• SpaceX is phasing out its popular Falcon 9 rocket in favor of its much larger Starship rocket.
• That presents a headache for the US Space Force, POLITICO reports.
• The Space Force has said it's open to eventually using SpaceX's Starship. But there are engineering challenges to overcome.

SpaceX's plans to retire its most popular rocket could jeopardize the United States' ability to launch military satellites — a plight compounded by the Pentagon's dependence on Elon Musk's company.

SpaceX is by far the dominant player in the rocket business and indispensable to the military, dwarfing competitors and accounting for 85% of US launches in 2025. The company is phasing out its Falcon 9 rocket to make way for Starship, a massive new vehicle that SpaceX says will be more efficient and profitable, but which many military satellites aren't designed to fit.

The situation leaves the Space Force in a launch crunch that could affect the military's ability to put its advanced satellites in orbit — and on time. The Pentagon has few alternatives to ferry its equipment, and SpaceX's competitors are likely years away from being able to offer comparable services, reports POLITICO, which — like Business Insider — is part of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network.

"Everybody's having problems, so the Space Force is freaking out a little bit about launch," one former Space Force official, who, like others, was granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive issue.

It also highlights the scale of Musk's company's footprint and the way its business decisions can affect the security of countries including the United States. From the battlefield in Ukraine, where Kyiv is dependent on his Starlink satellite internet service, to cutting-edge artificial intelligence and SpaceX's stranglehold over the pathways to orbit, the world's first trillionaire has a direct hand in the technology that will shape the future.

The Space Force recently tried to book rides for three future satellite missions, but SpaceX declined to offer its services, according to two people familiar with the missions. No other rocket companies offered to take them either, the people said.

A top official at the Space Force downplayed the problem about finding rockets to launch military satellites.

"I wouldn't say there [are] missions I'm worried about being able to fly; I would say we're working through the right way to support those customers," said Brig. Gen. Eric Zarybnisky, the Space Force's acting portfolio acquisition executive for space access.

But Zarybnisky acknowledged growing pains for the government and space industry as demand for rockets increases. "Temporarily, there are some things we'll need to work through, again, as we get new providers flying," he said.

SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment.

The three Space Force missions that didn't find a ride were listed through the National Security Space Launch initiative, or NSSL — the program the service uses to buy rocket launches for its satellites.

Two of the missions were for the Space Development Agency, according to the people. The agency is a branch of the Space Force that's building a network of hundreds of military satellites in low-Earth orbit to provide expanded data services, and missile warning and tracking capabilities.

Details about the third Space Force mission or the precise date for when the Space Force hoped to launch the missions are unclear.

The Space Force has set up a two-lane system for buying its launches, one for less demanding efforts and another for more challenging missions. The hope was that new competitors, such as Rocket Lab, Stoke Space and Relativity, would have an easier time winning contracts for the lower-risk missions. But SpaceX has dominated both lanes with its Falcon rocket, and other providers have been slow to scale up.

The Space Force hopes to use two large rockets from SpaceX competitors to ferry key military satellites into orbit: United Launch Alliance's Vulcan and Blue Origin's New Glenn.

But the Vulcan rocket has struggled to launch consistently and was grounded earlier this year after problems with its solid rocket boosters. Space Force officials have been frustrated by ULA's delays and have moved missions slated for a Vulcan to a SpaceX Falcon.

Meanwhile, Blue Origin's New Glenn program had a devastating setback in May when a rocket exploded on the company's only launchpad in Florida — putting the rocket out of commission likely until next year.

The Space Force has said it's open to eventually using SpaceX's Starship. But there are engineering challenges to overcome because Starship is designed for "flat stack" satellites such as Starlink, while most military satellites are designed for a larger cargo bay. And it's unclear when SpaceX will have the capacity to meet the Pentagon's needs, given its plans to use Starship to build out orbital data-centers and other company priorities.

