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 price targets drop in shock move from three Wall Street firms
Despite Tesla not being an automotive company exclusively, the Wall Street firms and analysts covering its shares are widely dialed in on its performance regarding quarterly deliveries. While it holds some importance, Tesla, from an internal perspective, is more focused on end-to-end AI, Robotaxi, self-driving, and its Optimus robot.
Tesla price targets (NASDAQ: TSLA) have received several cuts over the past few days as Wall Street firms are adjusting their forecast for the company’s stock following a miss in quarterly delivery figures for the first quarter.
Despite Tesla not being an automotive company exclusively, the Wall Street firms and analysts covering its shares are widely dialed in on its performance regarding quarterly deliveries. While it holds some importance, Tesla, from an internal perspective, is more focused on end-to-end AI, Robotaxi, self-driving, and its Optimus robot.
In a notable shift underscoring mounting caution on Wall Street, three prominent investment banks slashed their price targets on Tesla Inc. shares over the past two weeks following the electric-vehicle giant’s disappointing first-quarter 2026 delivery numbers. The revisions highlight softening EV sales figures and, according to some, execution challenges.
Tesla delivered 358,023 vehicles in the January-to-March period, a 14 percent sequential decline and a miss versus consensus forecasts of roughly 365,000 to 370,000 units.
Production hit 408,000 vehicles, yet the delivery shortfall, paired with limited updates on autonomous-driving progress and new-model timelines, rattled investors. Shares fell about 8.7 percent since April 1.
Wall Street analysts are now adjusting their forecasts accordingly, as several firms have made adjustments to price targets.
Goldman Sachs
Goldman Sachs cut its target from $405 to $375 while maintaining a Hold rating. Analyst Mark Delaney pointed to soft EV sales trends and margin pressures.
Truist Financial followed on April 2, lowering its target from $438 to $400 (Hold unchanged), with analyst William Stein citing misses in both auto deliveries and energy-storage deployments, plus a lack of fresh details on AI initiatives and upcoming vehicles.
It is a strange drop if using AI initiatives and upcoming vehicles as a justification is the primary focus here. Tesla has one of the most optimistic outlooks in terms of AI, and CEO Elon Musk recently hinted that the company is developing something for the U.S. market that will be good for families.
Baird
Baird’s Ben Kallo made a very modest trim, reducing its target from $548 to $538, keeping and maintaining the ‘Outperform’ rating it holds on shares. Kallo said the price target adjustment was a prudent recalibration tied to near-term risks.
Truist
Truist analyst William Stein pointed to deliveries and energy storage missing expectations, and cut his price target to $400 from $438. He maintained the ‘Hold’ rating the firm held on the stock previously.
JPMorgan
Adding to the bearish tone on Monday, April 6, JPMorgan’s Ryan Brinkman reiterated an Underweight (Sell) rating and $145 price target, implying roughly 60 percent downside from recent levels.
Brinkman highlighted a “record surge in unsold vehicles” that adds to free-cash-flow woes, with inventory swelling to an estimated 164,000 units.
Tesla’s comfort level taking risks makes the stock a ‘must own,’ firm says
He lowered his Q1 2026 EPS estimate to $0.30 from $0.43 and full-year 2026 EPS to $1.80 from $2.00, both below consensus. Brinkman noted that expectations for Tesla’s performance have “collapsed” across financial and operating metrics through the end of the decade, yet the stock has risen 50 percent, and average price targets have increased 32 percent.
This disconnect, he argued, prices in an unrealistic sharp pivot to stronger results beyond the decade, while near-term realities remain materially weaker.
He advised investors to approach TSLA shares with a “high degree of caution,” citing elevated execution risk, competition, and valuation concerns in lower-price, higher-volume segments.
The revisions have pulled the overall consensus lower. Aggregators show the average 12-month price target now ranging from approximately $394 to $416 across roughly 32 analysts, with a prevailing Hold rating and a mixed split of Buy, Hold, and Sell recommendations.
