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.
News
Tesla Cabin Camera gets an incredible new feature for added driver safety
The company quietly expanded the capabilities of its in-cabin camera with the rollout of Software Update 2026.8.6. Tesla hacker greentheonly revealed that coding for the software version provides details on now tracking the age of the driver.
Tesla’s interior Cabin-facing Camera just got a brand new feature that is an incredible addition, as it provides yet another layer of added safety.
The company quietly expanded the capabilities of its in-cabin camera with the rollout of Software Update 2026.8.6. Tesla hacker greentheonly revealed that coding for the software version provides details on now tracking the age of the driver.
The camera, which is positioned just above the rearview mirror, is now performing facial analysis to estimate the driver’s age. While not yet user-facing, the feature is the latest example of Tesla’s ongoing push to refine its driver monitoring system for both everyday safety and future Robotaxi operations.
Ha, interesting, cabin camera / driver monitor is now (2026.8.6) doing “driver age” checking.
I wonder if it’s going to filter out children or elderly too?
— green (@greentheonly) April 10, 2026
The cabin camera already processes images entirely onboard the vehicle for privacy, sharing data with Tesla only if owners enable it during safety-critical events.
Age estimation likely uses computer vision to classify facial features, similar to existing attention-tracking algorithms. Potential applications include preventing underage drivers from engaging Full Self-Driving (FSD) or shifting into drive, acting as a secondary safety lock.
It could also be linked to Robotaxi readiness: the upcoming Cybercab will need robust occupant verification to ensure children cannot hail or ride unsupervised.
In consumer vehicles, it could enable tailored FSD behaviors—more conservative acceleration and braking for elderly drivers, for instance—or simply block unauthorized use by minors.
Beyond age checks, the cabin camera powers Tesla’s comprehensive driver monitoring system, introduced years earlier and continuously improved. It first gained prominence for detecting inattentiveness. When Autopilot or FSD is active, the camera tracks eye gaze, head position, and steering inputs in real time.
If the driver looks away too long or fails to keep their hands ready, the system issues escalating visual and audible alerts before disengaging assistance. This has dramatically reduced misuse cases and helped Tesla meet stricter regulatory demands for hands-on supervision.
The camera also monitors for drowsiness. Activated above roughly 40 mph (65 km/h) after at least 10 minutes of manual driving, the Driver Drowsiness Warning analyzes facial cues—frequency of yawns and blinks—alongside driving patterns like lane drifting or erratic steering.
When fatigue is detected, a clear on-screen message and chime prompt the driver to pull over and rest, or even to activate Full Self-Driving. Tesla explicitly states this feature enhances active safety without relying on facial recognition for identity.
These layered capabilities create a robust safety net. Inattentiveness detection alone has curbed distracted driving during assisted operation. Drowsiness alerts address a leading cause of highway crashes by intervening before impairment escalates.
Adding age verification extends this protection: it could flag inexperienced young drivers for extra caution or restrict high-autonomy features, while preparing vehicles for a future where robotaxis must safely manage passengers of all ages.
With privacy safeguards intact and processing done locally, Tesla’s cabin camera continues evolving from a simple attention monitor into a sophisticated guardian—advancing safer roads today and autonomous mobility tomorrow.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s Semi truck factory is open with a detail that changes everything
Tesla’s dedicated Nevada Semi factory has opened, targeting 50,000 trucks per year as fleet adoptions accelerate nationwide.
Nearly nine years after Elon Musk unveiled the Tesla Semi in November 2017, the company is now opening a dedicated factory just outside of Reno, Nevada, and ramping toward mass production of 50,000 trucks per year.
Volume production began in March 2026 at the new Tesla Semi factory, with the competitive advantage not being the factory itself. Rather, it’s where Tesla built it. By constructing the 1.7 million square foot facility directly adjacent to Gigafactory Nevada in Sparks, Tesla closed the one supply chain loop that had delayed the Semi program for years. The 4680 battery cells that power the Semi are manufactured in the same complex, which significantly streamlines supply logistics. That single decision eliminates the bottleneck that forced Tesla to prioritize battery supply for passenger cars over the Semi throughout 2020, 2021, and 2022, which is precisely why the first deliveries slipped three years past the original target. Every other electric truck manufacturer sources its battery cells from a separate supplier, ships them to a separate factory, and absorbs the cost and delay that comes with that. Tesla built its Semi factory around its battery factory, and that vertical integration is what makes 50,000 trucks per year a realistic number rather than an aspirational one.
At the 2025 Annual Shareholder Meeting, Musk was direct about where things stood, stating “Starting next year, we will manufacture the Tesla Semi. We already have a lot of prototype Semis in operation – PepsiCo and other companies have been using them for some time. But in 2026, we’ll begin volume production at our Northern Nevada factory.” Full ramp to volume output is targeted before June 30, 2026.
