a Tesla. Once you go Tesla, you never go back.”

“I cannot afford a Tesla,” she said. We all know the ridiculous narrative around Tesla pricing by now, and after she found out how much I pay for my car and the fact that it has the IIHS Top Safety Pick+ rating, she admitted she probably would have done the same if she had known. I wish she would have asked.

The only car I would take over mine is the Cybertruck. And right now, I just can’t afford a Cybertruck, so I’ll stick with the Model Y. I am so satisfied with my pick, and I would buy this car time and time again.

Advertisement
-
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk rips ABC News over fatal NYC Tesla crash report

Musk pushed back on NYC Tesla crash coverage, pointing to a pattern of premature blame.

Published

17 hours ago

on

September 9, 2026

By

Elon Musk pushed back overnight against media framing of a fatal Tesla crash in Midtown Manhattan, telling a user on X that “it wasn’t the car” and that the vehicle’s Autopilot system had nothing to do with the wreck.

The crash happened just before 3 a.m. Wednesday, when a 2024 Tesla Model Y struck a sidewalk shed outside 315 Madison Ave., a bus stop pole and a mailbox on East 42nd Street, according to the NYPD. The car kept moving several more blocks before stopping near Second Avenue. Both women inside, each 27, were taken to Bellevue Hospital, where the passenger was pronounced dead. The driver was charged with vehicular manslaughter, driving while ability impaired and leaving the scene of an accident.

Police have not attributed the crash to Autopilot or Full Self-Driving in any public statement. The charges point to impairment, not software. Musk’s response followed a since-deleted ABC News post that he said mischaracterized the incident. Replying to a user on X, Musk wrote that if Autopilot had been engaged, “they would not have crashed,” and added that “the legacy media will never forgive Tesla for failing to advertise with them,”

It’s a familiar cycle for Tesla. In June, headlines from several national outlets described a fatal crash in Katy, Texas, as happening while the car was “on autopilot,” based on the driver’s own account to police after his Model 3 struck a home and killed a 76-year-old woman. Tesla’s data told a different story when Ashok Elluswamy, Tesla’s head of AI, said the driver had pressed the accelerator to 100% and reached 73 mph in a residential zone. Harris County prosecutors later confirmed the human override and the driver was charged with manslaughter.

Advertisement
-

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis pointed to that same Katy crash last month to argue that outlets routinely name Tesla in crash headlines while leaving other automakers unnamed, even after a driver’s own actions are shown to be the cause. A similar pattern played out in 2024, when Musk had to clarify that FSD was never even downloaded onto the Model 3 involved in a fatal Colorado DUI crash, despite a passenger’s claim that an “auto drive feature” was in use.

Tesla has not issued a separate statement on the Manhattan crash beyond Musk’s posts on X. The NYPD’s investigation is ongoing, and no cause for the driver losing control has been released.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla’s two defunct flagship models are getting a big upgrade

Published

1 day ago

on

September 9, 2026

By

Tesla’s two recently-defunct flagship models, the Model S and Model X, are getting a big upgrade, according to the company’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy.

Older Hardware 3 Model S and Model X vehicles have been the last major holdouts in Tesla’s Full Self-Driving v14 Lite rollout, and that wait now appears to be ending.

Tesla brings closure to flagship ‘sentimental’ models, Musk confirms

At Tesla’s Cybercab launch, AI chief Ashok Elluswamy told Ryan McCaffrey that he thought the S and X build “was supposed to go out last week.” Evidently, Elluswamy expects the suite to be rolled out to those HW3 Model S and Model X very soon:

Those cars are not the current Model S and Model X, which already ship with Hardware 4. They are the pre-refresh flagships built around Tesla’s older Autopilot computer, often called HW3 or AI3.

Tesla stopped putting that computer in new vehicles years ago, which is why owners treat these S and X cars as a closed generation. Model 3 and Model Y vehicles on the same computer began receiving v14 Lite in late June 2026 and saw a wider North American expansion in July. South Korea followed as an early international market. The S and X versions of the same software never joined that wave.

v14 Lite is Tesla’s way of squeezing the current v14 driving stack onto hardware that cannot run the full AI 4 model. The company describes the process as distillation: behaviors learned on the newer computer, including reinforcement learning and offline models, are compressed so the older chip and cameras can use them as a guide.

Early descriptions put the distilled network at roughly 15 percent of the original size. The result is still supervised Level 2 driving. Tesla has been clear that HW3 cannot support unsupervised Full Self-Driving or robotaxi operation because of memory and bandwidth limits.

The feature list is what made the wait so frustrating for S and X owners, as plenty of new features are to be shipped with it.

Advertisement
-

Official notes for the first Lite build, firmware 2026.20.5.1, added parking, unparking, and reversing; arrival options for a parking lot, street, driveway, or curbside; speed profiles that stay available at all times; and start-from-park engagement. Tesla also claimed better handling of merges, forks, pedestrians, traffic lights, and cut-ins, plus fewer false slowdowns and smoother lane centering.

A mid-July follow-on build, 2026.20.6.10, added more of the Hardware 4 interface, including a standalone Self-Driving app and the ability to start a trip from Park without a brake-pedal confirmation.

Elluswamy called that version the one “likely going to wide release.”

That wide release already reached most other HW3 cars in the United States and Canada. International timing still depends on regional validation and regulatory approval. For S and X owners, the remaining work appears to be model-specific validation rather than a new software stack.

There is no official Tesla changelog or build number for those two models yet, only Elluswamy’s offhand timeline. Some HW3 drivers who already have Lite report large gains over v12.6; others have described new indecision or phantom braking. The next test will be whether the same software lands cleanly on the older flagships that have waited the longest.

Advertisement
-
Continue Reading