News
Why does SpaceX market space better than NASA?
NASA may be truly making progress, but when compared to SpaceX, it seems more like thus far, they just have a guitar amp that “goes to 11”.
Unless you live under a rock (where exactly are these rocks, anyhow?), you’ve heard the news that SpaceX completed the 4th successful first stage landing of its Falcon 9 rocket after launching to a very high orbit. This was the third one in a row to land on an oceangoing droneship, setting the event up for a pathway to becoming routine business.
Waiting for Falcon 9 at the Park
I was in Florida last week and had the opportunity to go to Jetty Park in Cape Canaveral to watch the launch on its first scheduled date of Thursday, May 26th.
Unfortunately, I had to catch a flight before the next launch window opened after the first one was scrubbed, and I ended up catching the live stream from home on Friday; however, I still don’t regret having rearranged my flights to be there Thursday. Seeing the enthusiasm for the launch first-hand isn’t something I could have fully appreciated from a webcast.
Cars were piled in all over the park by the time the original launch time arrived. People were under sun shades, having picnics, and there were even a few tailgaters – an awesome concept in itself. The only damper is the inability to guarantee the launch will actually happen as scheduled, but since when has that impeded a viable tailgating excuse?
I’m not sure whether this type of activity happens for all launches, but it made me think about some of the discussions and my observations from earlier in the week.
SpaceX at the Space Congress
I also attended the first day’s events for the 44th Space Congress wherein commercial space technology was the primary topic. Bob Cabana, former space shuttle astronaut and current director of the John F. Kennedy Space Center, was the keynote speaker to kick off the event.
While taking questions, an audience member mentioned that her neighbor thought NASA had been “shut down”, and more audience members concurred that they’d had similar discussions with others. The purpose of the question was to gather Cabana’s opinion on why people weren’t more aware of NASA’s activities, but he didn’t entirely have an answer. I later overheard him speaking to someone else about how they were doing so many “great things” and didn’t understand why people weren’t more aware of them. As a SpaceX enthusiast, of course, I found the problem amusing. I mean, rockets involve at least 99 problems, but SpaceX does not have one with publicity. [Sorry, I had to.]
However, I still questioned why SpaceX was having an awareness impact on space travel that NASA, in all its social media, outreach efforts, and resources couldn’t seem to mirror. Was it that the technology SpaceX was developing more reminiscent of Hollywood and science fiction? Was it all just better marketing overall? Better video music?
Cue the First Panel
After more questions and a short break, the panel on the progress being made in NASA’s Commercial Crew program began with guests Danom Buck from Boeing and Benji Reed from SpaceX.
Boeing’s Commercial Crew capsule, CST-100 Starliner. Credit: BLM Nevada under CC by 2.0.
The Commercial Crew program involves the development of the next generation of transport technology for human space travel to and from the International Space Station (and eventually beyond). Or in other words, it’s the program to get America launching people from American soil again rather than buying rocket seats from the Russians.
The overall panel discussion was interesting, but I will admit that I kept waiting for Boeing to get to the “good” part. 
As a member of the general public, my interpretation of their technology was that it was a reworked version of the capsules used on the Apollo program and not much else. Their landing system consisted of high-speed-impact capable air bags versus SpaceX’s propulsive landing, i.e., “hovering”, Dragon capsule.
While I understand that there are significant improvements in the works with Boeing’s craft, I know I’m not the only one to be unmoved by the lack of apparent novelty in the landing system, particularly because I had recently seen this video of Elon Musk responding to an MIT student’s question comparing SpaceX’s system to Boeing’s:
https://youtu.be/PULkWGHeIQQ?t=48m7s
I kept waiting for the right question to break down the professionalism between the two company representatives (“Fight! Fight! Fight!”), but alas, nothing of the sort happened. I wasn’t entirely convinced that Danum was very excited about Boeing’s technology, either. Maybe I wasn’t being fair to Boeing. After all, Benji’s presentation began with this familiar SpaceX recap video:
Crossover Landing Technology Between Dragon and Falcon 9
Credit: SpaceX
I did get a chance to ask Benji my own question wherein I inquired about how much technology crosses over between the Dragon capsule’s propulsive landing system and the Falcon 9’s first stage landing system. I was curious whether it was mostly just software sharing since landing the crafts were likely to use similar calculations, but the equipment involved was too different to be relatable.
