News
US Air Force issues RFP for massive rockets, SpaceX’s BFR could be one of them
The US Air Force has released a Request For Proposal (RFP) that hopes to fund the development of multiple heavy-lift rocket prototypes to launch no later than 2021. The USAF specified on October 5 that it wants to partially fund prototype development for at least three promising US-sourced launch vehicles, while maintaining the options to select none of the proposals or even more than three. The purpose of these broad strokes is to provide the Air Force and US military in general redundant access to space by way of “at least two domestic…launch service providers” capable of meeting National Security Space (NSS) requirements.
However unlikely it may seem, NASA experienced this firsthand when two of the vehicles it funded, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Orbital-ATK’s Antares, experienced complete failures within less than a year of each other. Both vehicle failures destroyed supplies intended for the International Space Station and forced NASA to rely on Soyuz missions to fill the gaps created while producing considerable uncertainty for the agency. By funding two or more independent launch vehicles, the Air Force would lessen the impact of such failures, and this assured access is rightly perceived as an invaluable commodity in the military.
-
- .While SpaceX’s own visualizations are gorgeous and thrilling in their own rights, Romax’s interpretation adds an unparalleled level of shock and awe. (SpaceX)
-
- A render of Blue Origin’s larger New Glenn vehicle. (Blue Origin)
-
- The only current render of OATK’s Next Generation Launcher. (OATK)
Several details in the latest proposal make it relatively easy to name the obvious prospective applicants. The payload requirements necessitate heavy lift or even super-heavy lift launch vehicles capable of placing anywhere from 5,000 to 37,500 pounds into a variety of Earth orbits, ranging from low Earth orbit (~500 mi) to direct transfer geostationary orbits (~19,200 mi). This narrows the field considerably, pushing out all smaller-scale vehicles. Also telling is a requirement that proposed launch vehicles make use of rocket propulsion systems (RPS) already funded for development by the USAF if at all possible.
Considering the inherently complex and difficult process of developing massive rockets, initial launch dates no later than 2021 (or 2024) likely mean that the vehicles being considered must already be under some level of serious development. This leaves us with four possible options in the US, undoubtedly not a coincidence given the RFP’s explicit goal of facilitating the creation of “at least three…prototypes as early as possible” and “at least two domestic…launch service providers”. These four vehicles are SpaceX’s BFR, Blue Origin’s New Glenn, ULA’s Vulcan, and Orbital-ATK’s NGL, all of which already have tentative inaugural launch dates clustered from 2019 to 2022. Perhaps even more revealing, all four vehicles can be expected to utilize several rocket propulsion systems (rocket engines) already funded by the Air Force, namely SpaceX’s Raptor, Blue Origin’s BE-4 and BE-3U, and Aerojet-Rocketdyne’s AR-1.
While the development of BE-4 and AR-1 have been somewhat veiled, SpaceX’s Raptor engine has publicly made a great deal of progress. As discussed during Elon Musk’s IAC 2017 presentation, the company has conducted an array of successful tests with its subscale Raptor program, to the tune of 42 individual hot-fire tests totaling more than 1,200 seconds. Musk also reported that the only thing preventing tests longer than 100 seconds was the size of the propellant tanks at the test stand, a genuinely impressive accomplishment if true. The sticking point, however, is how much difficulty SpaceX will have as they transfer to full-scale Raptor testing. The subscale Raptors being tested have a reported thrust of 1,000 kN, whereas the new full-scale thrust targets for BFR have settled on 1,700-1,900 kN, considerably smaller than the 3,000 kN figure from 2016 but still nearly a factor of two larger than the test articles SpaceX has had success with. In fact, educated speculation from SpaceX fans suggest that the operational Raptor as shown in 2017 may only need to be about 15% larger than the current test article(s). The pressure the full-size engine operates at will be considerably higher, so SpaceX’s work is not done by any means, but the company’s next-gen rocket propulsion system is arguably far closer to completion than any of its competitors’ offerings.
-
- SpaceX’s subscale Raptor engine has completed more than 1200 seconds of testing in less than two years. (SpaceX)
-
- A subscale version of BE-4 testing staged combustion and nozzle technology. (Blue Origin)
-
- Aerojet-Rocketdyne’s AR-1 preburner conducted its first successful test earlier this year. (AR)
As far as we are publicly aware, SpaceX’s subscale Raptor testing has yet to result in a major failure and has largely been a great success. Blue Origin’s BE-4 is known to have experienced at least one critical failure during hot-fire testing, while AR-1 has not yet begun full engine tests but is well into concrete hardware testing. Blue Origin’ s BE-4 engine and its New Glenn rocket are currently expected to fly for the first time before 2020, with AR’s NGL tentatively planning for a 2021 inaugural flight, assuming the company chooses to continue pursuing its development.
