News
SpaceX, ULA awarded eight more US military launch contracts
The US military has awarded providers SpaceX and the United Launch Alliance (ULA) another eight launch contracts worth a total of $846 million that the companies will be tasked with completing over the next two or so years.
The US Space Systems Command (SSC) announced the decision on May 26th, providing some basic information about which missions were going to which provider. Per a highly unusual National Security Space Launch (NSSL) Phase 2 competition that ULA and SpaceX ultimately won in 2020, all major US military launches scheduled between 2020 and 2024 (at minimum) are to be split 60:40 between the companies, and this latest set of missions – more ‘funded’ than ‘awarded’ – are no different. Curiously, they also appear to indicate less of a cost cap than usual between SpaceX and its lone US competitor.
SpaceNews author Sandra Erwin has done an excellent job collating extra information about the eight launches rewarded. The latest batch continue a bizarre trend of the US military awarding complex, high-performance missions to ULA’s Vulcan Centaur, a rocket that has never flown and is unlikely to debut before 2023. Meanwhile, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket, which is the most flown and most statistically reliable rocket currently in operation, continues to be used primarily for much simpler launches to lower orbits.
With this latest batch, ULA’s Vulcan Centaur rocket was assigned GPS III SV07 (headed to a medium Earth orbit); WGS-11, a geostationary military communications satellite; and USSF-16, USSF-23, and USSF-43, which are classified and unidentified. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket was assigned USSF-124 (headed to low Earth orbit), USSF-62 (a military weather satellite headed to a polar orbit), and SDA Tranche 1 (a set of small communications satellites, some built by SpaceX, headed to a low polar orbit).
According to SpaceNews, ULA was awarded $566 million (~$113 million per launch) and SpaceX was awarded $280 million for its three contracts, meaning that SpaceX is charging an unusually high ~$93 million per Falcon 9 launch. Each of SpaceX’s three missions will almost certainly allow for Falcon 9 booster recovery, making the high cost even more odd.
Through its adherence to a bizarre 60:40 contract split that can only be described as an effort to ensure that ULA – possibly already predetermined to win before the competition began – would receive a lion’s share of contracts, has firmly hitched several near-term carts to a rocket that still hasn’t launched 22 months after its victory. Including a demonstration mission carrying a Moon lander and one or two NASA Cargo Resupply Services (CRS) missions carrying Sierra Nevada Corporation’s Dream Chaser space plane and cargo vehicle, Vulcan Centaur now has at least 11 launches – 10 for the US government – planned in 2023 and 2024.
Blue Origin, a company that has yet to deliver a single flightworthy BE-4 rocket engine to ULA, would need to deliver at least 22 engines over the next two or so years to avoid delaying Vulcan’s manifest. ULA’s existing rockets, Atlas V and Delta IV, each completed four launches in their first two years of service. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 was no different, launching four times in its first 2.5 years of operation. Only time will tell if Vulcan can more than double the early records of its closest rocket siblings.
News
Tesla China January wholesale sales rise 9% year-on-year
Tesla reported January wholesale sales of 69,129 China-made vehicles, as per data released by the China Passenger Car Association.
Tesla China reported January wholesale sales of 69,129 Giga Shanghai-made vehicles, as per data released by the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA). The figure includes both domestic sales and exports from Gigafactory Shanghai.
The total represented a 9.32% increase from January last year but a 28.86% decline from December’s 97,171 units.
China EV market trends
The CPCA estimated that China’s passenger new energy vehicle wholesale volume reached about 900,000 units in January, up 1% year-on-year but down 42% from December. Demand has been pressured by the start-of-year slow season, a 5% additional purchase tax cost, and uncertainty around the transition of vehicle trade-in subsidies, as noted in a report from CNEV Post.
Market leader BYD sold 210,051 NEVs in January, down 30.11% year-on-year and 50.04% month-on-month, as per data released on February 1. Tesla China’s year-over-year growth then is quite interesting, as the company’s vehicles seem to be selling very well despite headwinds in the market.
Tesla China’s strategies
To counter weaker seasonal demand, Tesla China launched a low-interest financing program on January 6, offering up to seven-year terms on select produced vehicles. The move marked the first time an automaker offered financing of that length in the Chinese market.
Several rivals, including Xiaomi, Li Auto, XPeng, and NIO, later introduced similar incentives. Tesla China then further increased promotions on January 26 by reinstating insurance subsidies for the Model 3 sedan. The CPCA is expected to release Tesla’s China retail sales and export breakdown later this month.
News
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works
For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions appeared to be dead in the water after a large amount of speculation late last year that the company would add the user interface seemed to cool down after several weeks of reports.