His response consisted of an explanation about how the development environment at SpaceX is set up to encourage collaboration among systems engineers (open floor layout, connected teams next to one another). Implied answer: He either wasn’t sure specifically but assumed there was some crossover, or he knew some specifics, but wasn’t going to give them for one reason or another. Or perhaps it was some mix of the two.
Cue Lunch and the Next Panel
The speaker during lunch was Col. Eric Krystkowiak, the 45th Space Wing Launch Group Commander. The 45th Space Wing Launch Group is located at Patrick Air Force Base in Cape Canaveral, Florida where the May 27th Falcon 9 lifted off from. The first Falcon 9 ground landing also took place there, something Col. Krystkowiak spoke about during his presentation: “They’re thinking…still can’t believe the Air Force let us do that.”
The Air Force’s customer service considerations.
As a lifelong Air Force brat, I may have been partial in my reception to the talk due to the familiar social gathering “zone” it reminded me of.
The presentation format and overall humor were very good (isn’t anything that quotes Seinfeld?), and although they have to remain impartial as government representatives, it certainly felt as though the Air Force genuinely liked the SpaceX team and was leaning towards their business model to support in their commercial spaceflight customer service role moving forward. Perhaps they just appreciate SpaceX’s wherewithal and determination to push through bureaucracy to really enable innovation.
Oh, and I think someone asked about the lawsuit SpaceX filed against the Air Force, but I don’t remember the specifics of either the question or the answer. Hey, it was lunch time!
The Journey Ends
Jumping forward again to the original Thursday launch date, once it was clear the launch was not happening before my flight home (shout out to the very nice lady listening to the AM radio updates), I had to book it to the airport. Then, ironically, it turned out my Uber driver had spent seventeen years as a defense contractor with Raytheon working on satellite technologies.
It really was a space kind of week!
Space geek that I am, I took the opportunity to have him provide first hand insight into what that type of job was like. I was particularly interested in why contract work like that always went over time and over budget. His answer was that essentially, when NASA approaches its contractors, they are asking for things to be done that have never been done before, thus it’s hard to predict exactly what the future will hold as far as the development of the technology.
Fair enough, but once again, SpaceX shines here. There’s never been a company quite like them before, doing quite the things they’re doing in quite the way they’re doing them.
Maybe just being first has its merits? After all, history tends to reward the winners. Most Americans don’t know who the first American in space was, but they know the Russians beat us there to begin with, and they know we beat everyone to the Moon. Then again, Sally Ride tends to be mistaken by Americans as the first woman in space, but Russian Valentina Tereshkova was actually first.
The question of what makes SpaceX so different in marketing space technology is still a difficult one for me as my personal reasons for admiring their progress has little to do with the aesthetics of the achievements. I admire the true progress they’re making and the relatability of what they’re developing to what their larger goals are.
NASA may be truly making progress towards a “Journey to Mars”, but when compared to the advancements SpaceX has achieved, it seems more like thus far, they just have a guitar amp that “goes to 11”.
Thoughts, anyone?
Author’s Note: I’ve uploaded more pics of the Space Congress and the park on launch day to my Flickr account. Nothing spectacular – just FYI.
SpaceX confirmed today that it has officially signed its third massive compute deal, providing compute at its Colossus data center in Southaven, Tennessee.
Reflection AI will gain immediate access to NVIDIA GB300 chips at SpaceX’s Colossus 2 data center. In return, Reflection will pay SpaceX $150 million per month starting on July 1, with total payments reaching approximately $6.3 billion if the contract runs through its duration, which is until 2029. Either party can terminate the agreement with 90 days’ notice after the initial three-month period.
CNBC first reported the deal.
🚨 SpaceXAI has agreed to a new compute deal with Reflection AI.
