News
SpaceX wins new Falcon Heavy launch contract as rocket’s prospects stabilize
SpaceX has won a new Falcon Heavy launch contract from Swedish telecommunications company Ovzon, which hopes to procure a large geostationary communications satellite in time for launch in the fourth quarter of 2020.
Excluding two pending contracts, a consequence of the many years of delays suffered since SpaceX first began marketing the rocket, Ovzon’s commitment is now the fourth commercial contract secured by Falcon Heavy in 2019 and 2020, solidifying enough demand to sustain – on average – biannual launches over the next two or so years.
Ovzon signs agreement with SpaceX for first satellite launch – read the full release here: https://t.co/M9YWRCyp5L
In an important step towards growing our satellite service offering, Ovzon has entered into an agreement with SpaceX for launch of Ovzon’s first GEO satellite. pic.twitter.com/HfMfl9jnNV— Ovzon AB (@OvzonAB) October 16, 2018
Speaking at IAC 2018, SpaceX VP of Reliability Hans Koenigsmann was by no means wrong when he described the latent demand seen for Falcon Heavy launches, stating that “there aren’t too many customers for it”. Indeed, just three firm launch contracts over the next two years did not bode particularly well for Falcon Heavy as a competitive complement to SpaceX’s commercial launch business – without regular demand and assuming a competitive and fixed-price market, the cost of maintaining the infrastructure needed to build and fly a distinct launch vehicle will inevitably end up cannibalizing profitability or even the ability to break even.
For vehicles like ULA’s Delta IV Heavy, NASA’s SLS, or the late Space Shuttle, the unique capabilities offered by certain low-volume rockets or even just the risk of faltering can lead to situations where anchor customers will swallow huge cost premiums for the sake of simply preserving those capabilities. In non-competitive markets, it does not take much for nearly any capability to become essentially priceless. SpaceX, however, paid for Falcon Heavy’s development without seeking – and even actively turning down – most government development funding or guaranteed launch contracts.
-
- Falcon Heavy ahead of its inaugural launch. (SpaceX)
-
- The extraordinary might of Delta IV Heavy’s hydrolox-burning RS-68A engines, producing a combined 2.1 million pounds of thrust at liftoff. (Tom Cross)
A tough life for big birds
As such, Falcon Heavy’s utility and existence are in a far more precarious position than most rockets, owing to the fact that SpaceX would likely not hesitate to kill the vehicle if commercial demand rapidly withered to nothing, far from impossible with just three total launches contracted over a period of fewer than two years. Prior to the USAF announcing a new Falcon Heavy launch contract in June 2018, that number was just two secured launches. Combined with the USAF purchase, Ozvon’s new contract suggests that prospects for the super-heavy-lift rocket may be at least warm enough to sustain its useful existence.
SpaceX's Falcon Heavy manifest:
– Arabsat 6A (NET early 2019)
– STP-2 (NET 2019)
– AFSPC-52 (NET September 2020)
– Ovzon (NET Q4 2020)Pending confirmed payloads:
– Viasat
– Inmarsat— Michael Baylor (@MichaelBaylor_) October 16, 2018
There is also a decent chance that, once Falcon Heavy has proven itself with one or two real satellite launches, commercial launch customers will warm to its impressive capabilities. Most notably, Ozvon may have sided with Falcon Heavy solely because the powerful rocket can place its Ozvon-3 communications satellite directly into geostationary orbit (GEO), compared to the far more common process of launching the satellite roughly halfway there and letting it finish the journey on its own, known as geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) insertion.
There is undoubtedly significant commercial upside for geostationary communications satellites to arrive at their operational orbits as quickly as possible, rather than spending weeks or even months slowly making their way uphill from GTO. The cost of dedicated launches of Delta IV Heavy or Ariane 5 have far outweighed the benefits of earlier operability for as long as the rockets have been flying, though, and smaller and more affordable vehicles like Falcon 9, Atlas 5, or dual-manifested Ariane 5s simply aren’t powerful enough to launch traditionally-sized commsats directly to GEO.
-
- Falcon Heavy clears the top of the strongback in a spectacular fashion. Two of the rocket’s three manifested missions are now for the USAF. (Tom Cross)
-
- Falcon Heavy’s stunning dual side booster recovery. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX’s second Falcon Heavy launch will either be the USAF’s STP-2, a collection of smaller satellites, or Arabsat 6A, a large communications satellite. (USAF)
-
- The communications satellite Arabsat-6A. (Lockheed Martin)
In that regard, Falcon Heavy launches could become a commercial game changer and a distinct competitive advantage for companies that select it. Now with at least four launch contracts secured over the next ~24 months, Falcon Heavy will have a much better chance at demonstrating its true capabilities, potentially enabling military-premium launch services (~$250m+) at commercial-premium prices (~$90-150m). If it performs as intended in its next few launches, expected sometime in H1 2019, Falcon Heavy will be a strong contender for at least five additional USAF contracts as well as certain NASA missions scheduled to launch in the 2020s.
Experience with Falcon Heavy may only be tangentially beneficial at best to SpaceX’s greater BFR ambitions, but commercially, competitively, and reliably operating a rocket as large as FH for customers like the USAF and NASA would go a long, long way towards solidifying SpaceX’s perception as a ULA-equivalent launch provider for roughly half the cost.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
Tesla just gave what is perhaps its biggest signal yet that the launch of the Cybercab, its autonomous ride-hailing-geared car, is imminent.
The Cybercab has been spotted outside of Gigafactory Texas in massive numbers over the past few days, with hundreds of units being stored on property just days after the vehicle received a Certificate of Conformity from the EPA.
Today, things were a bit different.
Cybercabs spotted on Giga Texas property today had an addition: a Cybercab decal on the side, reminiscent of the “Robotaxi” ones that were placed on Model Ys just as the company launched its ride-sharing platform about a year ago.
