

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.
Investor's Corner
Tesla Q3 2025 earnings: What analysts expect
The automaker delivered a record 497,099 vehicles and logged its highest-ever energy storage sales in Q3 2025.

Tesla’s (NASDAQ:TSLA) Q3 2025 earnings, which would be released after markets close today, could prove to be a test of confidence for the company’s shareholders.
The automaker delivered a record 497,099 vehicles and logged its highest-ever energy storage sales, but analysts noted that these gains might have come at a cost.
Record vehicle deliveries
Tesla’s profit per share is expected to fall about 25% year over year to around $0.53–$0.55, even as revenue rises from 4% to 6%, as noted in a report from Market Pulse. Analysts noted that Tesla’s record quarter was partly fueled by buyers rushing to complete purchases before the U.S. federal EV tax credit expired in September, a surge that could dampen Q4 demand. The company also dipped into its inventory to reach the record delivery number.
Analysts expect automotive gross margin (excluding regulatory credits) to land between a conservative 16.5% and 17%. This suggests that a good portion of Tesla’s Q3 delivery growth came from aggressive price cuts. If margins fall below 16.5%, it could hint at more cost pressures that the company would have to handle in the coming months.
Tesla’s Energy segment, meanwhile, is expected to act as a stabilizer. The business deployed 12.5 GWh of storage in Q3, driven by strong demand from AI data centers. Analysts expect this high-margin division to partially cushion the hit from the automaker’s thinner car profits.
AI, FSD, and Musk’s role
Tesla’s lofty valuation, trading about 17% above the average analyst consensus of $365, would likely depend heavily on investor belief in its AI and robotics initiatives. Industry watchers have stated that management must deliver credible updates on Full Self-Driving and the Robotaxi program to help justify the company’s current valuation.
Elon Musk’s proposed 2025 CEO Performance Award, which proxy advisors have urged shareholders to reject, would likely be discussed in the Q3 2025 earnings call has well. Musk has hinted that a failed vote could jeopardize Tesla’s AI strategy, making the company’s upcoming results quite crucial for market confidence.
Investor's Corner
Tesla Board Chair defends Elon Musk’s pay plan, slams proxy advisors
The letter comes ahead of Tesla’s 2025 Annual Meeting, where shareholders will vote on several key proposals.

Tesla Chair Robyn Denholm has issued a strongly worded letter urging investors to reject the latest recommendations from proxy advisory firms ISS and Glass Lewis, saying their “one-size-fits-all” approach fails to recognize Tesla’s unique business model and track record.
The letter comes ahead of Tesla’s 2025 Annual Meeting, where shareholders will vote on several key proposals including Elon Musk’s 2025 CEO Performance Award and director reelections.
Tesla slams proxy advisors’ models
Denholm criticized both firms for consistently opposing Tesla’s growth-oriented plans, noting that the company’s market capitalization has increased twentyfold since shareholders approved Musk’s 2018 performance package, which both advisors had opposed at the time.
“Our shareholders have ignored their recommendations, and it’s a good thing they did,” she wrote. “Otherwise, you may have missed out on our market capitalization soaring 20x while the proxy advisors time and time again recommended “against” Tesla proposals designed to promote the sort of extraordinary growth we have enjoyed.”
The letter argued that Glass Lewis and ISS use robotic policies that don’t account for Tesla’s innovation-driven structure. Tesla’s leadership maintained that the 2025 CEO Performance Award will only reward Musk if he achieves extraordinary market capitalization and operational goals. The plan, Denholm stated, aligns Musk’s incentives with long-term shareholder interests.
Tesla defends board leadership
Denholm also defended directors Ira Ehrenpreis and Kathleen Wilson-Thompson, calling them pivotal to Tesla’s governance and innovation strategy. She said both have driven Tesla’s growth and helped design compensation systems vital to competing in the AI and robotics talent race.
She warned that following ISS and Glass Lewis could turn Tesla into “just another car company,” and urged shareholders to “vote yes to robots, and reject robotic voting.” The letter also highlighted that neither ISS nor Glass Lewis owns Tesla stock, emphasizing that only shareholders “who have made an actual financial investment” should decide the company’s direction.
“If you prefer that Tesla turn into just another car company mired in the ways of the past, then you should follow ISS and Glass Lewis. If you believe that Tesla, under the visionary leadership of Elon and the oversight of a Board that includes business leaders with integrity like Ira, Kathleen and Joe, then you should vote with Tesla,” Denholm wrote.
News
Tesla Model S and Model X make a comeback in Europe
The updates inside and under the surface of the new Model S and Model X are meaningful.

Tesla’s luxury flagships are making a comeback in Europe. After disappearing from Tesla’s online configurator in July, the Model S and Model X are once again available to order across the region.
Deliveries are set to begin in November, with the Model S priced from €109,990 and the Model X starting at €114,990. The update brings improved comfort, reduced cabin noise, and efficiency improvements to the two veteran EVs.
A subtle refresh
Tesla’s design team made only light exterior changes, but the updates inside and under the surface of the new Model S and Model X are meaningful. The refreshed Model S and Model X now feature upgraded insulation, enhanced active noise cancellation, and retuned air suspension to make the ride smoother and quieter.
New 19- or 21-inch wheels and ambient interior lighting add a subtle modern touch to the two flagships, while the Model X’s third-row seating has been improved with more space for occupants, Tesla Europe and Middle East noted in a post on X.
Both vehicles gained adaptive headlights, blind-spot warning lights, and a standard front camera. Efficiency has also improved thanks to new aerodynamic rims and low-rolling-resistance tires. The Model S now boasts a WLTP range of 744 kilometers, while the heavier Model X can travel up to 600 kilometers on a single charge.
Tesla’s performance flagship
The Model S Plaid, Tesla’s performance flagship, benefits from deeper upgrades in this cycle. The vehicle now features a redesigned front fascia and a new front splitter. Its rear aprons have also been updated, and it has been given a carbon rear spoiler and diffuser to enhance high-speed stability.
Underneath, the drive rotors receive carbon sleeves for better performance under extreme loads. The Plaid sprints from zero to 100 kph in just 2.1 seconds and can reach 322 kph with optional ceramic brakes, while maintaining an impressive 611-kilometer range. Considering its performance figures, the Model S Plaid has once again become the market’s best bang-for-the-buck flagship performance car.
-
Elon Musk5 days ago
SpaceX posts Starship booster feat that’s so nutty, it doesn’t even look real
-
Elon Musk4 days ago
Tesla Full Self-Driving gets an offer to be insured for ‘almost free’
-
News4 days ago
Elon Musk confirms Tesla FSD V14.2 will see widespread rollout
-
News5 days ago
Tesla is adding an interesting feature to its centerscreen in a coming update
-
News7 days ago
Tesla launches new interior option for Model Y
-
News6 days ago
Tesla widens rollout of new Full Self-Driving suite to more owners
-
Elon Musk5 days ago
Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s $1 trillion pay package hits first adversity from proxy firm
-
News3 days ago
Tesla might be doing away with a long-included feature with its vehicles