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
Elon Musk announces disappointing Tesla Optimus update
In a post on X on March 31, Musk stated that Optimus 3 is mobile but requires some finishing touches before it is ready to be shown to the world. This update comes on the final day of the first quarter, a period when Tesla had previously signaled expectations for a Gen 3 reveal.
Elon Musk announced a disappointing update to the unveiling of Tesla Optimus and its third-generation iteration, missing a timeline it aimed to hit in the first quarter of the year.
Musk has confirmed that the highly anticipated Optimus Gen 3 humanoid robot is already walking around and operational, yet the public unveiling will face a short delay as the company applies final refinements.
In a post on X on March 31, Musk stated that Optimus 3 is mobile but requires some finishing touches before it is ready to be shown to the world. This update comes on the final day of the first quarter, a period when Tesla had previously signaled expectations for a Gen 3 reveal.
Optimus 3 is walking around, but needs some finishing touches before it’s ready to be shown
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 31, 2026
The announcement follows reports of Optimus Gen 3 appearing at the Tesla Diner in Los Angeles, where it was observed serving and moving about until sunset. Images and videos shared by observers captured the robot in action, highlighting its progress in real-world mobility.
Tesla had aimed to showcase the production intent version of Optimus Gen 3 during the first quarter of 2026, positioning it as a major step toward factory deployment and eventual commercial availability. Musk has described the robot as featuring advanced capabilities, including highly dexterous hands with significant degrees of freedom, powered by Tesla’s AI systems for complex tasks.
This minor postponement aligns with Tesla’s iterative approach to development. Earlier statements from Musk indicated that Gen 3 would represent the most advanced humanoid robot yet, designed primarily for internal factory use before scaling to external customers.
Elon Musk’s $10 Trillion robot: Inside Tesla’s push to mass produce Optimus
Production timelines point toward low-volume output starting in the summer of 2026, with volume ramp-up targeted for 2027. The delay underscores the company’s commitment to quality over speed, ensuring the robot meets rigorous standards for safety and performance in practical environments.
Optimus represents a cornerstone of Tesla’s long-term vision beyond electric vehicles. Musk has repeatedly emphasized that successful humanoid robotics could transform industries by addressing labor shortages and enabling new forms of productivity.
Competitors in the space continue to advance their own platforms, yet Tesla’s vertical integration, from custom actuators to end-to-end AI training, positions Optimus as a potential leader. Community reactions on social media range from excitement over visible progress to impatience with shifting timelines, a familiar pattern in Tesla’s innovation journey.
Investors and enthusiasts view Optimus as critical to Tesla’s valuation, potentially surpassing its automotive business in scale. With the robot already demonstrating walking and basic interactions, the finishing touches likely involve software polishing, hardware fine-tuning, and reliability enhancements.
Musk’s update suggests the reveal could arrive in the coming weeks or months, maintaining momentum toward broader deployment.
As Tesla pushes the boundaries of physical artificial intelligence, this latest development keeps Optimus in the spotlight. The company continues to prioritize rapid iteration while delivering on its promises to shareholders and customers. The robotics revolution at Tesla appears closer than ever, promising profound impacts on manufacturing, services, and daily life in the years ahead.
Elon Musk
Countdown: America is going back to the Moon and SpaceX holds the key to what comes after
NASA’s Artemis II launches Wednesday, sending humans near the Moon for the first time since 1972.
For the first time since Apollo 17 touched down on the lunar surface in December 1972, the United States is sending humans back toward the Moon. NASA’s Artemis II mission is set to launch as early as this week from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, carrying four astronauts on a 10-day journey around the Moon and back to Earth. It will not land anyone on the surface this time, but it is the first crewed flight in over half a century to travel beyond low Earth orbit, and it sets the stage for Elon Musk’s SpaceX missions to follow.
The mission uses NASA’s Space Launch System rocket and the Orion spacecraft, which will fly around the Moon before splashing down in the Pacific Ocean around April 10. For context, an uncrewed Artemis I flew the same path in 2022, proving the hardware worked. Artemis II now tests it with people aboard.
According to NASA’s official countdown blog, launch preparations are on track with an 80 percent chance of favorable weather. “Hey, let’s go to the moon!” Commander Wiseman told reporters upon arriving at Kennedy Space Center.
Source: NASA
Beyond Artemis II lies the lander question, and that is where SpaceX enters directly. In 2021, NASA awarded SpaceX a $2.89 billion contract to develop the Starship Human Landing System, a modified version of Starship designed to ferry astronauts from lunar orbit to the surface. The original plan called for SpaceX to deliver that lander for Artemis III, which was to be the first crewed lunar landing. Timing for Starship development, however, caused NASA to restructure the mission sequence entirely.
Before SpaceX’s Starship Human Landing System (HLS) can put anyone on the Moon, it has to solve a problem no rocket has demonstrated at scale, which is refueling in orbit. Because the Starship HLS requires approximately ten tanker launches worth of propellant loaded into a depot in low Earth orbit before it has enough fuel to reach the lunar surface, SpaceX plans to conduct this refueling process using its upgraded V3 Starship. And until that demonstration flies and succeeds, the Starship moon lander remains a question mark.
