Connect with us

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

on

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.

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.

Advertisement

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)

 

Advertisement

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.

 

Advertisement

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.

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Elon Musk reveals Tesla’s next Robotaxi expansion in more ways than one

Tesla Robotaxi is growing in more ways than one. Tesla wants to expand and hopes to reach half the U.S. population by the end of the year.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla CEO Elon Musk revealed the company’s plans for its next expansion of the Robotaxi in terms of both the geofence in Austin and the platform overall, as it looks to move to new areas outside of Texas.

Tesla launched the Robotaxi platform last month on June 22, and has since expanded both the pool of users and the area that the driverless Model Y vehicles can travel within.

The first expansion of the geofence caught the attention of nearly everyone and became a huge headline as Tesla picked a very interesting shape for the new geofence, resembling male reproductive parts.

Advertisement

The next expansion will likely absolve this shape. Musk revealed last night that the new geofence will be “well in excess of what competitors are doing,” and it could happen “hopefully in a week or two.”

Musk’s full quote regarding the expansion of the geofence and the timing was:

“As some may have noted, we have already expanded our service area in Austin. It’s bigger and longer, and it’s going to get even bigger and longer. We are expecting to greatly increase the service area to well in excess of what competitors are doing, hopefully in a week or two.”

The expansion will not stop there, either. As Tesla has operated the Robotaxi platform in Austin for the past month, it has been working with regulators in other areas, like California, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida, to get the driverless ride-hailing system activated in more U.S. states.

Tesla confirmed that they are in talks with each of these states regarding the potential expansion of Robotaxi.

Advertisement

Musk added:

“As we get the approvals and prove out safety, we will be launching the autonomous ride-hailing across most of the country. I think we will probably have autonomous ride-hailing in probably half the population of the US by the end of the year.”

We know that Tesla and Musk have been prone to aggressive and sometimes outlandish timelines regarding self-driving technology specifically. Regulatory approvals could happen by the end of the year in several areas, and working on these large metros is the best way to reach half of the U.S. population.

Tesla said its expansion of the geofence in Austin is conservative and controlled due to its obsession with safety, even admitting at one point during the Earnings Call that they are being “paranoid.” Expanding the geofence is necessary, but Tesla realizes any significant mistake by Robotaxi could take it back to square one.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla warns customers of incentive strategy on EVs as tax credit nears end

If you’re thinking of buying a Tesla, the time to order is now, the company claimed.

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

Tesla has warned customers about its incentive strategy for qualifying electric vehicles, as the days of both the $7,500 EV tax credit for new EVs and the $4,000 credit for used EVs are coming to a close.

Both tax credits, which impact some of the vehicles in the Tesla lineup, are set to be eliminated at the end of Q3. The phase out of these consumer credits was always in the plans of the Trump Administration, but now we’re in the final quarter of their existence.

As a result, EV companies are scrambling to see how they can reduce costs or make their vehicles more affordable for customers. The $7,500 will price many consumers out of many EVs on the market, and Tesla is not immune to that.

However, Tesla has made a significant push into Q3 deliveries, rolling out numerous incentives to customers, including 0% APR on select purchases, lease deals, free upgrades on certain inventory units, and more.

The extensive list of incentives on Tesla vehicles in the quarter will not get any longer, either. During last night’s Tesla Earnings Call for the second quarter of 2025, company executives stated that their intention for these incentives was to encourage customers to place orders early in the quarter.

Advertisement

Tesla will only be able to apply the $7,500 credit with deliveries that occur before the end of September. Even if an order is placed before then, delivery must be completed by September 31 to receive the tax credit.

CFO Vaibhav Taneja confirmed that the incentives for the quarter are already out and encouraged customers to place an order sooner rather than later:

“Given the abrupt change, we have a limited supply of vehicles in the US this quarter. As we are already within lead times to order parts for cars, we have rolled out all our planned incentives already and will start pairing them back as we start to sell. If you are in the US and looking to buy a car, let’s roll now as we may not be able to guarantee delivery for orders placed in the later part of August and beyond.”

The loss of the incentives will impact every EV maker in the United States. Tesla has a plan moving forward, and it said last night that its affordable models would be rolled out in Q4, as introducing these cars any earlier could have detrimental effects on Model 3 and Model Y sales.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Model Y awarded Top Safety Pick+ from IIHS

The new Model Y continues to impress with this new award.

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

The 2025 Tesla Model Y was one of two midsize luxury SUVs to receive the Top Safety Pick+ award from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).

To qualify for the IIHS’s Top Safety Pick+ or even the lower-tier Top Safety Pick label, vehicles need good ratings in the small overlap front and side crash tests, an acceptable or good rating in the pedestrian front crash prevention evaluation, and acceptable or good ratings for headlights across all trim levels.

The difference between the two labels is that an “Acceptable” rating in the moderate overlap front test will get a car the Top Safety Pick rating, but a “Good” rating in this category will win the elusive Top Safety Pick+ category.

The 2025 Model Y, codenamed “Juniper” internally by Tesla, was released in the United States earlier this year and received the top rating across each of the categories, automatically qualifying it for the Top Safety Pick+ label:

Other vehicles in Tesla’s lineup have extraordinary marks in crash testing according to other agencies, like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), but there are reasons those cars are not on the IIHS lists.

In 2024, we reported that the IIHS had evaluated some Tesla vehicles for the necessary tests to achieve these marks. Joe Young of the agency told us that the Model 3, for example, was not featured on either the Top Safety Pick or Top Safety Pick+ lists because the vehicle had several missing tests.

Advertisement

Here’s why the Tesla Model 3 wasn’t an IIHS Top Safety Pick+, and why it could be soon

This is not to say those other Tesla vehicles would not perform well. The Cybertruck performed better than any pickup has ever in NHTSA crash testing assessments.

The Model Y is Tesla’s most popular vehicle and was the best-selling car in the world over the past two years. Tesla’s intense focus on safety continues to show that this priority goes into every decision the company makes regarding design and engineering. This focus has continued to pay dividends as some real-world crashes save the lives of those inside the cars.

Continue Reading

Trending