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 Full Self-Driving has warranted a huge switch-up on an essential company strategy as the automaker is hoping to increase the take rate of the ADAS suite.
Unlike other automotive companies, Tesla has long been an outlier, as it has famously ditched a traditional advertising strategy in favor of organic buzz, natural word-of-mouth through its production innovation, and utilizing CEO Elon Musk’s huge social media presence to push its products.
Tesla has taken the money that it would normally spend on advertising and utilized it for R&D purposes. For a long time, it yielded great results, and ironically, Tesla saw benefits from other EV makers running ads.
Tesla counters jab at lack of advertising with perfect response
However, in recent years, Tesla has decided to adjust this strategy, showing a need to expand beyond its core enthusiast base, which is large, but does not span over millions and millions as it would need to fend off global EV competitors, which have become more well-rounded and a better threat to the company.
In 2024 and 2025, Tesla started utilizing ads to spread knowledge about its products. This is continuing, as Full Self-Driving ads are now being spotted on social media platforms, most notably, X, which is owned by Musk:
NEWS: Tesla is running paid advertisements on X about FSD (Supervised). Here’s an ad they started running yesterday: pic.twitter.com/IHVywLMyTd
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) November 25, 2025
Interestingly, Tesla’s strategy on FSD advertising is present in Musk’s new compensation package, as the eleventh tranche describes a goal of achieving 10 million active paid FSD subscriptions.
Full Self-Driving is truly Tesla’s primary focus moving forward, although it could be argued that it also has a special type of dedication toward its Optimus robot project. However, FSD will ultimately become the basis for the Robotaxi, which will enable autonomous ride-sharing across the globe as it is permitted in more locations.
Tesla has been adjusting its advertising strategy over the past couple of years, and it seems it is focused on more ways to spread awareness about its products. It will be interesting to see if the company will expand its spending even further, as it has yet to put on a commercial during live television.
We wouldn’t put it out of the question, at least not yet.
Tesla was nice enough to hook us up with the new Model Y “Standard” trim for a few days, and while we’ll be sure to fill you in on the full experience in the coming days, there are a lot of differences we noticed right off the bat, which make the ownership experience different from the “Premium” configuration level.
I purchased a Model Y Long Range All-Wheel-Drive back in August and took delivery just two weeks later. Through the first three months of owning my car, I’ve come to love so many things about the Tesla experience.
I traded my ICE vehicle for a Tesla Model Y: here’s how it went
However, I was interested in experiencing the affordable trim and seeing whether I would miss any of the voided features of the “Premium” Model Y.
Through the first 24 hours, here are my first impressions of the Model Y Standard as a Premium trim level owner:
Overall Aesthetic
The lack of a light bar is not something that is a dealbreaker. In fact, I would argue that the Model Y Standard’s more traditional headlight design is just as pleasing from an aesthetic standpoint.
The car is great looking from top to bottom; there are not a substantial number of differences besides the lack of a lightbar on both the front and the back of the car.
Overall, it is a very sleek vehicle, but the major changes are obviously with the interior.
Interior Changes
This is where the big differences are, and some of the things I’ve gotten used to in the Premium are not included. If I didn’t have a Premium Model Y already, I’m not sure I’d miss some of the things that are not present in the Standard trim, but I believe I’d get annoyed with it.
First impressions:
✅ Interior is excellent. I definitely miss the additional storage already that is available in my Premium. I could definitely get over it though
✅ Noticeable step down in sound system. Long Time by Boston absolutely cranks in the Premium; it’s still very… https://t.co/JNWvxTd8p1
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 25, 2025
Storage
The Premium has a large storage compartment between the cupholders and the wireless charger, which is not present in the Standard trim. Instead, it is more like the Cybertruck, as there is a pass-through and floor storage.
I think that the pass-through is nice, but the additional storage is something I take advantage of, especially as someone who films Full Self-Driving videos, which requires hauling mounts, GoPros, and other accessories.
The sleekness of the Premium trim is also something I prefer; I really enjoy having the ability to close those compartments and cover the cupholders.
Obviously, this is a really trivial issue and not something that is substantially impactful from an ownership experience. If I weren’t already an owner, I am not sure I’d even have something to complain about.