SpaceX’s Starship V3 is almost ready and it will change space travel forever
In February 2026, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman confirmed that Artemis III, now planned for mid-2027, and will instead test lunar landers in low Earth orbit, with the actual landing pushed to Artemis IV that’s targeted for 2028.
Musk responded to earlier criticism of SpaceX’s schedule by posting on X that his company is “moving like lightning compared to the rest of the space industry,” and added that “Starship will end up doing the whole Moon mission.” The contract competition was also reopened in October 2025 by then NASA chief Sean Duffy, who cited Starship’s delays and said the agency needed speed given China’s own stated goal of landing astronauts on the Moon by 2030.
They won’t. SpaceX is moving like lightning compared to the rest of the space industry.
Moreover, Starship will end up doing the whole Moon mission. Mark my words.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2025
Artemis came from the first Trump administration’s 2017 Space Policy Directive 1, which directed NASA to return humans to the Moon. The program picked up pace through the 2020s, with the Orion spacecraft and SLS taking years to develop at enormous costs. SpaceX entered the picture in 2021 as the chosen lander contractor, tying the commercial space sector into what had historically been an all government undertaking.
Whether SpaceX’s Starship ultimately carries astronauts to the lunar surface or shares that role with Blue Origin’s competing lander, this week’s Artemis II launch is the necessary first step. Getting four humans to the Moon’s vicinity and back safely is the proof of concept everything else depends on.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk debunks latest rumors about SpaceX IPO
Musk has swiftly put to rest circulating reports suggesting that SpaceX would exclude popular retail brokerages Robinhood and SoFi from its highly anticipated initial public offering. In a direct response posted on X on March 31, Musk stated simply, “These reports are false,” addressing widespread speculation fueled by a Reuters article.
Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk debunked the latest rumors about the space exploration company’s initial public offering (IPO), which has been the subject of a wide array of speculation over the last few weeks.
With SpaceX likely heading to Wall Street to become a publicly-traded stock in the coming months, there is a lot of speculation surrounding how it will happen, whether the company will potentially combine with Tesla, and more.
Tesla and SpaceX to merge in 2027, Wall Street analyst predicts
But the latest rumors have to do with where SpaceX will list the stock.
Musk has swiftly put to rest circulating reports suggesting that SpaceX would exclude popular retail brokerages Robinhood and SoFi from its highly anticipated initial public offering.
In a direct response posted on X on March 31, Musk stated simply, “These reports are false,” addressing widespread speculation fueled by a Reuters article.
These reports are false
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 31, 2026
The Reuters report, published March 30, claimed that Morgan Stanley’s E*Trade was in talks to lead the sale of SpaceX shares to small U.S. investors.
Sources indicated that Robinhood and SoFi, despite pitching for roles, faced potential exclusion from the retail allocation, with Fidelity also competing for a piece of the action. The story quickly spread across financial media, raising concerns among retail investors eager to participate in what could be one of the largest IPOs in history.
SpaceX has a reported valuation nearing $1.75 trillion, and Musk’s plan to allocate up to 30 percent of shares to individual investors — far above the typical 5-10% — had generated massive excitement.
Musk’s concise denial immediately calmed the narrative. The original X post quoting the rumor garnered significant engagement, with users expressing relief that everyday investors would not be sidelined.
This episode reflects Musk’s hands-on approach to SpaceX’s public debut.
Earlier reporting revealed plans for an unusually large retail slice to leverage Musk’s dedicated fan base and stabilize post-IPO trading. SpaceX aims to file potentially as early as this period, building on momentum from its Starship program and Starlink growth.
The IPO could mark a transformative moment, potentially elevating Musk’s status further while democratizing access to a company long reserved for accredited investors and institutions.
The rumor’s quick debunking also revives debates about retail access in high-profile listings. Robinhood gained popularity during the 2021 meme-stock surge but faced criticism for past trading restrictions.
SoFi has positioned itself as a modern financial platform for younger investors. Excluding them could have limited participation from tech-savvy retail traders who form a core part of Musk’s supporter base across Tesla and SpaceX.
While details remain fluid, Musk’s intervention reinforces commitment to broad accessibility. As preparations advance, investors await official filings. For now, the message is clear: rumors of restricted retail access were overstated, keeping the door open for widespread participation in SpaceX’s public chapter.
This development comes amid broader market enthusiasm for space and technology stocks. Musk’s transparency through X continues to shape public perception, distinguishing SpaceX’s path from traditional Wall Street norms. With retail allocation potentially reaching 30 percent, the IPO promises to be both commercially massive and culturally significant.
Elon Musk announces disappointing Tesla Optimus update
Countdown: America is going back to the Moon and SpaceX holds the key to what comes after
Elon Musk debunks latest rumors about SpaceX IPO
Elon Musk says Tesla is developing a new vehicle: ‘Way cooler than a minivan’
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
