News
SpaceX a bastion of independent US, European spaceflight amid Russian threats
Russia has invaded Ukraine without provocation, triggering a series of diplomatic responses – sanctions in particular – that recently culminated in the aggressor deciding to cut ties with Europe on a number of cooperative spaceflight projects.
Dmitry Rogozin, director of Russia’s national ‘Roscosmos’ space agency, went as far as implying that the country might respond to the West’s aerospace sanctions by ending its support of the International Space Station (ISS), a move that could cause the football-field-sized structure to gradually deorbit and reenter Earth’s atmosphere. Were it not for the existence of two extraordinarily successful NASA programs and SpaceX in particular, Russia’s response – which, today, reads like a child’s tantrum – could easily have been a grave threat with far-reaching consequences.
In response to sanctions after its unprovoked invasion, Russia announced that it was withdrawing support from Europe’s French Guinea Soyuz launch operations, effectively killing Arianespace’s Soyuz offering and potentially delaying several upcoming European launches indefinitely.
As a quick side note, it’s worth noting that ULA’s lack of readily available rockets and the fact that Arianespace is likely at least a year or more away from regular Ariane 6 launches means that SpaceX may be the only Western launch provider in the world capable of filling in the gap that Arianespace’s Soyuz loss will leave. Aside from pursuing Chinese launch services, which is likely a diplomatic non-starter, the only alternative to rebooking former European Soyuz payloads on SpaceX rockets is to accept one or even several years of expensive delays.
On the other half of the coin is the International Space Station. NASA signed its first major contract with SpaceX in 2008, awarding the company $1.6 billion (and up to $3.5 billion) to launch a dozen Cargo Dragon supply missions to the ISS. Aside from effectively pulling SpaceX back from the brink of dissolution, those funds also covered a large portion of the development of its Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft and simultaneously funded Orbital Science’s (later Orbital ATK and now Northrop Grumman) Cygnus cargo spacecraft and Antares rocket.
Despite suffering two failures in 2014 and 2015, NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) program has been an extraordinary success. Together, Cygnus (17) and Dragon (24) have completed 41 deliveries in the last 12 years, carrying more than 110 tons (~240,000 lb) of cargo to the ISS.
Out of sheer coincidence, on February 19th, mere days before Russia’s act of war, Northrop Grumman launched the first Cygnus spacecraft designed to help ‘re-boost’ (raise the orbit of) the International Space Station. Since NASA’s premature 2011 retirement of the Space Shuttle, that task has been exclusively conducted by a combination of Russian spacecraft and the station’s Russian Zvezda module. Without regular Russian re-boost support, the station would deorbit and be destroyed. In other words, if push came to shove, the ISS could very literally fail without direct Russian involvement. Rogozin’s threat, then, was that Russia might cease to support ISS re-boosting if sanctions went too far.
However, even while ignoring the fact that NASA itself actually paid for and owns the ISS Zvezda propulsion module and in light of the first Cygnus spacecraft upgraded with a re-boost capability berthing with the station the very same week of the invasion, Russia’s threat rang decidedly hollow. Further, if Cygnus weren’t available, it’s still difficult to imagine that SpaceX wouldn’t be able to quickly develop its own Dragon re-boost capability if asked to do so.
While re-boosting is crucial, the situation has also emphasized just how little leverage Russia now has over even more important aspects of the International Space Station. Were it not for the existence of SpaceX and NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP), the situation could be even direr for Europe and the US. Despite some pressure from lawmakers to only award the CCP contract to Boeing, NASA ultimately selected Boeing and SpaceX to develop independent crew capsules capable of carrying US astronauts to and from ISS in 2014. Following a near-flawless uncrewed Crew Dragon test flight in 2019 and an equally successful crewed demo mission in 2020, SpaceX completed its first operational Crew Dragon launch in November 2020.
Since then, SpaceX has launched another two operational ‘crew rotation’ missions, meaning that the company has now singlehandedly supported all US astronaut launch and recovery operations for 16 months. Due in part to extensive mismanagement, Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft was nearly destroyed twice during its first catastrophic uncrewed test flight in December 2019. The spacecraft is still months away from a second attempt at that test flight, likely at least 9-12 months away from a hypothetical crewed test flight, and potentially 18+ months away from even less certain operational NASA astronaut launches. Further, though ULA CEO Tory Bruno claims that the company doesn’t need any support from Russia, all Atlas Vs – the rocket responsible for launching Starliner – depend on Russian-built RD-180 engines.