Giga Texas drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer noticed the change today:
Tesla Cybercabs are now getting “Cybercab” logos on the side of them!
Tesla did the same with Model Ys that were given “Robotaxi” logos: https://t.co/DanANtw1m7 pic.twitter.com/FqOhH0S9Ks
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 19, 2026
Tesla could be signaling that the Cybercab is preparing to enter the Robotaxi fleet in the coming weeks or months with this move. It seems more symbolic than anything; Tesla is ready to throw Cybercabs in the ride-hailing platform just as it did with Model Ys last year.
The addition of the Certificate of Conformity awarded to the Cybercab is another major factor working to Tesla’s advantage. The company now has permission from the EPA to allow the vehicle to operate on public roads and enter the chain of commerce. It’s officially street legal.
Tesla Cybercab specs revealed: range, curb weight, range ratings, and more
The big question that remains is whether Tesla will be able to operate the car without a safety monitor, especially considering it plans to put the car out there without a steering wheel or pedals. With the Cybercab only having a seating capacity of two, it is hard to believe Tesla will even consider putting a Safety Monitor in the car.
It did recently self-certify as Level 4 and has the ability to operate driverless vehicles in the State of Texas under a law that took effect on May 28. You can read more about that here:
Tesla’s Robotaxi dreams just took a massive step toward reality
We’d imagine Cybercabs will be on the roads as soon as July, but August will likely be a better estimate of when the car will be entered into the Cybercab fleet. It all depends at where Tesla is, as they’ve truly prioritized safety with the rollout of the Robotaxi platform.
Elon Musk has publicly questioned Moody’s credit assessments following the rating agency’s decision to assign SpaceX a Baa1 investment-grade rating, two notches above Tesla’s Baa3. The comments came amid discussions comparing the two companies’ financial profiles.
SpaceX earned its first-time Baa1 rating with a stable outlook from Moody’s. The agency highlighted the company’s leadership in orbital launches, the growing recurring revenue from its Starlink satellite network, strong vertical integration, U.S. government contracts, and emerging opportunities in AI infrastructure.
These factors were cited as supporting robust cash flows, margin expansion, and financial flexibility.
Musk responded directly: “Tesla’s credit rating is ridiculously low tbh,” and added, “Yeah, makes no sense. Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt, and is consistently profitable!” His remarks underscored Tesla’s balance sheet strength and profitability at a time when many traditional automakers continue to report losses in the shift to electric vehicles.
Yeah, makes no sense.
Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt and is consistently profitable!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 19, 2026
Tesla maintains a leading position in the global EV market, with diversification into energy and storage, battery technology, and robotics through projects like Optimus. Recent financial updates show the company generated positive free cash flow of $1.4 billion in Q1 2026, supported by operating cash flow of $3.9 billion. Cash and short-term investments stood at approximately $44.7 billion.
Moody’s has affirmed Tesla’s Baa3 issuer rating with a stable outlook in periodic reviews, acknowledging the company’s EV leadership, technology strengths, including AI for autonomous vehicles, solid profitability, and strong liquidity.
Tesla (TSLA) scores Baa3 Moody’s rating for ‘stable’ outlook
However, the agency has also noted challenges in the automotive segment and expectations for margin pressures.
Musk’s critique highlights a common debate about how traditional rating methodologies apply to high-growth, capital-intensive technology companies. SpaceX benefits from long-term government-backed contracts and diversified, recurring revenue streams, while Tesla’s valuation reflects heavy investment in future technologies such as autonomy and robotics.
Both ratings remain investment-grade, yet the one-notch difference has fueled online discussion about potential inconsistencies in evaluating innovative firms.
The exchange comes as SpaceX explores financing options following its recent valuation milestones, while Tesla continues executing on its multi-year roadmap. Musk’s pointed response serves as a reminder that credit ratings, though influential for borrowing costs, represent one lens through which markets assess corporate strength—and that company leaders often view their financial positions through the lens of long-term innovation and cash generation rather than short-term risk metrics alone.
A new report from Reuters claims that a transport authority in Sweden is pushing back against the approval of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite because it will travel over speed limits.
The report says the Swedish Transport Administration (TRV) recommends the European Union votes against FSD’s approval. TRV believes it should not be approved until Tesla disables FSD’s ability to speed.
TRV sent a letter to the European Union’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV), which is set to meet on June 30 to discuss the potential approval of the Tesla FSD suite in the country. Tesla, which has received various approvals in Europe over the past two months, has not provided a comment.
Teslas operating on FSD do travel over the speed limit, depending on the Speed Profile that is chosen. Drivers have the ability to disengage FSD at any point; Tesla specifically states that those supervising the suite are responsible for its actions.
Let’s cut to the chase: humans operating any vehicle speed almost daily in the United States. Realistically, speed limits in the U.S. are more frequently treated as speed minimums. However, other countries are different, and driving behaviors are less aggressive.
TRV believes that “allowing automated systems to systematically exceed legal speed limits…risks undermining both the legal framework and the expected safety benefits of vehicle automation,” the report stated. It’s surprising that Tesla has not received this claim from other countries previously.
This could be a good argument to bring Max Speed back, the setting that previously allowed the driver to choose the absolute fastest the car would travel.
This would still put the responsibility of supervision in the hands of the driver. It would allow the driver to choose whether the car would travel over the speed limit or not, acknowledging that they set the speed, and if they get pulled over, there would be no ability to argue it.
However, it does not seem as if this is something Tesla will do, especially considering many U.S. drivers have requested the feature in an effort to eliminate speeding or at least tone it down. The company has not shown any interest in bringing it back.
Tesla has approvals for FSD in Europe in Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
Elon Musk says this part of Tesla ‘makes no sense’
