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.
Tesla is continuing to push the boundaries of vehicle dynamics, as its latest published patent, US12654505B2, or “Suspension Actuator System for a Vehicle,’ which has finally been pushed through.
The design, which is credited to inventors Brian Lee Doorlag, Avraham Kagan, and Justin Sill, introduces a sophisticated hybrid suspension design that blends active motor-driven control with strategic passive elements to deliver superior ride quality, energy efficiency, and resilience against road imperfections, especially potholes.
Suspension Actuator System for a Vehicle@Tesla‘s US20240383297A1 patent introduces an innovative suspension actuator system that transforms vehicle suspension control through an intelligent combination of active and passive control elements.
By implementing both series and… https://t.co/vRvlOu3Dql pic.twitter.com/2WriXgpOvr
— SETI Park (@seti_park) November 27, 2024
At the heart of the system is an active control element powered by an electric motor. This motor drives a belt connected to a ball nut assembly and threaded screw, which adjusts the effective length of the suspension strut in real time.
By extending or retracting, the actuator can lift or lower the wheel more accurately, which can end up countering road disturbances. Sensors, including accelerometers and wheel position monitors, feed data to a suspension control system that processes inputs and commands the motor instantly.
This active component doesn’t work alone. A low-rate air spring mounts in parallel with the actuator. Its primary role is to offset much of the vehicle’s static weight, dramatically reducing the power demand on the motor.
Without this, the active system would constantly fight gravity, draining energy and generating heat. The air spring handles steady-state loads efficiently, allowing the motor to focus on dynamic adjustments.
Complementing this is a series of passive control elements—a spring and an adaptive damper—placed between the actuator and the wheel. This setup filters high-frequency vibrations before they reach the active motor, preventing it from overworking on minor inputs. The adaptive damper, potentially magnetorheological or valve-controlled, further tunes damping electronically for optimal comfort and stability.
How It Differs from Traditional Suspensions
Traditional passive suspensions compromise between comfort and handling, while pure active systems can be power-hungry and complex. Tesla’s hybrid approach resolves this by delegating tasks: the parallel air spring manages weight and low-frequency body motions, the series elements absorb rapid vibrations, and the active actuator tackles larger, lower-frequency events.
The result is a smoother, more isolated cabin experience. High-frequency road noise and harshness diminish, while the vehicle maintains precise control during cornering or acceleration. Energy efficiency improves, too—lower motor loads mean reduced battery drain, potentially extending range in electric vehicles.
How It Mitigates Potholes Specifically
Potholes are a major challenge because they provide a sudden drop to the wheel plunge, jarring the body of the vehicle, risking damage. The patent explicitly addresses this. Upon detecting a pothole (via sensors or predictive mapping), the control system activates
the motor to retract the strut, effectively pulling the wheel upward to minimize downward excursion. The series spring/damper cushions the impact, while the parallel air spring maintains overall support.
This proactive “wheel retraction” prevents sharp jolts, preserving passenger comfort and protecting components. Integrated with Tesla’s road roughness mapping patents, the system could anticipate potholes from fleet data, enabling preemptive adjustments for even smoother navigation.
Future Implications for Tesla Vehicles
This technology builds on Tesla’s existing adaptive dampers and air suspension that is seen in Cybertruck, but advances toward fully active control. It could roll out to future models, including refreshed Cybertrucks or next-gen vehicles, enhancing both daily drivability and off-road capability. By minimizing power use and complexity, it aligns with Tesla’s goals of efficiency and scalability.
In summary, US12654505B2 exemplifies Tesla’s engineering philosophy: intelligent integration over brute force. This hybrid suspension promises quieter, more comfortable rides and robust pothole defense, potentially setting a new standard for automotive comfort. As Tesla iterates, drivers can look forward to roads feeling far less rough.
The Tesla Cybercab got a huge nod of support from a Texas Department of Transportation official, who said the all-electric ride-hailing vehicle is “a tangible example of how quickly our transportation system is evolving.”
The Cybercab was present at the Texas Department of Transportation’s Texas Innovation Invitational, an event held each year that allows innovative companies to showcase advancements in transportation.
Tesla Cybercab specs revealed: range, curb weight, range ratings, and more
Marc Williams, the Texas Department of Transportation’s Executive Director, sat in a Cybercab and shared his thoughts in an extensive post on LinkedIn.
Williams’s comments show how Tesla, with its Cybercab, is leading the charge of passenger travel and how it’s changing so rapidly. He notes the absence of traditional driving controls as a telltale sign that the Cybercab is a catalyst for major automotive change, taking controls from drivers and turning them into full-time passengers.