However, it appears that CarPlay might make its way to Tesla vehicles after all, as a recent report seems to indicate that it is still being worked on by software teams for the company.
The real question is whether it is truly needed or if it is just a want by so many owners that Tesla is listening and deciding to proceed with its development.
Back in November, Bloomberg reported that Tesla was in the process of testing Apple CarPlay within its vehicles, which was a major development considering the company had resisted adopting UIs outside of its own for many years.
Nearly one-third of car buyers considered the lack of CarPlay as a deal-breaker when buying their cars, a study from McKinsey & Co. outlined. This could be a driving decision in Tesla’s inability to abandon the development of CarPlay in its vehicles, especially as it lost a major advantage that appealed to consumers last year: the $7,500 EV tax credit.
Tesla owners propose interesting theory about Apple CarPlay and EV tax credit
Although we saw little to no movement on it since the November speculation, Tesla is now reportedly in the process of still developing the user interface. Mark Gurman, a Bloomberg writer with a weekly newsletter, stated that CarPlay is “still in the works” at Tesla and that more concrete information will be available “soon” regarding its development.
While Tesla already has a very capable and widely accepted user interface, CarPlay would still be an advantage, considering many people have used it in their vehicles for years. Just like smartphones, many people get comfortable with an operating system or style and are resistant to using a new one. This could be a big reason for Tesla attempting to get it in their own cars.
Tesla gets updated “Apple CarPlay” hack that can work on new models
For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.
It holds one distinct advantage over Tesla’s UI in my opinion, and that’s the ability to read and respond to text messages, which is something that is available within a Tesla, but is not as user-friendly.
With that being said, I would still give CarPlay a shot in my Tesla. I didn’t particularly enjoy it in my Bronco Sport, but that was because Ford’s software was a bit laggy with it. If it were as smooth as Tesla’s UI, which I think it would be, it could be a really great addition to the vehicle.
News
Tesla brings closure to Model Y moniker with launch of new trim level
With the launch of a new trim level for the Model Y last night, something almost went unnoticed — the loss of a moniker that Tesla just recently added to a couple of its variants of the all-electric crossover.
Tesla launched the Model Y All-Wheel-Drive last night, competitively priced at $41,990, but void of the luxurious features that are available within the Premium trims.
Upon examination of the car, one thing was missing, and it was noticeable: Tesla dropped the use of the “Standard” moniker to identify its entry-level offerings of the Model Y.
The Standard Model Y vehicles were introduced late last year, primarily to lower the entry price after the U.S. EV tax credit changes were made. Tesla stripped some features like the panoramic glass roof, premium audio, ambient lighting, acoustic-lined glass, and some of the storage.
Last night, it simply switched the configurations away from “Standard” and simply as the Model Y Rear-Wheel-Drive and Model Y All-Wheel-Drive.
There are three plausible reasons for this move, and while it is minor, there must be an answer for why Tesla chose to abandon the name, yet keep the “Premium” in its upper-level offerings.
“Standard” carried a negative connotation in marketing
Words like “Standard” can subtly imply “basic,” “bare-bones,” or “cheap” to consumers, especially when directly contrasted with “Premium” on the configurator or website. Dropping it avoids making the entry-level Model Y feel inferior or low-end, even though it’s designed for affordability.
Tesla likely wanted the base trim to sound neutral and spec-focused (e.g., just “RWD” highlights drivetrain rather than feature level), while “Premium” continues to signal desirable upgrades, encouraging upsells to higher-margin variants.
Simplifying the overall naming structure for less confusion
The initial “Standard vs. Premium” split (plus Performance) created a somewhat clunky hierarchy, especially as Tesla added more variants like Standard Long Range in some markets or the new AWD base.
Removing “Standard” streamlines things to a more straightforward progression (RWD → AWD → Premium RWD/AWD → Performance), making the lineup easier to understand at a glance. This aligns with Tesla’s history of iterative naming tweaks to reduce buyer hesitation.
Elevating brand perception and protecting perceived value
Keeping “Premium” reinforces that the bulk of the Model Y lineup (especially the popular Long Range models) remains a premium product with desirable features like better noise insulation, upgraded interiors, and tech.
Eliminating “Standard” prevents any dilution of the Tesla brand’s upscale image—particularly important in a competitive EV market—while the entry-level variants can quietly exist as accessible “RWD/AWD” options without drawing attention to them being decontented versions.
You can check out the differences between the “Standard” and “Premium” Model Y vehicles below:
@teslarati There are some BIG differences between the Tesla Model Y Standard and Tesla Model Y Premium #tesla #teslamodely ♬ Sia – Xeptemper