Brinkman’s $145 target stands as a notable outlier on the bearish side.
Not Everyone Has Turned Bearish on Tesla Shares
Not all firms turned more pessimistic. Wedbush Securities held its bullish $600 target, stressing that AI and full self-driving technology represent the core value drivers, with current delivery softness viewed as temporary.
These moves reflect a broader Wall Street recalibration: near-term EV demand faces pressure from high interest rates, intensifying competition, especially from lower-cost Chinese rivals, and slower adoption.
At the same time, many analysts continue to see Tesla’s technology leadership in software-defined vehicles, autonomy, robotaxis, and energy storage as pathways to outsized long-term gains once macro conditions ease and new models launch.
With Tesla’s first-quarter earnings report due later this month, upcoming details on cost discipline, Cybertruck ramp-up, and AI roadmaps will likely shape whether these target adjustments prove prescient or overly cautious. Investors remain divided between immediate delivery realities and the company’s ambitious vision.
Tesla shares are trading at $348.82 at the time of publishing.
Elon Musk
Tesla Full Self-Driving feature probe closed by NHTSA
Actually Smart Summon allows owners to move their parked Tesla via a smartphone app remotely, directing the vehicle short distances in parking lots or private property while the driver supervises from the phone.
A probe into a popular Tesla self-driving feature has been closed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) after over a year of scrutiny from the government agency.
The NHTSA has officially closed its investigation into Tesla’s Actually Smart Summon (ASS) feature, marking a regulatory win for the electric vehicle maker after more than a year of scrutiny.
Here’s our coverage on the launch of the probe:
Tesla’s Actually Smart Summon feature under investigation by NHTSA
The preliminary investigation, opened last January, examined roughly 2.59 million Tesla vehicles equipped with the feature across the Model S, Model X, Model 3, and Model Y lineups. ASS is not available for Cybertruck currently.
Actually Smart Summon allows owners to move their parked Tesla via a smartphone app remotely, directing the vehicle short distances in parking lots or private property while the driver supervises from the phone.
Here’s a clip of us using it:
Summon has had some good performances for me in the past
This was in October: https://t.co/w69Zp2bqeg pic.twitter.com/PVXSRj19E0
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 5, 2026
Introduced as an upgrade to the original Smart Summon, the feature was designed to enhance convenience but drew attention after reports of low-speed incidents where vehicles bumped into stationary objects like posts, parked cars, or garage doors.
The NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation reviewed 159 incidents, including one formal Vehicle Owner’s Questionnaire complaint and media reports.
Notably, all events occurred at very low speeds, resulted only in minor property damage, and involved zero injuries or fatalities. The agency determined that the incidents were “extremely rare”, a fraction of one percent across millions of Summon sessions, and did not indicate a systemic safety-related defect.
A key factor in the closure was Tesla’s proactive response through over-the-air (OTA) software updates.
During the probe, Tesla deployed at least six updates that improved camera-based object detection, enhanced neural network performance for obstacle recognition, and refined the system’s response to potential hazards. These iterative improvements, delivered wirelessly to the entire fleet, addressed the primary concerns around detection reliability and operator reaction time.
Critics of Tesla’s autonomous features had initially pointed to the crashes as evidence of rushed deployment, especially given the feature’s reliance on the company’s vision-only Full Self-Driving (FSD) stack. However, NHTSA’s decision to close the case without seeking a recall underscores the low-severity nature of the events and the effectiveness of software-based fixes in modern vehicles.
It definitely has its flaws. I used ASS yesterday unsuccessfully:
It was pouring when I left the gym so I tried to Summon my Model Y
It turned the opposite way and drove out of range, stopping here and forcing me to walk even further across the lot in the rain for it 🤣
One day pic.twitter.com/iD10c8sriB
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 5, 2026
However, improvements will come, and I’m confident in that.