Other newer companies may have some solutions. Stoke Space, Relativity and Rocket Lab are all working on medium-lift rockets that could help meet the military's needs. But none of those companies has flown successful test flights of their new vehicles, meaning it could take years for them to start launching reliably and frequently.

Zarybnisky remained optimistic that Blue Origin and ULA will work through their technical problems and that new competitors will get up and running in time.

"We're excited to see where those new providers come on board and are able to support the national security base launches that we need," he said.

It's not just the Pentagon feeling the pinch. The move to decommission the Falcon 9 rocket and focus on Starship has sent the entire space industry into panic — especially commercial satellite builders. Some of those firms have been unable to secure Falcon 9 flights after 2028.

The Space Force didn't disclose a set date for when it will fly its last Falcon mission, but Zarybnisky said the service is "actively talking to SpaceX and understanding where the spacecraft programs are, where they are in their build and test cycle. The end date will really be driven by the spacecraft customers that we have launch service contracts for already."

It's unclear what happens after the Space Force runs through that batch of missions. An industry representative warned that the service is unprepared to deal with the crisis coming its way as demand for rockets increases across the space industry.

New rocket companies can't bid on a Space Force launch until they've demonstrated the ability to successfully fly, part of an effort to keep vaporware companies from winning government business. But commercial satellite companies are not restricted in the same way and have been buying up early launches on rockets that haven't even flown yet. This puts more pressure on the Space Force to find future launches.

The launch crunch "probably requires the Space Force to get creative and figure out a way to start buying capacity now before it's too late," the representative said.

Another person familiar with the issue said that Space Force officials need to work with Congress to "fundamentally rethink" how the military acquires launch.

"The Space Force needs to be allowed to reserve multiple launches at a time, much further out into the 2030s, for vehicles that have yet to fly," the person said. "Yes, it's taking on more risk … [but] if it waits for new rockets to prove themselves, it may find they're already sold out."

This story originally appeared on POLITICO and is courtesy of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network, which harnesses the resources of the company's newsrooms to publish ambitious scoops, investigations, interviews, opinion pieces, and analysis. It allows journalists — including those from POLITICO, Business Insider, WELT, BILD, Onet, and Fakt — to collaborate on major stories for an international audience of hundreds of millions across platforms.

• Elon Musk said he's going to give every child in the US a share of his space company, SpaceX.
• That would amount to $10.7 billion, based on SpaceX's stock price and the 72 million US children.
• Governments and billionaires have previously explored ways to spread corporate ownership.

Christmas came early: Elon Musk wants American children to own stock in his space company, SpaceX, next year.

Musk wrote on X around 1 a.m. Monday that he planned to make the donation next year — "the first of many," he said. SpaceX went public this summer.

Giving one share to each of the estimated 72 million US children would cost roughly $10.7 billion at SpaceX's closing price of $147.92 on Friday. Musk's 4.77 billion SpaceX shares were worth about $706 billion at that price, so the gift would reduce his holdings by about 1.5%.

President Donald Trump said on Truth Social on Monday that the shares would be transferred through Trump Accounts, tax-advantaged investment accounts for eligible American kids launched this summer. Under temporary Treasury rules, donated shares generally cannot be sold for five years.

"This is exactly what was envisioned when we created TRUMP ACCOUNTS," Trump said. "Bringing together the GREAT PRIVATE SECTOR, Elon and so many more, to invest in our children."

The White House said nearly 70 million Trump Accounts have been created. Numerous entities have agreed to contribute, including a $6.25 billion donation from billionaire couple Michael and Susan Dell for children in lower-income zip codes. In July, SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell and her husband pledged personal SpaceX shares worth at least $321 million, prioritizing lower-income communities.

The White House, Elon Musk, and SpaceX did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

Musk's plan to give away SpaceX stock raises questions about a new kind of billionaire philanthropy: Gifting people shares in a company instead of cash.

Giving millions of children a stake in SpaceX could give them money to use later in life — but the value is tied to a single company's stock. And history shows that efforts to spread corporate ownership can yield uneven results, from big investment returns to stakes being sold for quick cash.

Here are other historical efforts to share wealth or spread corporate ownership among everyday people.

US Sen. Mike Gravel's 1978 share proposal to Alaskans

In 1978, US Sen. Mike Gravel proposed a statewide ownership corporation that would have given Alaskans, including children, stakes in major energy and other business projects. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was one potential investment.

The idea was that Alaskans would benefit from an economic boom and any rising asset values. However, the plan never materialized.

Alaska instead developed a dividend system that draws on its preexisting Permanent Fund, a state fund established in 1976 with oil royalties that invests in stocks, bonds, and other assets. It began paying annual cash dividends to eligible Alaskans in 1982.

The Permanent Fund still continues today, with a $1,200 dividend distributed to every eligible Alaskan adult and child who applied in 2026. The initial dividend this year was set at $1,000, but recipients also got an extra $200 energy-relief payment.

Eastern Europe's 1990s mass privatization experiment

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, several countries in Central and Eastern Europe used voucher programs to transfer former state-owned companies into the hands of everyday people.

Russia began distributing privatization vouchers to roughly 144 million people in 1992. Russians could use them to buy shares in former state companies, exchange them for shares in investment funds, or sell them for cash.

Czechoslovakia used a similar system, allowing adults to buy low-cost voucher books and use the points to bid on company shares or invest through funds. After Czechoslovakia split in early 1993, the Czech Republic continued its voucher program, while Slovakia canceled its planned second wave of voucher privatization.

Other countries, including Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Baltic states, adopted their own versions of mass privatization.

The programs were designed to rapidly create broad public ownership. But many recipients sold their vouchers for cash amid economic uncertainty, rather than retaining shares.

Evžen Kočenda, a professor at Charles University's Institute of Economic Studies, said that the program was a good idea at the time, given the region's poor economy, but that ultimately, the vouchers were not 'real money,' but rather a financial asset.

Kuwait's 2019 national stock exchange privatization

Kuwait privatized Boursa Kuwait, the operator of its national stock exchange, in 2019, and gave Kuwaitis the opportunity to purchase a stake in the company. The only requirement for registration was that the individual was a Kuwaiti citizen.

Those who participated — about 83,000 of the country's 4.4 million — were initially allocated up to 70 shares each. The initial public offering share price was set at 100 Kuwait fils, roughly $0.33 per share.

Following the privatization, Kuwaiti citizens and private-sector investors together owned roughly 94% of Boursa Kuwait. The Public Institution for Social Security held the remaining 6%.

The Kuwaitis who participated saw a huge return on investment: When Boursa Kuwait debuted on the public market in September 2020, its shares rose more than 10-fold from their 100-fils IPO price, closing at 1,055 fils, or about $3.41.

Today, the privatization is widely regarded as a major success in the investment world, and Boursa Kuwait has described it as the Middle East's only privately owned stock exchange.

Elon Musk’s public endorsement this week of a potential $3.5 trillion merger between SpaceX SPCX.O and Tesla TSLA.O has rattled some insiders involved in the discussions, who worry his comments could invite shareholder scrutiny and delay the process by several weeks, according to a person with direct knowledge of the talks.

The disclosure created a “mess” for the process, as it could lead to questions about how well Tesla shareholders’ interests would be represented, the person said. The concerns reflect similarities some participants see with Tesla’s 2016 acquisition of SolarCity, which sparked years of litigation over Musk’s role in the deal.

Musk, who serves as CEO of both SpaceX and Tesla and owns significant stakes in each company, this week told investors that the two companies were examining what would be the largest corporate transaction in history and revealed that both had formed special committees to evaluate it. The backlash to those remarks is reported here for the first time.

The parties have hired advisers, but discussions are at an early stage, three sources familiar with the matter said. SpaceX approached Tesla in recent weeks, and the companies have been discussing a range of transaction structures, including a SpaceX acquisition of Tesla or a merger under a newly formed holding company, the person familiar with the matter said. They are weighing different forms of merger consideration, including an all-stock deal, the person said. These details of the talks have not been previously reported.

Tesla, SpaceX and Musk did not respond to requests for comment.

SolarCity deal raises legal concerns

In related-party transactions such as a SpaceX-Tesla merger, independent board members typically oversee the process to safeguard public shareholders’ interests.

That issue loomed large in Tesla’s 2016 acquisition of SolarCity, which triggered years of litigation after shareholders alleged the world’s richest man had influenced the process to bail out his investment in the struggling rooftop solar company. At the time, Musk owned roughly 22% of both Tesla and SolarCity, which was founded by his cousins.

Shareholders argued that Musk’s involvement and public support undermined the deal’s fairness. Central to the case were claims that despite his minority stake, Musk was a controlling shareholder of Tesla due to his ties to board members and domineering style.

The Delaware Supreme Court later noted that plaintiffs’ contention of the absence of an independent committee, together with “certain other facts concerning Musk’s involvement in and public support for the transaction,” warranted the finding of unfair dealing.

The courts ultimately upheld the acquisition as fair, though it took several years for the case to be resolved and Tesla directors settled allegations for $60 million.

Musk excluded from merger negotiations

Musk owns nearly a fifth of Tesla and just under half of SpaceX, and analysts have said a merger would give him control of the combined entity. On Tuesday’s call with investors, Musk acknowledged that as a conflicted party he cannot be part of the discussions of the special committees. Advisers are also in contact with his lawyers to ensure Musk is recused from the merger discussions, the source familiar with the talks said.

Eric Talley, a law professor at Columbia University, said a merger could benefit shareholders by eliminating the need for Musk to divide his time between the two companies. He added that any legal challenge may be harder to predict than the SolarCity case because Tesla is now incorporated in Texas rather than Delaware.

“The Texas thing is a wild card. No one knows how Texas deals with cases like this because Texas never dealt with cases like this,” Talley said, noting that Texas has sought to establish itself as a business-friendly alternative to Delaware, and Musk’s comments so far were not necessarily problematic.

Ultimately, he said, litigation risk would hinge on the terms of any transaction.

“Who’s going to get the better side of this deal? And that’s usually what gives rise to litigation,” Talley said.

Public comments could delay historic deal

People involved in the process worry Musk’s public endorsement of the merger and disclosure of talks could intensify investor scrutiny, as interested parties typically avoid expressing views publicly while independent directors evaluate a deal, the source said.

The SolarCity case could become a reference point for investors and courts assessing any future SpaceX-Tesla transaction if advisers fail to fully insulate the special committees from Musk’s influence, the source added.

A tie-up between Tesla and SpaceX would be the biggest deal in history, creating one of the world’s largest industrial and technology groups. It would surpass Musk’s acquisition earlier this year of his artificial intelligence company xAI by SpaceX, which ranks among the largest corporate transactions ever announced.

A deal of this size would also face scrutiny from global regulators, especially due to Tesla’s business in China and SpaceX’s work in US defense and AI.

Musk says ‘there’s a lot of merit’ to potential merger that would require approval of 50% of all Tesla shareholders, but he declined to elaborate

Investors were paying close attention to Tesla’s third-quarter earnings call on Wednesday afternoon, after chief executive Elon Musk floated the idea of merging the car company with his rocket and AI company, SpaceX. But they didn’t glean further information after the company announced there would be no questions on the matter.

“With regard to a potential merger with SpaceX, I think I said everything that should be said yesterday,” Musk, the CEO of both companies, said on Tesla’s earnings call. He repeated a phrase he said on Tuesday: “I feel like I’m tap dancing through a minefield.”