News
SpaceX, ULA win multibillion-dollar military launch contract years in the making
Ending a process that began almost two years ago, the US Air Force (now Space Force) has selected SpaceX and ULA to be the recipients of a multibillion-dollar series of launch contracts that stretch into the late 2020s.
Known as the National Security Space Launch Phase 2 Launch Services Acquisition (LSA), the US Air Force publicly began the initiative in Q4 2018. In May 2019, the LSA process was opened to bidders and the military ultimately received serious proposals from SpaceX, the United Launch Alliance (ULA), Northrop Grumman, and Blue Origin.
While the latter three companies proposed their respective next-generation rockets – still in development – to complete at least a dozen military launches from 2022 to 2027, SpaceX offered up Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. As of April 2020, Falcon 9 officially usurped ULA’s Atlas V rocket to become the United States’ most prolific operational rocket. While ULA has technically included Atlas V as a backup option in its NSSL Phase 2 bid, the company’s primary launch vehicle is Vulcan Centaur, scheduled to fly for the first time no earlier than July 2021.
As a result, failing to award SpaceX at least one of the two NSSL LSA Phase 2 slots – split 60:40 – would have almost assuredly made a farce of the US military competition. The real question, then, was who would win the other award, and whether the US military would shock the industry with a final decision more technical than political. As previously discussed on Teslarati, the fact that four separate companies submitted serious bids for Phase 2 gave the US military a significant opportunity.
“For dubious reasons, the US Air Force (USAF) has structured the NSSL Phase 2 acquisition in such a way that – despite there being four possible competitors – only two will be awarded contracts at its conclusion. The roughly ~34 launch contracts up for grabs would be split 60:40 between the two victors, leaving two competitors completely empty handed.”
Teslarati.com — August 14th, 2019
Despite repeated petitions by Blue Origin and the attempted intervention of lawmakers in Congress, the US military remained ardently against awarding Phase 2 launch contracts to more than two providers throughout the competition. Barring a successful protest from snubbed bidders Northrop Grumman and/or Blue Origin, it appears that the military ultimately won the battle, selecting two providers.
Instead of awarding even just a handful of the 34 launch contracts up for grabs to Northrop Grumman, the US Space Force is all but guaranteeing that the company’s Omega rocket will die in the cradle without an immediate slew of additional military contracts. There’s a chance that NSSL Phase 1 LSA funding will continue, likely giving NG the money it needs to complete Omega’s development, but that’s far from guaranteed.
Funded entirely out of Jeff Bezos’ pocket, Blue Origin’s ambitious New Glenn reusable rocket is more insulated from a lack of US military contracts and the company could also continue to receive several hundred million dollars as part of an LSA Phase 1 award. For Blue Origin, already set on entering New Glenn into the commercial launch market, military funding could ensure that the company does the extra work needed to certify the rocket and its production facilities for military launches.
Down the road, that means that the US Air Force, Space Force, or National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) could all feasibly award Blue Origin or Northrop Grumman launch contracts outside the 34 Phase 2 missions without having to start a development and certification process that can take a year or more from scratch.
Regardless of the missed opportunities, the NSSL LSA Phase 2 contract is a major win for SpaceX and guarantees the company’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets some 13-14 military launch contracts over a five-year period. For ULA, the victory is likely a massive relief, given that the company’s next-generation (expendable) Vulcan Centaur rocket has next to no chance of sustaining itself with commercial launch contracts. Much like Atlas V in the last decade of the rocket’s life and Delta IV over most of its two-decade career, ULA’s Vulcan rocket will continue the trend of relying almost exclusively on US military contracts.
This time around, however, the US military’s preferential treatment of ULA is nakedly obvious. At almost every turn, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets can provide the same launch services as ULA for anywhere from 20-50% less. For the few missions (direct to geostationary) where ULA’s Atlas V, Delta IV, and Vulcan rockets might actually have a step up over SpaceX, the US could have easily awarded ULA the smaller 40% share or even split that 40% share with Blue Origin or Northrop Grumman, giving SpaceX the lion’s share and likely saving hundreds of millions of dollars – if not $1B+ – over the next seven years.
Instead, business (more or less) as usual will continue for at least another decade as the US military functionally subsidizes ULA’s existence by prioritizing a more expensive rocket to achieve the same outcome. The first LSA Phase 2 launches are currently scheduled to begin no earlier than (NET) 2022.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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’
