

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.

Elon Musk
Tesla Energy shines with substantial YoY growth in deployments

Tesla Energy shined in what was a weak delivery report for the first quarter, as the company’s frequently-forgotten battery storage products performed extraordinarily well.
Tesla reported its Q1 production, delivery, and deployment figures for the first quarter of the year, and while many were less-than-excited about the automotive side, the Energy division performed well with 10.4 GWh of energy storage products deployed during the first quarter.
This was a 156 percent increase year-over-year and the company’s second-best quarter in terms of energy deployments to date. Only Q4 2024 was better, as 11 GWh was recorded.
Tesla Energy is frequently forgotten and not talked about enough. The company has continued to deploy massive energy storage projects across the globe, and as it recorded 31.5 GWh of deployments last year, 2025 is already looking as if it will be a record-setting year if it continues at this pace.
Tesla Megapacks to back one of Europe’s largest energy storage sites
Although Energy performed well, many investors are privy to that of the automotive division’s performance, which is where some concern lies. Tesla had a weak quarter for deliveries, missing Wall Street estimates by a considerable margin.
There are two very likely reasons as to why this happened: the first is Tesla’s switchover to the new Model Y at its production facilities across the globe. Tesla said it lost “several weeks” of production due to the updating of manufacturing lines as it rolled out a new version of its all-electric crossover.
Secondly, Tesla could be facing some pressure from pushback against the brand, which is what many analysts will say. Despite the publicity of attacks on Tesla drivers and their vehicles, as well as the company’s showrooms, it would be safe to assume that we will have a better picture painted of what the issue is in Q2 after the company reports numbers in July.
If Tesla is still struggling with lackluster delivery figures in Q2 after the Model Y is ramped and deliveries are more predictable and consistent, we could see where the argument for brand damage is legitimate. However, we are more prone to believe the Model Y, which accounts for most of Tesla’s sales, and its production ramp is likely the cause for what happened in Q1.
In what was a relatively bleak quarter, Tesla Energy still shines as the bright spot for the quarter.
Elon Musk
Tesla bull Wedbush responds to Q1 deliveries: ‘A disaster on every metric’

Tesla bull Wedbush has responded to the company’s lackluster Q1 delivery figures, which were released on Wednesday morning in a new note from analyst Dan Ives.
Tesla reported deliveries of 336,681 vehicles in the first quarter of the year, a far cry from the Wall Street estimate of 352,000 and whisper numbers of roughly 350,000. At first glance, it seems to be a disaster, but Tesla said it lost “several weeks of production” in Q1 due to the ramp of the new Model Y at all four of its vehicle production factories.
This could be part of the reason that the company experienced a quarter of this performance, but there are also factors stemming from CEO Elon Musk’s involvement in the U.S. government, which has created some pushback in various markets.
It’s tough to say how much of each issue caused this type of quarter, but Ives wrote in a note to investors that Wedbush could not look at this “with rose-colored glasses,” as the performance “was a disaster on every metric.”
Ives believes it is time for Musk to make a move:
“The Street and us knew a bad 1Q was coming but this was even worse than expected. The time has come for Musk….it’s a fork in the road moment. The more political he gets with DOGE the more the brand suffers, there is no debate. This quarter was an example of the damage Musk is causing Tesla. This continues to be a moment of truth for Musk to navigate this brand tornado crisis moment and get onto the other side of this dark chapter for Tesla with much better days ahead.”
Interestingly, the stock dropped over 5 percent after the delivery report. It quickly rebounded 8 percent and is currently up over 5 percent on the day after a report from Politico stated that Musk and President Donald Trump have discussed the CEO stepping back from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
Based on that, it seems that investors were looking for Musk to step back from his government duties and show more public attention to Tesla. Realistically, we do not know how much of his time is being devoted to Tesla and its EV initiative. However, it seems investors were ready to hear something along the lines of Musk being more involved and speaking openly about Tesla and its projects.
It’s not all bad. Ives still recognizes Tesla’s prowess with the rollout of robotaxi and Full Self-Driving and how much impact it could have moving forward:
“Autonomous remains the biggest transformation to the auto industry in modern-day history and in our view, Tesla will own the autonomous market in the US and globally with the launch of unsupervised FSD in Austin kicking off the autonomous era at Tesla that we value at $1 trillion alone on a sum-of-the-parts valuation…”
With that being said, he also wants Musk to balance responsibilities with DOGE and Tesla:
“BUT…Musk needs to stop this political firestorm and balance being CEO of Tesla with DOGE. The future is so bright but this is a full blown crisis Tesla is navigating now and its primarily self-inflected. We remain firmly bullish on the long-term Tesla story but Musk needs to get his act together or else unfortunately darker times are ahead for Tesla.”
Tesla shares are trading at $283.01, up 5.42% at 1:57 p.m. on the East Coast.
News
Tesla shares Optimus’ improved walk in new update video
The video featured an Optimus robot confidently walking in a humanlike manner.

During Tesla’s Q1 2025 All-Hands meeting, CEO Elon Musk stated that the company will attempt to produce its first “legion” of humanoid robots this 2025.
A recent video from Elon Musk suggests that work continues to be underway to refine the humanoid robot before it enters production.
A Better Walk
Tesla’s new Optimus update video was shared on social media platform X by CEO Elon Musk, who described the video with the words, “Accurate actuators accelerate automation.” The video featured an Optimus robot walking confidently, in a manner that is significantly more humanlike than its previous iterations.
A post from Tesla Vice President of Optimus (Tesla Bot) Milan Kovac shared more context about the new video. As per Kovac, the short clip demonstrates the humanoid robot’s latest walk, with “straight knees, smoother heel-to-toe gait, and arms sway.” Kovac also noted that the humanoid robot was “Entirely trained in simulation with RL.”
Optimus’ Quick Progress
Optimus was initially announced in 2021 during Tesla’s AI Day event. At the time, Tesla only had a static model of the humanoid robot, as well as a literal man in a suit. Fast forward to today, and Optimus has already undergone several iterations. Several of its components have also been vastly improved, such as its hands, which is expected to feature 22 degrees of freedom when it enters production.
Tesla seems determined to start production of Optimus quickly. During the Q1 2025 All Hands meeting, CEO Elon Musk stated that the Fremont Factory had produced its first humanoid robot from its Optimus production line. Musk also noted that while Tesla is internally aiming for enough parts to produce 10,000 to 12,000 Optimus robots this year, the company could very well be capable of producing 5,000 units of the humanoid robot this 2025.
“So this year, we hopefully will be able to make about 5,000 Optimus robots. We’re technically aiming for enough parts to make 10,000, maybe 12,000, but since it’s a totally new product with a totally new, like everything is totally new, I’ll say we’re succeeding if we get to half go the 10,000. But even 5,000 robots, that’s the size of a Roman legion, FYI,” Musk stated.
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla aiming to produce first “legion” of Optimus robots this 2025
-
Elon Musk1 week ago
Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s simple message to vandals
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Elon Musk confirms two measures Tesla is taking to fight vandalism
-
News1 week ago
Tesla’s Giga Berlin director responds to anti-Musk criticism
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Tesla owners doxxed by controversial anti-DOGE website in clear intimidation tactic
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Elon Musk to file lawsuit against former US Rep Jamaal Bowman: “I’ve had enough”
-
Elon Musk6 days ago
Tesla vandal who lit Las Vegas repair center on fire arrested
-
News1 week ago
Tesla Model Y inventory is going fast, selling out in many U.S. states