Material Differences
The Premium trim seats are completely Vegan Leather, which I really do like, even as someone who doesn’t really love leather seats due to their temperature dependency.
The Standard trim features a Textile and Vegan hybrid, which has half of the seat a different material than the other.
The material is very similar to what I had in my previous car, a Bronco Sport. It was very durable, easy to clean, dried quickly, and hid a lot of things that leather does not, like oils from your skin, which constantly require attention to keep your interior looking fresh.
The wireless charger is also a different material, as the Premium features an Alcantara material on that. The Standard has a rubberized and textured backing, which looks good, too. They’re both more than suitable.
Other Missing Features
The Standard lacks a few minor things, most noticeably is the ambient lighting. The biggest change, however, and something I really miss, is the glass roof.
A lot of people told me that when I got my Model Y, I wouldn’t even notice the glass roof after a few weeks. That could not be further from the truth. I look out of it all the time, and it’s one of my family’s favorite parts of the car.
My Fiancè and I really love parking and watching Netflix when we pick food up, especially when it’s raining, because the glass roof gives such a great view.
We also loved it as Fall arrived, because it was great to look at the foliage.
Buy the Tesla.
Enjoy the glass roof. pic.twitter.com/r2GDyOEEWu
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2025
Bigger Differences
There are also a handful of very noticeable differences from the overall cabin experience, especially with the sound system.
Much Weaker Sound System
The Model Y Standard has just 7 speakers and 1 amp, with no subwoofer. This is a significant step down from the 13-15 speakers in the Premium Long Range AWD Model Y, the 2 amps it comes with, and 1 subwoofer in the trunk.
I usually like to listen to Long Time by Boston to test out a sound system, and it was noticeably weaker in the Standard. It was missing a big portion of the umph that is provided by the Premium’s sound system.
Cabin Noise
It feels like the Cabin Noise is definitely more noticeable in the Standard, which is something I really love about my Model Y. It is able to dampen so much road noise from louder cars, and I don’t feel as if it is very quiet in the Standard.
This is perhaps the biggest make-or-break for me with this car. I truly have been spoiled by how quiet the cabin is in the Premium, and it’s due to the lack of acoustic-lined glass in the Standard.
I will be doing a more in-depth review of the Model Y Standard, especially with ride quality, later this week.
News
Tesla takes a step towards removal of Robotaxi service’s safety drivers
Tesla watchers are speculating that the implementation of in-camera data sharing could be a step towards the removal of the Robotaxi service’s safety drivers.
Tesla appears to be preparing for the eventual removal of its Robotaxi service’s safety drivers.
This was hinted at in a recent de-compile of the Robotaxi App’s version 25.11.5, which was shared on social media platform X.
In-cabin analytics
As per Tesla software tracker @Tesla_App_iOS, the latest update to the Robotaxi app featured several improvements. These include Live Screen Sharing, as well as a feature that would allow Tesla to access video and audio inside the vehicle.
According to the software tracker, a new prompt has been added to the Robotaxi App that requests user consent for enhanced in-cabin data sharing, which comprise Cabin Camera Analytics and Sound Detection Analytics. Once accepted, Tesla would be able to retrieve video and audio data from the Robotaxi’s cabin.
Video and audio sharing
A screenshot posted by the software tracker on X showed that Cabin Camera Analytics is used to improve the intelligence of features like request support. Tesla has not explained exactly how the feature will be implemented, though this might mean that the in-cabin camera may be used to view and analyze the status of passengers when remote agents are contacted.
Sound Detection Analytics is expected to be used to improve the intelligence of features like siren recognition. This suggests that Robotaxis will always be actively listening for emergency vehicle sirens to improve how the system responds to them. Tesla, however, also maintained that data collected by Robotaxis will be anonymous. In-cabin data will not be linked to users unless they are needed for a safety event or a support request.
Tesla watchers are speculating that the implementation of in-camera data sharing could be a step towards the removal of the Robotaxi service’s safety drivers. With Tesla able to access video and audio feeds from Robotaxis, after all, users can get assistance even if they are alone in the driverless vehicle.
Tesla Full Self-Driving warrants huge switch-up on essential company strategy
Tesla Model Y Standard: first impressions from a Premium owner