Reflection gets access to NIVIDIA GB300s, and will pay $150M per month to SpaceXAI for the compute. pic.twitter.com/bNPare8U5u
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 22, 2026
This latest partnership highlights SpaceX’s strategy of commercializing its massive Colossus supercomputing infrastructure, originally developed to power Elon Musk’s Grok AI models. The company has rapidly expanded its customer base in the AI sector following its February 2026 merger with xAI, a transaction that valued the combined entity at $1.25 trillion.
SpaceX has previously signed significant compute deals with other major players.
It granted Anthropic exclusive access to the full capacity of its Colossus 1 data center, which exceeds 300 megawatts and includes over 220,000 NVIDIA GPUs. Details from SpaceX’s IPO filings indicate Anthropic will pay $1.25 billion per month through May 2029, potentially generating around $45 billion over the term of the deal.
Additionally, Google agreed to pay SpaceX $920 million per month for compute capacity from October 2026 through June 2029. This 32-month period will provide Google access to roughly 110,000 NVIDIA GPUs, along with supporting processors and memory. Capacity ramps up through September at a reduced fee, with termination options after the first year.
SpaceXA also established arrangements for computing power with Cursor, an AI coding startup. SpaceX acquired them in a $60 billion all-stock deal.
These arrangements position SpaceX’s collective position as an AI infrastructure powerhouse with high-margin revenue potential. The Google deal alone could generate nearly $29.5 billion over its term, while the Reflection contract adds another $6.3 billion.
Combined with the Anthropic arrangement, SpaceX stands to realize tens of billions in revenue from compute leasing in the coming years, which diversifies beyond SpaceX’s traditional rocket launches and Starlink operation.
The deals underscore growing demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity amid chip shortages and surging model development needs. Reflection, valued at $25 billion and focused on “American open intelligence” with government and national security ties, cited recent restrictions on closed models as validation for open-source approaches.
For SpaceX, the partnerships transform capital-intensive data centers into flexible revenue sources while supporting its broader AI ambitions after the company has gone public.
It is safe to say SpaceX won’t be going for electric rockets anytime soon.
In a characteristically blunt reply on X, SpaceX frontman Elon Musk stated, “Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible,” following reports that MSCI had assigned SpaceX its lowest possible ESG rating of CCC.
The assessment, issued just this past week, coinciding closely with SpaceX’s public market debut, placed the company on par with nations like Russia in sustainability scoring and cited significant risks in environmental, social, and governance areas.
MSCI flagged SpaceX’s exposure to rocket emissions and other operational impacts, alongside governance concerns such as concentrated control by Musk and limited shareholder protections. Musk’s terse comment directly addressed the environmental pillar, underscoring a core physical constraint that ESG frameworks often overlook when evaluating high-thrust industries.
Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 21, 2026
Electric propulsion systems do exist and are widely used in space. Ion thrusters and Hall-effect thrusters accelerate ionized propellant, typically xenon or krypton, using electric fields, achieving very high specific impulse, often exceeding 3,000 seconds compared to roughly 300–450 seconds for chemical rockets.
This efficiency makes them ideal for satellite station-keeping, orbit raising, and deep-space missions where low thrust over long durations is sufficient. SpaceX’s own Starlink satellites employ electric propulsion for these purposes.
However, launching from Earth’s surface demands something entirely different: enormous thrust delivered rapidly to overcome gravity and atmospheric drag. A typical orbital-class booster must generate thrust far exceeding its weight, often in the millions of Newtons within seconds.
Chemical rockets achieve this through exothermic combustion of dense propellants, producing high-mass-flow, high-velocity exhaust. Electric systems, by contrast, expel very small amounts of mass at extremely high speeds. Generating equivalent thrust would require impractical onboard power levels, massive energy storage or generation systems, and prohibitive added mass, rendering the approach infeasible with current or near-term technology.
Musk has previously expressed a similar sentiment, noting a desire for electric orbital rockets while acknowledging the inescapable requirements of Newton’s third law and energy delivery. The distinction is clear: electric propulsion excels once a vehicle is already in space; it cannot replace the high-thrust chemical phase required to reach orbit from the ground.
The episode illustrates broader critiques of ESG ratings. Proponents argue they incentivize better risk management and long-term sustainability. Detractors, including Musk—who has previously called ESG a “scam”—contend that such metrics can penalize essential activities when no practical alternative exists, potentially discouraging innovation in sectors like space access.
Elon Musk dubs the S&P 500 ESG as “outrageous scam” after Tesla gets booted from index
SpaceX has sought to mitigate launch-related impacts through reusability: Falcon 9 boosters have flown more than 30 times in some cases, dramatically lowering the manufacturing and emissions burden per kilogram delivered to orbit. Starship’s design further emphasizes rapid reusability and methane propellant, which can theoretically be produced via sustainable pathways.
Ultimately, Musk’s remark serves as a reminder that certain engineering realities persist regardless of scoring systems. As humanity expands its presence in space for communications, science, and exploration, balancing genuine environmental progress with technological necessity remains a central challenge.
ESG frameworks may evolve, but the fundamental limits of electric launch propulsion are unlikely to change soon.
Tesla just trademarked ‘MEGAPOD’ with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), its latest move in what seems to be a hint that the company is incredibly focused on its AI efforts and storage needs as compute increases.
The application carries serial number 99893717 and lists the applicant as Tesla, Inc., located at 1 Tesla Road, Austin, Texas 78725.
The filing remains in ‘live pending’ status, and it is a new application waiting for assignment to an examining attorney. It has not yet been published or registered.
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD
Summary:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and… pic.twitter.com/3l85DsKadl— Robin (@xdNiBoR) June 19, 2026
According to the official goods and services description in the application, Tesla describes ‘MEGAPOD’ as:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and cooling systems, sold as a unit; self-contained modular computing hardware systems for artificial intelligence workloads; integrated computer hardware platforms for artificial intelligence computing, namely, enclosures containing computer hardware, power distribution hardware, and cooling hardware, sold as a unit; downloadable software for monitoring, managing, optimizing, and regulating modular artificial intelligence computing hardware systems.”
This description specifies complete, self-contained modular units that integrate servers and specialized AI processing hardware with networking components, power distribution, and cooling systems. It also includes associated downloadable software for oversight and optimization of these systems. The language emphasizes hardware sold “as a unit” and enclosures that combine the necessary elements for AI computing workloads.
Tesla has an established history of developing and commercializing modular hardware systems. Its Megapack product line, for example, consists of utility-scale battery energy storage systems designed as containerized units for grid applications. The MEGAPOD filing follows a similar pattern of protecting a name for modular, integrated hardware platforms, this time focused on artificial intelligence computing infrastructure.
This could be an early move, especially as Tesla did not have trademark rights to the word ‘Cybercab,’ the name of its self-driving, ride-hailing-focused vehicle.
Trademark applications of this type allow companies to secure priority rights to a name for defined categories of goods and services. The USPTO examines applications for compliance with legal requirements, including distinctiveness and absence of conflicts with prior marks. If the application proceeds successfully through examination, publication, and any opposition period, it could result in a federal trademark registration providing nationwide protection. This is what Tesla’s obvious intention is with ‘MEGAPOD.’
Public reports and analysis suggest MEGAPOD could represent modular, container-style AI computing pods designed for easy deployment. These would bundle servers, AI accelerators, power systems, and cooling into self-contained units suitable for distributed AI workloads. This approach aligns with Tesla’s announced AI compute strategy.
In March 2026, Elon Musk outlined plans for “Digital Optimus” (also referred to as Macrohard), a joint Tesla-xAI project for AI agents capable of handling complex digital tasks. The plans include running these agents on Tesla’s AI4 hardware in parked vehicles as well as dedicated compute units installed at Supercharger stations, which collectively offer substantial unused electrical capacity.
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
A modular hardware platform like the one described in the ‘MEGAPOD’ filing would support scalable, rapid deployment of such distributed compute resources. It could complement Tesla’s other AI infrastructure efforts, including the Dojo supercomputer used for training models and the development of AI systems for autonomous driving and robotics, by enabling edge or regional AI inference without reliance on traditional centralized data centers.
SpaceX confirms third massive compute deal at Colossus data center
Elon Musk responds to SpaceX’s ESG rating and says its rockets won’t go electric
