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.

Comments

News

Tesla robotaxi test details shared in recent report: 300 operators, safety tests, and more

Tesla has launched an initial robotaxi service for its employees in Austin and the San Francisco Bay Area.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

During the Q1 2025 earnings call, Tesla executives reiterated the idea that the company will be launching a dedicated robotaxi service using its Full Self Driving (FSD) Unsupervised system this coming June.

A recent report from Insider, citing people reportedly familiar with the matter, has now provided a number of details about the preparations that Tesla has been making as it approaches its June target date.

Remote Operators

As noted by the publication, about 300 test operators have been driving through Austin city streets over the past few months using Teslas equipped with self-driving software. These efforts are reportedly part of “Project Rodeo.” Citing test drivers who are reportedly part of the program, Insider noted that Tesla’s tests involve accumulating critical miles. Test drivers are reportedly assigned to specific test routes, which include “critical” tracks where drivers are encouraged to avoid manual interventions, and “adversarial” tracks, which simulate tricky scenarios.

Tesla has launched an initial robotaxi service for its employees in Austin and the San Francisco Bay Area, though the vehicles only operate in limited areas. The vehicles also use safety drivers for now. However, Tesla has reportedly had discussions about using remote operators as safety drivers when the service goes live for consumers. Some test drivers have been moved into remote operator roles for this purpose, the publication’s sources claimed.

While Tesla is focusing on Austin and San Francisco for now, the company is reportedly also deploying test drivers in other key cities. These include Atlanta, GA, New York, NY, Seattle, WA, and Phoenix, AZ.

Advertisement

Safety Tests

Tesla reportedly held training events with local first responders as part of its preparations for its robotaxi service, Insider claimed, citing documents that it had obtained. As per the publication, Tesla had met with the city’s autonomous vehicle task force, which include members of the Austin Fire Department, back in December.

Back in March, Tesla reportedly participated in about six hours of testing with local first responders, which included members of the fire department and the police, at a close test track. Around 60 drivers and vehicles were reportedly used in the test to simulate real-world traffic scenarios. 

Interestingly enough, a spokesperson from the Austin Police Department stated that Tesla did hold a testing day with emergency responders from Austin, Williamson County, as well as the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Reported Deadlines

While Tesla has been pretty open about its robotaxi service launching in Austin this June, the company is reportedly pursuing an aggressive June 1 deadline, at least internally. During meetings with Elon Musk, VP of AI software Ashok Elluswamy’s team reportedly informed the CEO that the company is on track to hit its internal deadline.

One of Insider’s sources, however, noted that the June 1 deadline is more aspirational or motivational. “A June 1 deadline makes a June 30 launch more likely,” the publication’s source noted.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Atty who refused to charge six-time Tesla vandal sparks controversy

Despite the multiple offenses, Moriarty opted to enter Adams into an adult diversion program instead.

Published

on

Pilottap, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, who made the decision not to charge 33-year-old vandal Dylan Bryan Adams after he keyed six Teslas around Minneapolis last month, has found herself in the middle of controversy

The controversy came amidst her decision to press charges against a 19-year-old first-time vandal who keyed one vehicle at the White Castle in Brooklyn Park.

The Tesla Vandal

Moriarty’s decision not to charge Adams after he keyed six Teslas was met with widespread criticism. Adams’ actions resulted in more than $20,000 worth of damages, more than $10,000 of which was to a single vehicle, as noted in a New York Post report. Yet despite the multiple offenses, Moriarty opted to enter Adams into an adult diversion program instead.

The fact that Adams is a state employee who works for the Department of Human Services as a program consultant triggered allegations that his dismissal might be partly influenced by Gov. Tim Walz. Walz is a staunch critic of Musk, previously stating that the falling price of TSLA stock gives him a “boost” in the morning.

As noted in a report from The Minnesota Star Tribune, Moriarty’s decision was so controversial that she was asked about the matter on Wednesday. In response, the attorney argued that her office made the decision outside of any political consideration. “We try to make decisions without really looking at the political consequences. Can we always predict how a story will be portrayed in the media or what people will say? No,” Moriarty stated.

Advertisement

Actually Charged

As noted by the Tribune, Moriarty has made arguments around the fact that Adams was a first-time offender, even if he opted to deface six separate Teslas. But even this argument has become controversial since Moriarty recently charged a 19-year-old Robbinsdale woman with no criminal record with first-degree felony property damage after she allegedly keyed a co-worker’s car. The damage incurred by the 19-year-old woman was $7,000, substantially less than the over $20,000 damage that Adams’ actions have caused.

Cases surrounding felony first-degree property damage are fairly common, though they require the damage to be over $1,000. The 19-year-old’s damage to her co-worker’s car met this threshold. Adams’ damage to the six Teslas he vandalized also met this requirement.

When Moriarty was asked about her seemingly conflicting decisions, she noted that her office’s primary goal was to hold the person accountable for keying the vehicle and get restitution to the people affected. She also noted that her office tries to avoid convictions when possible since they could affect a person’s life. “Should we have treated this gentleman differently because it’s a political issue? We made this decision because it is in the best interest of public safety,” she noted.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla faces emission credits tax in Washington state

House Bill 2077 taxes emissions credits, mainly hitting Tesla. Lawmakers expect $100M/year from the taxes.

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

Washington state lawmakers are advancing a bill that would tax Tesla’s emission credits, targeting profits under the state’s clean vehicle policy. Lawmakers who support the bill clarify that the Tesla credit tax is unrelated to Elon Musk.

HB 2077, introduced in mid-April, seeks to impose a 2% tax on emission credit sales and a 10% tax on banked credits. The bill primarily affects Tesla due to exemptions for companies with fewer credits.

In 2022, Washington’s Department of Ecology mandated that all new cars sold by 2035 be electric, hydrogen-fueled, or hybrids, with 35% compliance required by next year. Carmakers selling more gas-powered vehicles can buy credits from companies like Tesla, which sells only electric vehicles.

A legislative fiscal analysis projects taxes on those credits would generate $78 million in the 2025-27 biennium and $100 million annually thereafter. About 70% of the taxes will be allocated to the state’s general funds, and the rest will help expand electric car infrastructure.

Advertisement

HB 2077 passed the state House eight days after its introduction and awaits a Senate Ways and Means Committee vote on Friday. At a House Finance Committee hearing, supporters, including union and social service advocates, argued the tax would prevent cuts to state services.

House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon emphasized its necessity amid frozen federal EV infrastructure funds. “We didn’t have a budget crisis until this year. And we didn’t have the federal government revoking huge amounts of federal dollars for EV infrastructure,” he said.

Tesla’s lobbyist, Jeff Gombosky, countered that the proposal “runs counter to the intent” of the state’s zero-emission policy. Rivian’s lobbyist, Troy Nichols, noted a “modest” impact on his company but warned it could undermine the EV mandate. Kate White Tudor of the Natural Resources Defense Council expressed concerns, stating, “We worry it sets a dubious precedent.”

Fitzgibbon defended the tax, noting Tesla’s dominant credit stockpile makes it “one outlier” that is “very profitable.” “That’s the kind of thing legislators take an interest in,” he said. “Is it serving the interest of the public for this asset to be untaxed?”

With the legislative session nearing its end, the bill remains a key focus in budget talks in Washington.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending