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.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner in Los Angeles dominated the company’s global usage rankings after just one year, proving the concept is more than just a one-off novelty location that will fade away.
The performance could incite the company to build more locations, something that CEO Elon Musk has hinted at for some time.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner delivered 21.2 GWh of energy in its first year of operation, the company’s head of Charging, Max de Zegher, revealed on X. Of the top 10 most utilized Supercharger locations in Tesla’s global infrastructure, the Diner in Los Angeles was the most used by drivers, and it wasn’t particularly close:
Tesla Diner opened exactly 1 year ago. Inspiring that futuristic places like this exist.
It’s our highest usage Supercharger in the world: 21.2 GWh delivered in a year, 1.6k sessions/day.
Top 10 Superchargers by energy delivered: https://t.co/9YvJ8lw696 pic.twitter.com/koB3AUJHws
— Max (@MdeZegher) July 21, 2026
On its launch day one year ago, nobody was too sure what the Tesla Diner would be about. It seemed like an interesting concept, and considering it had been in the works for years, it was a highly anticipated launch that many were looking forward to.
Based on its success, we could see additional Diners with Superchargers built throughout the United States, and potentially beyond. Musk has said on several occasions that the company would be willing to bring the Diner idea to more markets.
Tesla makes major change at Supercharger Diner amid epic demand
Of the markets that Musk has mentioned, both Palo Alto and Austin have come to be perceived as ideal selections. However, there are no concrete plans as of now to build new Supercharger Diners anywhere; the location on Santa Monica Boulevard will remain the exclusive spot to pick up Tesla-inspired eats, at least for the time being.
Tesla short sellers won big following the company’s massive fall on Wall Street after it reported subpar Earnings on Wednesday.
Tesla short sellers collected about $4.12 billion in single-day profits on Thursday, according to Bloomberg. Shares fell as much as 15 percent during Thursday’s session. It closed as one of the worst days for Tesla on Wall Street in the past three years.
Investors sold off the stock after Tesla said it would aggressively direct its spending toward AI and its Optimus robot project. The company had record revenues, which were driven by one of the strongest quarters in terms of vehicle deliveries in company history.
However, it missed EPS estimates by reporting just $0.33, a far cry from the $0.53 analysts expected.
S3 Partners reported that about 3 percent of Tesla’s outstanding stock is sold short. Managing Director at S3, Ihor Dusaniwsky, provided the short seller’s potential profit, as well as another figure: shorts have likely had paper gains of $8.92 billion this year, as Tesla shares are down 30 percent in 2026.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla has burned short sellers many times in the past, but the company’s latest Earnings Call was a chance for those skeptics to taste some payback. Although the company gave some very transparent information regarding future projects, the rollout of Robotaxi, Optimus, and Semi, many investors took their profits on Thursday.
Notable short sellers like Michael Burry have been transparent about their skepticism around Tesla shares. Burry just revealed three weeks ago that he had opened up a new short on the stock, stating he shorted Tesla shares at $416.22. “Happy it jumped back to this level,” he said in a blog post.
At the time of publication, Tesla shares were down about 3 percent and the stock was trading at $309.92.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner probably just secured more locations
Tesla short sellers win big after shares fall after earnings