Further adding to the mire, even Cygnus is not immune. The first stage of the Antares rocket that mainly launches it is both built in Ukraine and dependent upon Russian Energomash RD-181 engines. Northrop Grumman only has the hardware on hand for the next two Cygnus-Antares launches, at which point the company will have to either abandon its NASA contract or find an alternative launch provider. Once again, SpaceX is the only US provider obviously capable of filling that gap on such short notice and without incurring major delays of half a year or more.
In fewer words, without SpaceX, NASA would still be exclusively dependent upon Russian Soyuz rockets and spacecraft to get its astronauts to and from the space station it spent tens of billions of dollars to help build. Even in a best-case SpaceX-free scenario, NASA might instead be dependent upon a rocket with Russian engines to launch its own astronauts. Needless to say, the presence of US astronauts on Russian launches and ULA’s use of Russian engines were already extremely sensitive issues after Russia ‘merely’ invaded Ukraine’s Crimea region in 2014.
It’s hard not to imagine that US and European responses to Russia’s aggression would have been weakened if NASA and ESA astronauts were still entirely dependent upon Russia to access the International Space Station. Further, in the same scenario, given its withdrawal from French Guinea, it’s also not implausible to imagine that Russia might have severely hampered or even fully withdrawn its support of Western access to the ISS.
Put simply, Crew Dragon – now a bastion of independent European and US human spaceflight in an age of extraordinary Russian recklessness – has arguably never been more important and SpaceX’s success never more of a triumph than they are today.
Tesla released what analysts believe the company will report in terms of deliveries and energy deployments for Q2, but the figures seem to confirm a long-standing theory on the company’s vehicle division.
For years, Tesla was just looked at as a car company. Now that it has established itself as a powerhouse in energy, AI, and tech as a whole, the company is now less hellbent on achieving quarterly growth, on a sequential basis, at least from a major standpoint.
Tesla topped out its annual deliveries in 2023 at 1.81 million, and in the two years since, the company has reported a decrease in deliveries for the entire 12-month term both times.
With Tesla delivering 358,023 cars in Q1, a 6.3 percent increase over Q1 2025, but falling short of Wall Street expectations at 365,000-370,000 units, the narrative around vehicle deliveries and their importance continued to change earlier this year. Some might say it is convenient, but others might say it is the typical evolution of a company that continues to change over time.
For Q2, Tesla’s delivery consensus estimates sit at 406,024 units, analysts believe. They were surveyed from Daiwa, DB, Wedbush, Cowen, Canaccord, Baird, Wolfe, BMP Paribas, Goldman Sachs, RBC, Evercore ISI, Barclays, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Truist, UBS, Jefferies, JPM, Needham & Co., HSBC, and William Blair.
Credit: Tesla
Tesla is also expected to report deployments of 13.8 GWh this quarter.
The change to Tesla’s overall narrative now leans less on vehicle deliveries and more on its other projects. Most notably, Tesla’s Robotaxi project has taken the priority over most of its other business ventures, and investors and the public are more concerned about the deployment of vehicles into the fleet, the operation of a driverless ride-hailing service, Cybercab production and operation, and expansion into new cities.
Tesla analyst realizes one big thing about the stock: deliveries are losing importance
This big narrative switch happened when Tesla indicated it was looking at making transportation a service by launching a ride-hailing service that will operate using Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite. Once unsupervised operation begins, Robotaxi could be a new way for people to get around, all without a driver in their car.
Instead, they will rely on the billions of miles Tesla has accumulated from its real-world fleet.
It is important to note that Tesla remains significant in the automotive sector, and deliveries must continue as they have for years. Tesla still has a strong automotive business and needs to execute further on all facets to keep its investors happy.
Tesla launched the slightly larger Model Y L in China last year, and it became a hit in no time. The longer wheelbase, larger interior, and slightly more forgiving legroom area in the Model Y L became a sought-after possibility for U.S. buyers, who have been begging the company for a larger SUV.
Now, Tesla needs it more than ever, especially considering the Model X was discontinued alongside its Model S sibling earlier this year. It looks to be more likely than ever, and based on recent reports, it will fall in line with CEO Elon Musk’s prediction that it would arrive in the United States in late 2026.
Recent reports from Forbes and Not a Tesla App both have indicated Tesla plans to bring the Model Y L to the U.S. this year. The reports cite “credible sources,” and an analyst from AutoForecast Solutions named Sam Fiorani stated that the car would enter production later this year.
Fiorani said:
“China, Australia, and India are supplied by the factory in China, which will not supply vehicles to the U.S. Production of the Model Y L is expected to begin in the U.S. in September, which will lead to sales beginning before the end of 2026.”
Production would take place at Gigafactory Texas.
