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 Model Y L gets biggest hint yet that it’s coming to the U.S.
Over the past week, a noticeable wave of American Tesla influencers descended on China and Australia, each posting in-depth YouTube reviews of the Model Y L within days of one another.
The Tesla Model Y L is perhaps the most wanted vehicle in the company’s lineup in the United States, especially now that it is void of a true family vehicle with the removal of the Model X.
In China, Tesla currently offers a longer, more family-friendly version of the Model Y, known as the Model Y L, which is longer in terms of its wheelbase and larger in terms of interior space, making it the perfect option for those with a need for a tad more room than what the all-electric crossover offers in its Standard, Premium, and Performance trims.
However, there seems to be a hint that the Model Y L could be on its way to the United States. Over the past week, a noticeable wave of American Tesla influencers descended on China and Australia, each posting in-depth YouTube reviews of the Model Y L within days of one another:
Not saying that this means anything more than Tesla China simply inviting a handful of American influencers to see this car….
….but this seems like a good strategy for an eventual offering in the U.S. https://t.co/XS3PyBdnNd
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 27, 2026
The timing has sparked some intense speculation as to whether Tesla is quietly preparing to bring the long-wheelbase, three-row family SUV to North America after months of requests from fans.
The Model Y L stretches the wheelbase by about five inches compared to the standard Model Y.
This delivers dramatically more rear legroom, optional captain’s chairs in the second row, and a true six- or seven-seat configuration ideal for growing families. Reviewers praise its refined ride, upgraded interior features like a rear touchscreen and premium audio, and competitive range—up to roughly 466 miles in some configurations.
Many observers see the coordinated influencer trip as more than a coincidence. Tesla China appears to have hosted the group, possibly tied to the Beijing Auto Show, giving U.S.-focused creators early access to hands-on footage aimed squarely at North American audiences.
Tesla Model Y lineup expansion signals an uncomfortable reality for consumers
Tesla watchers are quick to point out this isn’t the first time such a pattern has emerged.
Just months earlier, American influencers were similarly invited to China to test-drive the refreshed Model Y Performance. Those videos dropped in the lead-up to the variant’s U.S. rollout, generating exactly the kind of pre-launch hype that helped smooth its September arrival in American showrooms.
The parallel is obviously hard to ignore, as Tesla has used overseas influencer trips before as a low-key way to build anticipation without formal announcements. With the Model Y L potentially hitting the U.S. market late this year, according to CEO Elon Musk, the timing would make sense.
Tesla Model Y L might not come to the U.S., and it’s a missed opportunity
Of course, it could still be coincidental. Tesla regularly invites creators to its Shanghai factory and events for broader promotional purposes, and the Model Y L has been on sale in China for some time. No official word has come from Tesla or Elon Musk about U.S. availability, pricing, or timing.
Import tariffs, regulatory hurdles, and production priorities at Fremont or the new Mexican Gigafactory could still delay or alter any stateside plans.
Even so, the buzz is real. U.S. families have long asked for a more spacious, three-row Tesla SUV that doesn’t require stepping up to the larger Model X.
If the influencer campaign is any indication, the Model Y L—or a close North American cousin—could finally answer that call. For now, American Tesla fans are watching closely and wondering whether this latest China trip is just good content… or the opening act for something much bigger stateside.
News
Tesla begins probing owners on FSD’s navigation errors with small but mighty change
Previously lumped under “Other,” these incidents made it harder for Tesla’s AI team to isolate and prioritize map-related issues in their reinforcement learning models. There was a lot of disagreement on how certain interventions should be reported.
Tesla has started probing owners on how often its Full Self-Driving suite has Navigation errors with a small but mighty change last night.
In its latest Software Update, which is Version 2026.2.9.9 featuring Full Self-Driving (Supervised) v14.3.2, Tesla has introduced a targeted improvement to how owners will report interventions.
With the initial rollout of v14.3.2, Tesla introduced a new Intervention Menu that appears when a disengagement occurs. It allowed owners to choose from four different categories: Preference, Comfort, Critical, or Other.
Tesla has voided the Other option and replaced it with a new “Navigation” choice, which seems much more ideal given the complaints owners have had about navigation. This seemingly minor UI tweak, rolled out widely in recent days, marks another step in Tesla’s ongoing effort to refine its autonomous driving stack through precise, crowdsourced data.
“Other” has been replaced with “Navigation” in the Tesla Self-Driving intervention reasons menu pic.twitter.com/mBOi3uYs8C
— Whole Mars Catalog (@wholemars) April 28, 2026
Tesla made this change in direct response to longstanding community feedback. For years, FSD users have noted that navigation errors—such as incorrect speed limits, suboptimal routes, or directing the vehicle to a building’s rear entrance instead of the main one—frequently force interventions.