🚨 Awesome new video showing the new Tesla Semi factory in Sparks, Nevada
The future of sustainable logistics is being built here: pic.twitter.com/dbiGV8FYn3
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 10, 2026
The first limited deliveries happened in December 2022 to PepsiCo, which eventually doubled its fleet to 50 trucks out of its California distribution facility. Since then the Semi has been showing up in more corporate fleets. As Teslarati noted in March, a Ralph’s Supermarkets branded Semi was spotted on a Los Angeles highway, confirming Kroger’s partnership with Tesla to deploy up to 500 electric Semis. Walmart, Costco, Sysco, US Foods, DHL, Hight Logistics and WattEV are among the companies actively running or receiving units. DHL logged real-world efficiency of 1.72 kWh per mile under a full 75,000 pound load over 388 miles, matching Tesla’s targets closely.
The 2026 production model arrives with meaningful upgrades over the original, with a 1,000 pound weight reduction, updated aerodynamics, and support for 1.2 MW Megacharger speeds that can restore 60% of range in around 30 minutes during a mandatory driver rest break. Tesla opened its first public Megacharger in Ontario, California in March, positioned near the I-10 and I-15 interchange serving the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The company plans 37 Megacharger sites by end of 2026 and 66 total across 15 states by early 2027, with construction beginning at the nation’s largest truck stop operator in the first half of this year.
Tesla reveals various improvements to the Semi in new piece with Jay Leno
Musk has described the Semi’s economics as a straightforward case. “The Semi is a TCO no-brainer,” he said, noting the total cost of ownership is “much, much cheaper than any other transportation you could have.” At under $300,000, the truck costs roughly double a comparable diesel, but California’s $200,000 per vehicle subsidy has driven over 1,000 state orders alone. As Teslarati has tracked, the prototype fleet accumulated over 13.5 million miles with 95% fleet uptime before production ever scaled. The factory opening now turns that proof of concept into a production program.
News
Tesla Full Self-Driving gets first-ever European approval
Tesla owners in the Netherlands with a Full Self-Driving subscription will receive a software update “shortly,” the company said, activating the operation of the company’s semi-autonomous driving tech for the first time in Europe.
Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised) got its first-ever European approval, as the Netherlands gave the suite the green light to begin operation.
Tesla owners in the Netherlands with a Full Self-Driving subscription will receive a software update “shortly,” the company said, activating the operation of the company’s semi-autonomous driving tech for the first time in Europe.
The Dutch vehicle authority RDW granted the type approval after more than 18 months of rigorous testing on both closed tracks and public roads. FSD Supervised complies with UN R-171 standards and benefits from Article 39 exemptions under EU Regulation 2018/858. Importantly, it is not a fully autonomous vehicle.
The RDW stressed that the driver remains fully responsible and must maintain attention at all times. “Safety is paramount for the RDW,” the authority stated. “Proper use of this driver assistance system contributes positively to road safety.” Sensors monitor driver alertness, issuing warnings if eyes leave the road or hands are unavailable to take control immediately.
CEO Elon Musk also commented on the approval in a post on X, saying:
“First (supervised) FSD approval in Europe! Congratulations to the Tesla team and thank you to the regulatory authorities in the Netherlands for all of the hard work required to make this happen.”
First (supervised) FSD approval in Europe!
Congratulations to the Tesla team and thank you to the regulatory authorities in the Netherlands for all the hard work required to make this happen. https://t.co/8hidEOPSxm
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 10, 2026
Trained on billions of kilometers of real-world driving data, FSD Supervised allows the vehicle to handle residential streets, dense city traffic, and highways under constant supervision. Tesla’s post declared:
“It can drive you almost anywhere under your supervision – from residential roads to city streets & highways. No other vehicle can do this.”
The company added that it is “excited to bring FSD Supervised to more European countries soon.”
This national approval paves the way for broader EU adoption. Other member states can recognize the Dutch certification individually, with a potential bloc-wide rollout via European Commission committee vote anticipated by this Summer. The decision underscores Europe’s stricter safety and documentation requirements compared to U.S. self-certification.
Tesla Europe shares FSD test video weeks ahead of launch target
The Netherlands’ approval represents a pivotal step for Tesla in Europe, where complex regulations and mixed traffic have delayed rollout. Musk added that the RDW was “rigorous” in its assessment of FSD.
By proving the system’s safety in one of the continent’s most bicycle- and tram-heavy nations, Tesla positions itself to transform mobility across the EU—delivering greater convenience while keeping drivers firmly in control.
As the first domino falls, anticipation builds for FSD Supervised to reach additional countries soon.
Tesla Cabin Camera gets an incredible new feature for added driver safety
Tesla’s Semi truck factory is open with a detail that changes everything