“Observing this vehicle firsthand–from its design and butterfly doors to the cargo trunk configuration–provides a tangible example of how quickly our transportation system is evolving. Sitting inside the cabin, the complete absence of traditional driver controls underscores a significant shift in mobility and vehicle design. No steering wheel, no accelerator, no brake. Only a single touchscreen monitor.”
Tesla has had a great relationship with the State of Texas, especially with its Robotaxi ambitions. Currently, Texas has Tesla Robotaxi operating in multiple cities: Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, and Houston. The company’s main manufacturing plant is also located just outside Austin, and Tesla moved its headquarters to the state several years ago.
Texas DOT Executive Director Marc Williams experienced the production version of @Tesla CyberCab firsthand earlier today at the 2026 Texas Innovation Invitational #CyberCab #FSD @SawyerMerritt @TeslaNewswire pic.twitter.com/izoGOWaGz6
— Ash_Alpha (@durai_ashwin08) June 17, 2026
The Cybercab is a purpose-built, fully autonomous, two-passenger Robotaxi vehicle designed specifically for ride-hailing services. Tesla has said for years it would be built without a steering wheel or pedals present, although there is still quite a bit of debate among the community regarding that potential.
Earlier this week, we received official word that the EPA had provided the Cybercab with a Certificate of Conformity, giving Tesla permission to enter the vehicle into the chain of public commerce. It is officially ready for roads.
The big question for Tesla remains: Can it solve self-driving before the steering-wheel-less Cybercab officially enters production?
Elon Musk
The Boring Company just doubled its tunneling power in Nashville
The Boring Company’s Prufrock MB2 is commissioned and ready to mine beneath Nashville’s streets.
The Boring Company’s second tunnel boring machine, Prufrock MB2, is officially ready to dig in Nashville. The company confirmed the news on X, posting: “Prufrock-MB2 is ready to mine in Nashville! MB2 commissioning is complete, including the brief 11 rpm rotation shown here. Will MB2 catch up to MB1, who had quite the head start? And Prufrock-MB3 ships in August!”
MB2 arrives with meaningful improvements over its predecessor. Lessons learned from the launch and operation of MB1 have already been applied to MB2 to improve efficiency and prepare the machine for launch.
Traditional tunnel boring machines operate in a stop-and-go cycle, digging roughly five feet, halt, erect precast concrete segments to line the tunnel wall, then resume. That repeated interruption is one of the main reasons conventional tunneling is slow and expensive. Prufrock is designed to install the tunnel liner simultaneously with mining, eliminating the need to stop every five feet. The machine also skips the need for excavated launch pits. Prufrock arrives on a truck, tilts down, and launches into the ground within 24 hours. And when the tunnel is complete, it emerges from the ground and drives to its next launch site on a trailer, eliminating the need for expensive cranes or pit excavation. The machine is also fully electric and runs with zero people in the tunnel during normal operations, controlled remotely from a surface operations center.
Prufrock-MB2 is ready to mine in Nashville! MB2 commissioning is complete, including the brief 11 rpm rotation shown here.
Will MB2 catch up to MB1, who had quite the head start?
And Prufrock-MB3 ships in August! pic.twitter.com/TTrMql2aRg
— The Boring Company (@boringcompany) June 17, 2026
It won’t be long before we hear of another major update on The Boring Company’s Music City Loop project – a planned underground transit network beneath Nashville that would move passengers in electric vehicles through a series of tunnels at highway speeds, and bypassing surface traffic entirely. Nashville was selected in part because of its strong rock conditions that suits the Prufrock machines well, and relatively less regulatory hurdles.
Progress has been steady on multiple fronts. All 37 permits and approvals required ahead of tunneling have been obtained, out of 45 total. Key wins include a fully executed TDOT tunnel permit authorizing 25 miles of tunnel, unanimous airport authority approval for a Nashville International Airport station, and the city’s first residential station agreement serving downtown tower residents.
With MB1 already tunneling, MB2 now commissioned, and MB3 shipping in August, Nashville is becoming something of a live proving ground for scaled tunnel boring. The broader ambition is not limited to one city. The Boring Company’s stated goal is to make underground transportation a practical alternative to surface roads across major metro areas. Nashville is one of many cities, including a successful Las Vegas tunnel system, where that idea is being put to the test at real speed.
Tesla patent aims to improve common on-road complaint
Tesla Cybercab gets huge nod of support from Texas DOT official