Previously lumped under “Other,” these incidents made it harder for Tesla’s AI team to isolate and prioritize map-related issues in their reinforcement learning models. There was a lot of disagreement on how certain interventions should be reported:
I chose to label this Navigation error as “Critical” while testing FSD v14.3.2
Here’s why:
✅ This intervention wasn’t “preference,” as the maneuver FSD routed was illegal
✅ If a police officer saw this maneuver, it would result in a ticket https://t.co/znhHb4haAo pic.twitter.com/bZOiLwWmQa— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
By adding a dedicated “Navigation” label, the company can now tag disengagements more accurately, feeding cleaner data into its neural networks. This supports faster iteration on routing algorithms, map accuracy, and intent-aware navigation.
Community consensus around Tesla’s navigation system has been consistent and candid. While the end-to-end AI driving behavior in v14.x earns widespread acclaim for smoothness and safety, navigation remains FSD’s clearest Achilles’ heel.
Owners frequently cite outdated map data, failure to learn from repeated corrections, and routing decisions that feel less intuitive than Google Maps or Apple Maps. Common complaints include phantom speed-limit changes, inefficient local roads, and poor point-of-interest handling.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Many drivers report intervening on navigation far more often than on core driving maneuvers, with some estimating it accounts for the majority of disengagements outside of edge cases.
Long-term users note that the same mapping glitches persist across years and software versions, despite thousands of collective miles of feedback. Yet the addition of the “Navigation” option has been met with optimism. It signals Tesla’s commitment to data-driven progress and suggests navigation improvements could arrive sooner.
For a community that already logs millions of FSD miles monthly, this small change could unlock meaningful gains in reliability and user trust—potentially accelerating the path to unsupervised autonomy.
News
Tesla expands Robotaxi in a way that was long anticipated
Instead, it has to do with the consumer base it offers Robotaxi to, because it has not offered it to everyone in the past.
Tesla has expanded Robotaxi in a way that was long anticipated, and it does not have to do with a new, larger geofence in a city where it already offered its partially autonomous ride-hailing suite, or a new city altogether.
Instead, it has to do with the consumer base it offers Robotaxi to, because it has not offered it to everyone in the past.
Tesla has taken a major step forward in its autonomous ride-hailing ambitions with the official launch of the Tesla Robotaxi app for Android users. Released on the Google Play Store on April 24. Titled simply “Tesla Robotaxi,” the app is now available to download directly from Tesla.
The @Tesla Robtoaxi App has just officially launched for Android users. Go get some rides y’all!
Download: https://t.co/D2jIONXc91 pic.twitter.com/rQ6TD14zkC
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) April 24, 2026
This rollout fulfills a long-anticipated expansion that opens the service to hundreds of millions of Android smartphone users who were previously unable to access it on iOS alone.
The app delivers a streamlined, driverless ride experience powered by Tesla’s automated driving technology.
Users sign in with a Tesla Account, view the current service area map within the app, enter a destination, and receive an estimated fare and arrival time before confirming the ride. When a Model Y from the Robotaxi fleet arrives, riders confirm the license plate, enter the vehicle, fasten their seatbelt, and tap “Start Ride” on either the app or the vehicle’s touchscreen.
During the trip, passengers have access to all the same controls that iOS users do, and can adjust climate settings, seat positions, and music while tracking progress on an in-app map. The interface also allows drop-off changes or support requests if needed. After the ride, users exit, close the doors, and submit feedback.
This Android availability directly broadens the rider base for Robotaxi in its initial service areas. Unfortunately, Android users are used to being subject to delayed launches of new features available to Tesla owners.
By removing the iOS-only barrier, Tesla instantly expands the addressable market, enabling far more people to summon and use the autonomous vehicles already operating on public roads.
The move is a foundational requirement for scaling ride volume and gathering the real-world data needed to refine the unsupervised Full Self-Driving system that powers every trip.
For the Robotaxi program itself, the launch signals steady operational progress. It prepares the service for higher utilization rates as the fleet grows and supports the transition from limited early deployments to a more robust network.
Tesla expands Unsupervised Robotaxi service to two new cities
Tesla has indicated that users outside current service areas can sign up at the company’s website for future notifications, pointing to a deliberate, phased geographic rollout.
Looking ahead, the company plans to incorporate Cybercab vehicles to increase fleet capacity and efficiency while continuing to expand service territories. With the Android app now live, Tesla has removed a key adoption hurdle and positioned Robotaxi for the next phase of growth in autonomous urban transportation.
The infrastructure is now in place to support significantly larger rider demand as production and deployment accelerate.
Tesla Model Y L gets biggest hint yet that it’s coming to the U.S.
Tesla begins probing owners on FSD’s navigation errors with small but mighty change