SpaceX has not yet specified when BFR or BFS will first take flight. Raptor is likely to begin full-scale testing relatively soon, and Musk revealed that SpaceX was aiming to begin construction of the first BFR as early as Q2 of 2018. It’s quickly starting to look like the U.S. is about to enter a sort of modern commercial space race and regardless of the outcome, the next several months and years are bound to be tense and exciting for SpaceX, Blue Origin, and the established incumbents as they battle for both public and private contracts.
It is safe to say SpaceX won’t be going for electric rockets anytime soon.
In a characteristically blunt reply on X, SpaceX frontman Elon Musk stated, “Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible,” following reports that MSCI had assigned SpaceX its lowest possible ESG rating of CCC.
The assessment, issued just this past week, coinciding closely with SpaceX’s public market debut, placed the company on par with nations like Russia in sustainability scoring and cited significant risks in environmental, social, and governance areas.
MSCI flagged SpaceX’s exposure to rocket emissions and other operational impacts, alongside governance concerns such as concentrated control by Musk and limited shareholder protections. Musk’s terse comment directly addressed the environmental pillar, underscoring a core physical constraint that ESG frameworks often overlook when evaluating high-thrust industries.
Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 21, 2026
Electric propulsion systems do exist and are widely used in space. Ion thrusters and Hall-effect thrusters accelerate ionized propellant, typically xenon or krypton, using electric fields, achieving very high specific impulse, often exceeding 3,000 seconds compared to roughly 300–450 seconds for chemical rockets.
This efficiency makes them ideal for satellite station-keeping, orbit raising, and deep-space missions where low thrust over long durations is sufficient. SpaceX’s own Starlink satellites employ electric propulsion for these purposes.
However, launching from Earth’s surface demands something entirely different: enormous thrust delivered rapidly to overcome gravity and atmospheric drag. A typical orbital-class booster must generate thrust far exceeding its weight, often in the millions of Newtons within seconds.
Chemical rockets achieve this through exothermic combustion of dense propellants, producing high-mass-flow, high-velocity exhaust. Electric systems, by contrast, expel very small amounts of mass at extremely high speeds. Generating equivalent thrust would require impractical onboard power levels, massive energy storage or generation systems, and prohibitive added mass, rendering the approach infeasible with current or near-term technology.
Musk has previously expressed a similar sentiment, noting a desire for electric orbital rockets while acknowledging the inescapable requirements of Newton’s third law and energy delivery. The distinction is clear: electric propulsion excels once a vehicle is already in space; it cannot replace the high-thrust chemical phase required to reach orbit from the ground.
The episode illustrates broader critiques of ESG ratings. Proponents argue they incentivize better risk management and long-term sustainability. Detractors, including Musk—who has previously called ESG a “scam”—contend that such metrics can penalize essential activities when no practical alternative exists, potentially discouraging innovation in sectors like space access.
Elon Musk dubs the S&P 500 ESG as “outrageous scam” after Tesla gets booted from index
SpaceX has sought to mitigate launch-related impacts through reusability: Falcon 9 boosters have flown more than 30 times in some cases, dramatically lowering the manufacturing and emissions burden per kilogram delivered to orbit. Starship’s design further emphasizes rapid reusability and methane propellant, which can theoretically be produced via sustainable pathways.
Ultimately, Musk’s remark serves as a reminder that certain engineering realities persist regardless of scoring systems. As humanity expands its presence in space for communications, science, and exploration, balancing genuine environmental progress with technological necessity remains a central challenge.
ESG frameworks may evolve, but the fundamental limits of electric launch propulsion are unlikely to change soon.
Tesla just trademarked ‘MEGAPOD’ with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), its latest move in what seems to be a hint that the company is incredibly focused on its AI efforts and storage needs as compute increases.
The application carries serial number 99893717 and lists the applicant as Tesla, Inc., located at 1 Tesla Road, Austin, Texas 78725.
The filing remains in ‘live pending’ status, and it is a new application waiting for assignment to an examining attorney. It has not yet been published or registered.
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD
Summary:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and… pic.twitter.com/3l85DsKadl— Robin (@xdNiBoR) June 19, 2026
According to the official goods and services description in the application, Tesla describes ‘MEGAPOD’ as:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and cooling systems, sold as a unit; self-contained modular computing hardware systems for artificial intelligence workloads; integrated computer hardware platforms for artificial intelligence computing, namely, enclosures containing computer hardware, power distribution hardware, and cooling hardware, sold as a unit; downloadable software for monitoring, managing, optimizing, and regulating modular artificial intelligence computing hardware systems.”
This description specifies complete, self-contained modular units that integrate servers and specialized AI processing hardware with networking components, power distribution, and cooling systems. It also includes associated downloadable software for oversight and optimization of these systems. The language emphasizes hardware sold “as a unit” and enclosures that combine the necessary elements for AI computing workloads.
