

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.
Elon Musk
Tesla reveals it is using AI to make factories more sustainable: here’s how
Tesla is using AI in its Gigafactory Nevada factory to improve HVAC efficiency.

Tesla has revealed in its Extended Impact Report for 2024 that it is using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to enable its factories to be more sustainable. One example it used was its achievement of managing “the majority of the HVAC infrastructure at Gigafactory Nevada is now AI-controlled” last year.
In a commitment to becoming more efficient and making its production as eco-friendly as possible, Tesla has been working for years to find solutions to reduce energy consumption in its factories.
For example, in 2023, Tesla implemented optimization controls in the plastics and paint shops located at Gigafactory Texas, which increased the efficiency of natural gas consumption. Tesla plans to phase out natural gas use across its factories eventually, but for now, it prioritizes work to reduce emissions from that energy source specifically.
It also uses Hygrometric Control Logic for Air Handling Units at Giafactory Berlin, resulting in 17,000 MWh in energy savings each year. At Gigafactory Nevada, Tesla saves 9.5 GWh of energy through the use of N-Methylpyrrolidone refineries when extracting critical raw material.
Perhaps the most interesting way Tesla is conserving energy is through the use of AI at Gigafactory Nevada, as it describes its use of AI to reduce energy demand:
“In 2023, AI Control for HVAC was expanded from Nevada and Texas to now include our Berlin-Brandenburg and Fremont factories. AI Control policy enables HVAC systems within each factory to work together to process sensor data, model factory dynamics, and apply control actions that safely minimize the energy required to support production. In 2024, this system achieved two milestones: the majority of HVAC infrastructure at Gigafactory Nevada is now AI-controlled, reducing fan and thermal energy demand; and the AI algorithm was extended to manage entire chiller plants, creating a closed-loop control system that optimizes both chilled water consumption and the energy required for its generation, all while maintaining factory conditions.”
Tesla utilizes AI Control “primarily on systems that heat or cool critical factory production spaces and equipment.” AI Control communicates with the preexisting standard control logic of each system, and any issues can be resolved by quickly reverting back to standard control. There were none in 2024.
Tesla says that it is utilizing AI to drive impact at its factories, and it has proven to be a valuable tool in reducing energy consumption at one of its facilities.
Elon Musk
Tesla analysts believe Musk and Trump feud will pass
Tesla CEO Elon Musk and U.S. President Donald Trump’s feud shall pass, several bulls say.

Tesla analysts are breaking down the current feud between CEO Elon Musk and U.S. President Donald Trump, as the two continue to disagree on the “Big Beautiful Bill” and its impact on the country’s national debt.
Musk, who headed the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the Trump Administration, left his post in May. Soon thereafter, he and President Trump entered a very public and verbal disagreement, where things turned sour. They reconciled to an extent, and things seemed to be in the past.
However, the second disagreement between the two started on Monday, as Musk continued to push back on the “Big Beautiful Bill” that the Trump administration is attempting to sign into law. It would, by Musk’s estimation, increase spending and reverse the work DOGE did to trim the deficit.
Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame!
And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 30, 2025
President Trump has hinted that DOGE could be “the monster” that “eats Elon,” threatening to end the subsidies that SpaceX and Tesla receive. Musk has not been opposed to ending government subsidies for companies, including his own, as long as they are all abolished.
How Tesla could benefit from the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ that axes EV subsidies
Despite this contentious back-and-forth between the two, analysts are sharing their opinions now, and a few of the more bullish Tesla observers are convinced that this feud will pass, Trump and Musk will resolve their differences as they have before, and things will return to normal.
ARK Invest’s Cathie Wood said this morning that the feud between Musk and Trump is another example of “this too shall pass:”
BREAKING: CATHIE WOOD SAYS — ELON AND TRUMP FEUD “WILL PASS” 👀 $TSLA
She remains bullish ! pic.twitter.com/w5rW2gfCkx
— TheSonOfWalkley (@TheSonOfWalkley) July 1, 2025
Additionally, Wedbush’s Dan Ives, in a note to investors this morning, said that the situation “will settle:”
“We believe this situation will settle and at the end of the day Musk needs Trump and Trump needs Musk given the AI Arms Race going on between the US and China. The jabs between Musk and Trump will continue as the Budget rolls through Congress but Tesla investors want Musk to focus on driving Tesla and stop this political angle…which has turned into a life of its own in a roller coaster ride since the November elections.”
Tesla shares are down about 5 percent at 3:10 p.m. on the East Coast.
Elon Musk
Tesla scrambles after Musk sidekick exit, CEO takes over sales
Tesla CEO Elon Musk is reportedly overseeing sales in North America and Europe, Bloomberg reports.

Tesla scrambled its executives around following the exit of CEO Elon Musk’s sidekick last week, Omead Afshar. Afshar was relieved of his duties as Head of Sales for both North America and Europe.
Bloomberg is reporting that Musk is now overseeing both regions for sales, according to sources familiar with the matter. Afshar left the company last week, likely due to slow sales in both markets, ending a seven-year term with the electric automaker.
Tesla’s Omead Afshar, known as Elon Musk’s right-hand man, leaves company: reports
Afshar was promoted to the role late last year as Musk was becoming more involved in the road to the White House with President Donald Trump.
Afshar, whose LinkedIn account stated he was working within the “Office of the CEO,” was known as Musk’s right-hand man for years.
Additionally, Tom Zhu, currently the Senior Vice President of Automotive at Tesla, will oversee sales in Asia, according to the report.
It is a scramble by Tesla to get the company’s proven executives over the pain points the automaker has found halfway through the year. Sales are looking to be close to the 1.8 million vehicles the company delivered in both of the past two years.
Tesla is pivoting to pay more attention to the struggling automotive sales that it has felt over the past six months. Although it is still performing well and is the best-selling EV maker by a long way, it is struggling to find growth despite redesigning its vehicles and launching new tech and improvements within them.
The company is also looking to focus more on its deployment of autonomous tech, especially as it recently launched its Robotaxi platform in Austin just over a week ago.
However, while this is the long-term catalyst for Tesla, sales still need some work, and it appears the company’s strategy is to put its biggest guns on its biggest problems.
-
Elon Musk2 days ago
Tesla investors will be shocked by Jim Cramer’s latest assessment
-
News7 days ago
Tesla Robotaxi’s biggest challenge seems to be this one thing
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla’s Grok integration will be more realistic with this cool feature
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Elon Musk slams Bloomberg’s shocking xAI cash burn claims
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla China roars back with highest vehicle registrations this Q2 so far
-
News2 weeks ago
Texas lawmakers urge Tesla to delay Austin robotaxi launch to September
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla dominates Cars.com’s Made in America Index with clean sweep
-
Elon Musk1 week ago
First Look at Tesla’s Robotaxi App: features, design, and more