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

7 years ago

October 25, 2018

Eric Ralph

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.

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.

: 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.

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

News

Tesla Full Self-Driving impressions after three weeks of ownership

I will be fair and tell you all what I truly enjoy, as well as what frustrates me about Full Self-Driving.

Published

10 hours ago

September 18, 2025

Joey Klender

Credit: Joey Klender

Tesla Full Self-Driving is amongst the most robust and refined semi-autonomous driver assistance systems on the market today. After three weeks of ownership, I’ve driven around half of my miles using it, and my impressions put me right in the middle of it being very impressive and needing some work.

Of course, if it were perfect, it would be driving us all around all the time while we sleep, scroll our phones, or watch movies in the cockpit. It does a lot of things very well, and it has managed to impress everyone I’ve put in the passenger’s seat.

However, there are some things that are obvious pain points, situations that need improvement, and areas where I believe it has a long way to go. Regardless, these are things I have noticed, and they may differ from your opinions based on your location or traffic situations.

Tesla Model Y ownership two weeks in: what I love and what I don’t

I’ll try to keep it pretty even and just highlight the things that are truly noticeable with Full Self-Driving. I won’t be too critical of the things that it is bad at, and I won’t try to give it too much of a pat on the back.

I will be fair and tell you all what I truly enjoy, as well as what frustrates me about it.

*Disclaimer: These Full Self-Driving examples were in use with v13.2.9.

Where Tesla Full Self-Driving is Great

Highway Driving

I have yet to have a critical intervention of any kind on the highway. I have driven on easy highways like Rt. 30 in Pennsylvania, and I have driven on congested four-lane parking lots like I-695 near Baltimore, Maryland.

Tesla FSD does a tremendous job on all of it. I usually use the “Hurry” setting of FSD with an offset of between 25 and 40 percent, depending on what I’m doing and where I’m going. Sometimes, I want to push it a bit, and at other times, I’m okay with taking my time and enjoying the drive.

I find the driving style of Hurry is more similar to the traffic around me than the Standard, which tends to drive like an 80-year-old on their way to Bingo.

It does a great job of being considerate, maintaining an appropriate rate of travel, getting over for cars that are tailgating in the left lane after passing traffic, and it always is where it needs to be when it needs to be there.

Taking the Stress Out of Driving

A few nights ago, I was having some trouble sleeping, and I was up at 3 a.m. I decided it would be a good time to get up, grab a breakfast burrito and a coffee, and head to the Supercharger.

(If you don’t know, I do not have home charging, and I will be diving into EV ownership without that in a future article.)

I let FSD drive me to the Supercharger and back while I was done. I was able to enjoy a beautiful sunrise without having to focus all my attention on the traffic around me, while still maintaining enough attention to the road to keep the driver monitoring happy.

It was really nice. I enjoyed the ride, and it felt like I was in an Uber with a very careful driver while I enjoyed the rest of my coffee and peeked at the sky every few seconds.

Learning and Improving

A few weeks ago, I approached an “Except Right Turn” stop sign. I have discussed how these are a Pennsylvania specialty, and the first time FSD encountered one in my Model Y, it stopped, even though we were heading right.

I took over, submitted a voice memo to Tesla about it, and went on with my evening. A week later, the car approached the same turn, and, to my surprise, it proceeded through the Stop Sign correctly, safely, and at an appropriate speed.

It was nice to see this improvement, especially since this is one of those regional issues that Tesla will need to address before FSD is fully autonomous. The change even impressed my Fiancé, who was with me during both instances we came upon this turn.

Where Tesla Full Self-Driving Could Be Better

Auto Wipers

Good gravy, these Auto Wipers always seem to give me a good laugh.

They never really have the right speed; they are either way too fast or not fast enough. There’s never been a happy medium.

It also loves to activate a single wipe of the blade at the strangest times. I’ve noticed that it actually seems to activate at the same spots on the road sometimes. There’s a hanging branch near my house, and every time we go under it and FSD is activated, the wipers wipe once.

It would be nice to set your own intervals for the wipers, but I am okay with the current presets. I do hope the Auto Wipers improve, because it could be one of the best features the car has if it’s more accurate.

It Struggles with Signs That Require Reading

The “Except Right Turn” sign is one example, but another is a “Stop Here on Red” sign that is recessed from an intersection at a stop light if it’s a tighter turn. Recently, I had to slam on the brakes as it was headed straight through one of these signs.

It can recognize Stop Signs and Yield Signs, but signs with instructions for an intersection appear to present a greater challenge for FSD.

Sometimes, It Just Does Things I Don’t Like

There is a four-lane light near my house; the two right lanes go straight, but the lane furthest right is for turning into businesses past the intersection. Some people tend to go in that far right lane, even if they have no intention of turning right into the businesses, and take off quickly from the light to cut ahead.

I’m not saying it’s illegal or even wrong, but I personally prefer not to do it. I am never in that much of a hurry.

