News
ULA set to ship Vulcan rocket to Florida for Moon lander launch
After many years of delays, all the parts of the United Launch Alliance’s next-generation Vulcan Centaur rocket are about to converge on Florida for their first launch.
Unveiled in 2015, ULA has been working on Vulcan Centaur since at least 2014. Following Russia’s first illegal invasion of Ukraine, countries around the world attempted to punish the aggressor mainly through economic sanctions. In the US, those sanctions included bans on the import of most Russian aerospace technologies, including the RD-180 engines that still power ULA’s Atlas V workhorse rocket in 2023. In 2014, ULA announced that it would work with Blue Origin to integrate the startup’s BE-4 engine into a new rocket booster to end its reliance on Russian engines.
More than eight years later, that BE-4 engine is finally ready for flight, and the rest of the first two-stage Vulcan rocket appears to be right behind it.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
Eastward-bound
In a burst of New Year activity, CEO Tory Bruno confirmed that Vulcan Flight 1’s core stage (booster) has been fully assembled, buttoned up, and loaded onto ULA’s transport ship. The aptly named RocketShip will ferry the booster from ULA’s Decatur, Alabama factory to Cape Canaveral, Florida, where it will enter the final stages of launch preparation at the company’s Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS) LC-41 pad.
Simultaneously, ULA has finished proof testing Vulcan’s first Centaur V upper stage, a larger and more advanced version of the Centaur III stage ULA and its predecessors have been flying for decades. Centaur V is almost twice as wide as Centaur III and is designed to hold two and a half times more propellant, enabling significantly higher performance in some scenarios.
Additionally, while ULA has partially abandoned plans for a reusable upper stage called ACES (Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage), some of those improvements may still be added to Centaur V. Compared to Centaur III, Centaur V’s longevity in space will grow from 8 to 12 hours. ULA is also developing a “mission extension kit” that will allow it to operate for multiple months – unprecedented for a rocket stage powered by cryogenic propellant.
Photos taken by a local paper appear to indicate that ULA is shipping one or more payload fairing (nosecone) halves alongside Vulcan’s first flightworthy booster. While unconfirmed, it would make sense for ULA to ship Vulcan’s booster and fairing together. Another tweet from Tory Bruno indicates that ULA intends to ship Vulcan’s booster and upper stage together, increasing the odds that all components will be aboard RocketShip when it departs for Florida.
A New Workhorse
Vulcan Centaur is ultimately designed to fully replace ULA’s existing Delta IV and Atlas V rockets. Building and operating two very different rockets simultaneously is undoubtedly one of the reasons that ULA’s launch costs are so much higher than SpaceX’s, and simplifying to a single production line is one clear way to achieve major cost savings. ULA hopes that the simplest version of Vulcan will eventually cost about $100 million per launch – still far more than SpaceX’s base Falcon 9 price [PDF] but potentially more competitive than Atlas V. That’s unclear, though, as Bruno has previously stated that Atlas V’s launch costs have fallen to about $100 million apiece thanks to unrelated cost savings.
Regardless, Vulcan Centaur will be a capable rocket and its price is close enough to SpaceX’s extremely competitive Falcon 9 for it to be a mostly valid option for launch customers who want diversity or want to avoid SpaceX for less rational reasons. Vulcan has secured more than 70 launch contracts thanks to ULA’s intimate relationship with the US military and Amazon’s reluctance to launch its Project Kuiper internet satellites with the company behind Starlink, a direct competitor.
Fitted with two BE-4 engines, six solid rocket boosters (SRBs), and unknown upgrades, ULA says the most capable version of Vulcan Centaur will be able to launch up to 12.1 tons (26,700 lb) to the Moon, 15.3 tons (33,700 lb) to geostationary transfer orbit (GTO), and 27.2 tons (60,000 lb) to low Earth orbit (LEO). To high orbits, the most capable Vulcan variant will fairly competitive with SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket. To low orbits, it will generally match or slightly exceed the performance of an expendable Falcon 9, but likely for a much higher price. By every measure, the simplest and cheapest Vulcan variant is significantly less capable than even a partially reusable Falcon 9 and will likely cost 50-100% more.
Moon or bust
Indicating ULA’s confidence in the unflown rocket, the main target of Vulcan’s first launch is the Moon. Vulcan Flight 1 will carry two main payloads: the first two Amazon Kuiper satellite prototypes and Pittsburgh startup Astrobotic’s first Peregrine Moon lander. After deploying both Kuiper satellites in low Earth orbit, Centaur V will fire up again and attempt to send the 1.3-ton (~2850 lb) Peregrine lander directly to the Moon – also known as a trans-lunar injection (TLI) burn. Developed as part of NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program, Peregrine will be tasked with entering orbit around the Moon and eventually landing up to 70-90 kilograms (150-200 lb) of payload on the lunar surface.
The first Peregrine Moon lander is fully assembled and currently in the middle of extensive integrated testing. If successful, ULA CEO Tory Bruno says that Vulcan will likely be ready to launch sometime in Q1 2023, though Q2 2023 is more likely.
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’