The closure comes as Tesla continues to push boundaries with its autonomous driving ambitions, including unsupervised FSD rollouts and robotaxi initiatives. For owners, the ruling reinforces confidence in Actually Smart Summon as a convenient, low-risk tool rather than a hazardous experiment.
While broader NHTSA reviews of Tesla’s higher-speed FSD capabilities remain ongoing, this outcome highlights how data-driven analysis and rapid OTA remediation can satisfy regulators in the evolving landscape of automated driving technology.
Tesla has not issued an official statement on the closure, but the move is widely viewed as bullish for the company’s autonomy roadmap, reducing one layer of regulatory overhang and allowing focus on further refinements.
Elon Musk
Tesla uses Model S and X ‘sentimental’ value to enforce massive pricing move
By slashing production and creating immediate scarcity, the company has transformed these remaining vehicles into limited-edition relics. The price hike is not driven by rising material costs or new features.
Tesla is using the “sentimental” value that CEO Elon Musk talked about with the Model S and Model X to enforce one of the most massive pricing moves it has ever applied as it begins to phase out the flagship vehicles.
Tesla quietly executed one of its most calculated pricing plays yet. After officially ending production of the Model S and Model X, the company raised prices on every remaining new and demo unit by roughly $15,000.
The refreshed starting prices now sit at:
- $109,990 for the Model S AWD
- $124,900 for the Model S Plaid
- $114,900 for the Model X AWD
- $129,900 for the Model X Plaid
NEWS: Tesla has raised the price on all remaining new (and demo) Model S and Model X vehicles left in inventory by $15,000.
New starting prices:
• Model S AWD: $109,990
• Model S Plaid: $124,900
• Model X AWD: $114,900
• Model X Plaid: $129,900 pic.twitter.com/qBEhsYAfXr— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) April 5, 2026
Every vehicle comes fully loaded with the Luxe Package, Full Self-Driving Supervised, four years of premium connectivity and service, and lifetime free Supercharging. What looks like a simple inventory adjustment is, in reality, a masterclass in monetizing nostalgia.
These are not ordinary cars. For many owners, the Model S and Model X represent the purest expression of Tesla’s original promise—the sleek, over-engineered flagships that proved electric vehicles could be faster, quieter, and more desirable than their gasoline counterparts.
Tesla removes Model S and X custom orders as sunset officially begins
They are the vehicles that carried Elon Musk’s vision from Silicon Valley startup to global automaker.
The final units rolling off the line carry an emotional weight that numbers alone cannot capture. Buyers are not simply purchasing transportation; they are acquiring a piece of Tesla history, the last examples of the very models that defined the brand’s first decade.
Tesla, with this move, understands this sentiment deeply.
By slashing production and creating immediate scarcity, the company has transformed these remaining vehicles into limited-edition relics. The price hike is not driven by rising material costs or new features.
It is driven by the knowledge that a certain segment of buyers, loyalists, collectors, and enthusiasts, will pay a premium precisely because these cars are about to disappear. The strategy converts emotional attachment into margin.
Where other automakers might discount outgoing models to clear lots, Tesla is betting that sentiment is worth more than volume.
The move also quietly rewards existing owners. Scarcity instantly boosts resale values for the hundreds of thousands of Model S and X already on the road, reinforcing brand loyalty among the very people who helped build Tesla’s reputation.
In the end, Tesla’s pricing decision reveals a sophisticated understanding of its audience. As the company pivots toward next-generation platforms, it has found a way to extract one final, lucrative chapter from its heritage.
For buyers willing to pay the new prices, the premium is not just for the car; it is for the feeling of owning the last true originals. Tesla has turned sentiment into strategy, and in the process, reminded everyone that even in the EV era, emotion remains a powerful line on the balance sheet.
Tesla price targets drop in shock move from three Wall Street firms
Tesla Full Self-Driving feature probe closed by NHTSA