Tesla has an established history of developing and commercializing modular hardware systems. Its Megapack product line, for example, consists of utility-scale battery energy storage systems designed as containerized units for grid applications. The MEGAPOD filing follows a similar pattern of protecting a name for modular, integrated hardware platforms, this time focused on artificial intelligence computing infrastructure.
This could be an early move, especially as Tesla did not have trademark rights to the word ‘Cybercab,’ the name of its self-driving, ride-hailing-focused vehicle.
Trademark applications of this type allow companies to secure priority rights to a name for defined categories of goods and services. The USPTO examines applications for compliance with legal requirements, including distinctiveness and absence of conflicts with prior marks. If the application proceeds successfully through examination, publication, and any opposition period, it could result in a federal trademark registration providing nationwide protection. This is what Tesla’s obvious intention is with ‘MEGAPOD.’
Public reports and analysis suggest MEGAPOD could represent modular, container-style AI computing pods designed for easy deployment. These would bundle servers, AI accelerators, power systems, and cooling into self-contained units suitable for distributed AI workloads. This approach aligns with Tesla’s announced AI compute strategy.
In March 2026, Elon Musk outlined plans for “Digital Optimus” (also referred to as Macrohard), a joint Tesla-xAI project for AI agents capable of handling complex digital tasks. The plans include running these agents on Tesla’s AI4 hardware in parked vehicles as well as dedicated compute units installed at Supercharger stations, which collectively offer substantial unused electrical capacity.
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
A modular hardware platform like the one described in the ‘MEGAPOD’ filing would support scalable, rapid deployment of such distributed compute resources. It could complement Tesla’s other AI infrastructure efforts, including the Dojo supercomputer used for training models and the development of AI systems for autonomous driving and robotics, by enabling edge or regional AI inference without reliance on traditional centralized data centers.
Investor's Corner
SpaceX is launching a secret spacecraft that could change how things are made in space
SpaceX’s secret disk-shaped Starfall capsule is targeting a market no reentry vehicle has cracked.
SpaceX is targeting Tuesday, June 23 for the first flight of Starfall, a reentry capsule the company has developed almost entirely in private. The Falcon 9 launch window opens at 6:43 a.m. ET from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, with a backup window available the same time on June 24. SpaceX has made no public announcement about the vehicle, only providing launch details. Everything known about it has come through FAA and FCC regulatory filings.
What makes Starfall different starts with its shape. Rather than the traditional cone used by Dragon and every other cargo return capsule in operation, Starfall is a flat disk that measures roughly 10.2 feet (3.1 meters) wide and just 2.5 feet (0.75 meters) tall, and weighing 4,630 pounds (2,100 kg) and capable of returning up to 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms) of payload from orbit. The disk geometry maximizes structural efficiency and payload volume relative to mass, and the heat shield mechanically jettisons just before splashdown, allowing recovery teams to retrieve both the capsule and the shield separately from the Pacific Ocean.
The difference with Starfall from existing competitors, such as Varda Space Industries, which has largely built the orbital manufacturing market and returns heavy payloads per flight is that Starfall’s specification is roughly 30 times more per mission, and is designed to be mass-produced and launched on either Falcon 9 or Starship. That combination of volume and launch access is something no standalone startup can replicate, and it puts SpaceX in direct competition with the companies that currently pay it to reach orbit.
SpaceX to launch military missile tracking satellites through new Space Force contract
The intended market is orbital manufacturing: pharmaceuticals, protein crystals, semiconductors, and advanced optical fiber that physically cannot be produced in the presence of gravity. FAA documents describe Starfall’s long-term purpose as building a “self-sustaining commercial in-space manufacturing market” and as a potential successor to the industrial capabilities of the International Space Station, which is set to retire in the late 2020s. Military rapid global cargo delivery is a parallel application under active discussion with the Pentagon.
The reason some industries seek manufacturing in space comes down to gravity. On Earth, gravity causes materials to settle, separate, and deform during production. In microgravity, those constraints disappear.
SpaceX’s already controls launch access, which means it currently functions as the landlord for every competitor in the orbital manufacturing return space. Starfall converts that landlord position into vertical ownership, and it would no longer just carry other companies’ capsules to orbit, but rather operate the capsule, own the return logistics, and capture the service revenue directly. Viewed alongside Starlink, Colossus, and the xAI merger, Starfall fits a consistent pattern: SpaceX identifying infrastructure layers that others depend on and moving to own them outright. Orbital manufacturing return is the next layer on that list.
If Tuesday’s reentry, parachute sequence, and recovery demonstration goes as planned, the second FAA-approved test flight follows. A successful pair of demos would position SpaceX to begin offering Starfall as a commercial service, likely first to pharmaceutical and materials science customers before scaling toward the military and broader manufacturing segments.
Elon Musk responds to SpaceX’s ESG rating and says its rockets won’t go electric
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD: here’s what it is