Additionally, a few Model Y L units have been spotted under wraps in the United States, giving more indication that Tesla plans to bring the vehicle to the U.S. When Tesla is close to launching a vehicle in the U.S., it is not uncommon to see these models with the exact car covers that you see below:
Looks like another Tesla Model Y L was spotted in the U.S.! pic.twitter.com/jhsdkcN5Go
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 26, 2026
It makes sense, especially considering Musk hinted the Model Y L would make it to the U.S. in late 2026, but it was up in the air. The CEO said the advent of self-driving might not warrant a larger SUV coming to the U.S. market specifically.
The problem is, consumers do not want to hear that. They love Tesla’s tech, FSD, and other features, but they need more space for growing families. The Model X is gone, and the most anyone can fit in a Tesla right now is seven people in the seven-seat Model Y. That back row is truly only large enough to fit small children comfortably.
Tesla fans have requested a full-size SUV, and the company has made some hints that it could be in the plans.
The Model Y and Model Y L differ noticeably in size, with the Model Y L being a stretched, six-seat variant designed for great interior room. The Standard Model Y measures approximately 4,790mm in length, 1,982 mm in width with the mirrors folded, 1,624mm in height, and 2,890mm in wheel base.
In contrast, the Model Y L extends to be about 4,969–4,976mm long (roughly 179mm or 7 inches longer), stands 1,668mm tall (+44mm), and features a significantly longer 3,040 mm wheelbase (+150mm), while maintaining the same width.
This elongation primarily benefits rear passenger space and enables a 2+2+2 seating layout with captain’s chairs, though it slightly reduces maximum cargo capacity behind the rearmost seats and adds a bit of overall mass and turning radius. The result is a more spacious family hauler that still shares the core footprint and agile character of the original Model Y.
In a major development that will inevitably strengthen Tesla’s dominant position in the American EV market, Polestar has been effectively banned from selling new vehicles in the United States, starting with the 2027 model year.
The U.S. Department of Commerce denied Polestar authorization under the Connected Vehicle Rule, which prohibits vehicles containing certain connected technologies (Cellular, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc.) linked to China or Russia due to national security risks, including potential data collection on American drivers.
🚨 A Tesla competitor goes down
Polestar will no longer sell new vehicles in the United States starting with the 2027 model year.
The U.S. Department of Commerce denied the brand authorization under the Connected Vehicle Rule, which restricts the sale of cars with software and… pic.twitter.com/TrwnQeoiES
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Polestar, which is majority-owned by China’s Geely Holding, could not obtain the required exemption despite producing some models domestically.
Polestar confirmed it will sell off any remaining inventory of the Polestar 3 and Polestar 4 models, while continuing service and warranty support for existing customers. No new models or major refreshes will reach U.S. buyers, and the company is pivoting its growth strategy to Europe, where it already generates the vast majority of its sales.
The outcome removes a direct premium EV competitor that had positioned itself as a stylish, performance-oriented alternative to Tesla’s lineup. The Polestar 2 challenged the Model 3, while the Polestar 3 and 4 targeted segments overlapping with the Model Y and upcoming Tesla offerings. Polestar’s U.S. sales had already been sluggish amid intense competition and slower demand, representing just 6 percent of its global volume in the first quarter of 2026.
While Polestar was not on Tesla’s level in the U.S., it still places a dent in the evergrowing field of Tesla competitors in the country, where it has long dominated EV sales.
Tesla faces none of these hurdles. As a U.S.-founded and U.S.-headquartered company with major manufacturing in Fremont, Austin, and Nevada, Tesla’s vehicles are built with compliant domestic and allied supply chains. Its Full Self-Driving technology, over-the-air software updates, and vertically integrated ecosystem were developed entirely in-house without foreign ownership entanglements that trigger national security reviews, at least in the U.S.
Of course, it did face a similar threat in China a few years back:
Elon Musk responds to reports of Tesla ban among China’s military over security concerns
The Connected Vehicle Rule, first advanced under the prior administration and upheld under the current one, is part of a broader U.S. effort to protect the domestic auto industry and critical technology from Chinese influence. High tariffs on Chinese-made EVs and related restrictions have already reshaped the market. Tesla benefits directly: it avoids these barriers while continuing to lead in U.S. EV sales volume, Supercharger network expansion, and energy storage integration.
By clearing Polestar from the new-vehicle playing field, the policy reduces competitive pressure in the premium and performance EV segments where Tesla has invested billions. American consumers seeking cutting-edge electric vehicles now have one fewer option tied to foreign adversaries — and one clearer path to the market leader that has driven the EV transition from the start.
For Tesla, this is more than regulatory relief. It is a strategic tailwind that reinforces its position as America’s premier EV innovator at a time when domestic manufacturing and technological independence matter most.
Tesla Q2 delivery consensus confirms this long-standing theory
Tesla looks keen to bring larger Model Y L to the U.S.