FSD tried to do that the other day; I intervened and kept it in the lane that is designed to go straight. I wouldn’t say this is technically an intervention. I would just say it’s a move I wasn’t super comfortable with because I know people tend to get frustrated with those who cut the line. It’s an etiquette issue, and I didn’t want FSD to do it.

I also am not a huge fan of when there is no traffic in the right lane, yet it continues to cruise in the fast lane. I was taught to drive in the right lane and pass in the left lane. There are states where cruising in the left lane is illegal, and it sometimes tends to stay in the passing lane too long for my liking. I will turn on my right signal and get back into the correct lane.

These are totally disputable, and I am aware of that. Some people might not see a huge issue with these two examples, and I can understand that. My courtesy on the road differs from others, and that’s okay.

All in all, I’m pretty happy with FSD, and I will be continuing my Subscription after the three-month trial ends. In the coming days, I’ll be picking up a camera for FSD videos, and I’ll be able to embed examples of what I mean, as well as share full-length videos of my drive.

News

Tesla gets price target increase on Wall Street, but it’s a head-scratcher

Delaney’s price target on Tesla shares went up to $395 from $300. Currently, Tesla is trading between $420 and $430, making the new price target from Goldman Sachs a bit of a head-scratcher.

Published

13 hours ago

September 18, 2025

Joey Klender

Credit: Cybertruck | X

Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) received a price target increase from a Wall Street analyst today, who noted in his report that the company’s shares could rise or fall based on its execution in robotics and autonomy.

However, the price target boost still fell below Tesla’s current trading levels.

Mark Delaney of Goldman Sachs said in a note to investors today that Tesla has a significant opportunity to solidify itself as one of the stable and safe plays in the market if it can execute on its two key projects: humanoid robots and autonomy.

In the note, Delaney said:

“If Tesla can have [an] outsized share in areas such as humanoid robotics and autonomy, then there could be upside to our price target.”

Delaney’s price target on Tesla shares went up to $395 from $300. Currently, Tesla is trading between $420 and $430, making the new price target from Goldman Sachs a bit of a head-scratcher.

He went on to say that Tesla could also confront outside factors that would limit the stock’s ability to see growth, including competition and potentially its own lack of execution:

“…although if competition limits profits (as is happening with the ADAS market in China) or Tesla does not execute well, then there could be downside.”

The note is an interesting one because it seems to point out the blatantly obvious: if Tesla performs well, the stock will rise. If it doesn’t, the stock price will decline.

We discussed yesterday in an article that Tesla is one of the few stocks out there that does not seem to be influenced by financials or anything super concrete. Instead, it is more influenced by the narrative currently surrounding the company, rather than the technicals.

Tesla called ‘biggest meme stock we’ve ever seen’ by Yale associate dean

Tesla’s prowess in robotics and autonomy is strong. In robotics, it has a very good sentiment following its Optimus project, and it has shown steady improvement with subsequent versions of the robot with each release.

On the autonomy front, Tesla is expanding its Robotaxi platform in Austin every few weeks, and also has a sizeable geofence in the Bay Area. Its Full Self-Driving suite is among the most robust in the world and is incredibly useful and accurate.

The company can gain significant value if it continues to refine the platform and eventually rolls out a driverless or unsupervised version of the Full Self-Driving suite.

Elon Musk

Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix

“We’ll have a really good solution for that. I’m not worried about it.”

Published

14 hours ago

September 18, 2025

Joey Klender

Tesla Model S self-presenting door handle (Credit: TesBros)

Tesla is going to adjust one heavily scrutinized part of its vehicles after recent government agencies have launched probes into an issue stemming from complaints from owners.

Over the past few days, we have reported on the issues with Tesla’s door handle systems from both the Chinese and American governments.

In China, it dealt with the Model S, while the United States’ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported nine complaints from owners experiencing issues with 2021 Model Ys, as some said they had trouble entering their car after the 12V battery was low on power.

Bloomberg, in an interview with Tesla Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen, asked whether the company planned to adjust the door handle design to alleviate any concerns that regulatory agencies might have.

Regarding the interior latch concerns in the United States:

Von Holzhausen said that, while a mechanical door release resolves this problem, Tesla plans to “combine the two” to help reduce stress in what he called “panic situations.”
He also added that “it’s in the cars now…The idea of combining the electronic and the manual one together in one button, I think, makes a lot of sense.” Franz said the muscle memory of reaching for the same button will be advantageous for children and anyone who is in an emergency.

Regarding the exterior door handle concerns in China:

Von Holzhausen said Tesla is reviewing the details of the regulation and confirmed, “We’ll have a really good solution for that. I’m not worried about it.”

Franz von Holzhausen (from Tesla’s Robovan) on Tesla’s upcoming redesigned door handles: pic.twitter.com/lnaKve1SlJ
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 17, 2025

The new Model Y already has emergency mechanical door release latches in the back, but combining them in future vehicles seems to be an ideal solution for other vehicles in Tesla’s lineup.

It will likely help Tesla avoid complaints from owners about not having an out in the event of a power outage or accident. It is a small engineering change that could be extremely valuable for future instances.