AllYouCanTech

SpaceX Obtains $733 Million in Military Launch Agreements, Outpacing ULA

# SpaceX Secures All Eight Launch Contracts in Recent US Space Force Competition

In a major success for SpaceX, the Space Systems Command of the US Space Force has declared that the private aerospace firm has attained all eight launch contracts in the inaugural round of missions under the new Phase 3 procurement of the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program. These valuable contracts, amounting to $733.5 million, are integral to the US military’s efforts to obtain dependable and cost-efficient launch services for national security operations.

### Overview of the Contracts

The eight launches are divided into two fixed-price “task orders.” The first task order encompasses seven launches for the Space Development Agency (SDA), which is establishing a constellation of missile-detection and data relay satellites in low-Earth orbit (LEO). The second task order is for a solitary mission on behalf of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the US government’s intelligence satellite agency. All launches will take place from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California, with the initial launch projected to occur as soon as late 2025.

### Phase 3 of the National Security Space Launch Program

The Space Force’s Phase 3 procurement is a multi-year project aimed at securing launch services for vital national security missions. This phase is categorized into two lanes: **Lane 1** and **Lane 2**. The task orders granted to SpaceX are situated within **Lane 1**, which is dedicated to less intensive launch profiles targeting low-Earth orbit. These missions often involve smaller payloads and are deemed lower-risk in comparison to Lane 2 missions, which entail more intricate payloads and higher altitudes.

Lt. Col. Douglas Downs, the materiel leader for space launch procurement at Space Systems Command, stated, “We are thrilled to kick off our groundbreaking NSSL Phase 3 Lane 1 initiative with two task orders that bolster crucial NRO and SDA missions. The industry rose to the occasion and succeeded in this competition.”

### The Contest: SpaceX vs. ULA

The bidding for these contracts was confined to two principal competitors: **SpaceX** and **United Launch Alliance (ULA)**. Both entities have a longstanding history of providing launch services to the US government; however, in this instance, SpaceX emerged victorious, obtaining all eight contracts. Each mission is estimated at around $91.7 million, elevating the aggregate contract value to $733.5 million.

While ULA’s newly developed **Vulcan** rocket was eligible for these contracts, SpaceX’s **Falcon 9** ultimately prevailed. The Falcon 9 has established itself as a reliable option for both commercial and government operations, recognized for its dependability and economical pricing. The Vulcan rocket, on the other hand, is still in the process of receiving certification for national security launches, having recently completed its second test flight.

### The Outlook for Lane 1 Missions

The Space Force intends to allocate at least 30 additional Lane 1 missions through 2029. These missions will principally support the Pentagon’s Space Development Agency, which is implementing an extensive network of small satellites intended to identify and track adversary missiles. The SDA’s satellite constellation will be vital for transmitting missile warning information to military units capable of countering these threats.

In June 2024, the Space Force broadened the roster of eligible launch providers for Lane 1 missions by incorporating **Blue Origin** into the selection. However, Blue Origin’s **New Glenn** rocket was excluded from the contracts announced in this phase, as it has not yet achieved its first successful orbital flight. Other companies, including **Rocket Lab**, **Firefly Aerospace**, **Relativity Space**, and **Stoke Space**, are also anticipated to participate in the competition as they advance their launch capabilities.

### Lane 2: The Upcoming Challenge

While Lane 1 concentrates on less strenuous missions, **Lane 2** will encompass more demanding military operations involving typically larger and more costly payloads aimed at elevated orbits. These missions will necessitate rockets that are certified for national security launches, a rigorous certification process involving extensive testing and multiple successful missions.

At present, SpaceX’s **Falcon 9** and **Falcon Heavy** hold certification for these high-stakes missions, and the Space Force is in the process of certifying ULA’s **Vulcan** rocket. Blue Origin’s **New Glenn** is also on track for certification, but it must first complete several successful test flights to qualify for Lane 2 contracts.

### Conclusion

SpaceX’s clean sweep of the initial eight launch contracts in the NSSL Phase 3 procurement highlights the company’s leadership in the space launch sector. Featuring a demonstrated history of reliability and cost-effectiveness, SpaceX remains the preferred provider for both commercial and government missions. Nonetheless, the competitive landscape is far from settled, as ULA, Blue Origin, and other rising contenders are vigorously working to advance and certify their rockets.

“The Fish Fitted with Leg-like Fins for Ambulating and Detecting”

# The Extraordinary Sensory Legs of Sea Robins: Evolutionary Wonders of the Ocean Floor

Evolution has given rise to a variety of peculiar organisms, and among them are the sea robins—fish that not only traverse the seafloor but also employ their leg-like appendages to “taste” for food. These captivating bottom-dwellers have fascinated researchers for years, and new studies have illuminated the remarkable sensory functions of their legs, showcasing a distinct evolutionary adaptation.

## What Are Sea Robins?

Sea robins, part of the family *Triglidae*, are fish that dwell on the ocean floor and can be found in seas globally. They are characterized by their unique pectoral fins, which look like wings, and their “legs”—three transformed fin rays originating from their pectoral fins. These appendages enable sea robins to move along the ocean floor in search of sustenance, but recent findings have shown that some species utilize these legs for more than just movement.

### A Sensory Revelation

An international team of scientists from Harvard University, Stanford University, and the Max Planck Institute has made a notable discovery regarding the legs of the northern sea robin (*Prionotus carolinus*): they function as sensory organs. These legs feature small protrusions known as papillae, akin to taste buds found on a human tongue. These papillae house taste receptors, enabling the fish to sense chemical signals from prey concealed beneath the sand or mud. When a sea robin “tastes” something appealing, it burrows into the seafloor to reveal its next meal.

This revelation was groundbreaking because, although scientists had long theorized about sensory roles for sea robin legs, definitive evidence had remained elusive—until now.

### How Do Sea Robins Taste with Their Legs?

To examine the sensory abilities of sea robin legs, the researchers performed experiments by burying mussels, capsules filled with mussel extract, and capsules containing only seawater. Sea robins consistently unearthed the mussels and mussel extract capsules, disregarding the seawater capsules, thus confirming that their legs could indeed sense chemical indicators from food.

Subsequent tests indicated that the legs of *P. carolinus* also reacted to mechanical stimuli and other food-related chemicals. However, the sensory neurons within the papillae did not respond to chemical signals as was initially anticipated. Instead, the papillae acted like taste buds, housing dense populations of sensory neurons that reacted to mechanical signals, such as the movement of prey underneath the seafloor.

### A Comparison of Two Species

Interestingly, not every sea robin possesses equivalent sensory abilities. When the researchers captured additional sea robins, they observed that another species, *Prionotus evolans*, did not respond to hidden food or extract capsules. This species only targeted prey that was visible on the seafloor. Unlike *P. carolinus*, *P. evolans* does not have the sensory papillae necessary for chemically detecting hidden food. Additionally, the legs of *P. evolans* are more rod-like, whereas those of *P. carolinus* feature a shovel shape, better adapted for digging.

### The Influence of Genetics

The scientists further explored the genetics of *P. carolinus* to unravel the origins of its sensory legs. They discovered that the taste receptor gene *t1r3*, which is typically active in oral taste buds, was significantly active in the legs of *P. carolinus*, especially at the tips of the papillae. This gene likely plays a vital role in the fish’s capacity to taste its prey through its appendages.

To investigate the development of these sensory legs, the team monitored sea robins maturing from eggs. They found that the legs develop from three pectoral fin rays near the abdominal region and gradually detach from the fin as the fish grow. A crucial gene involved in this development is *tbx3a*, a transcription factor essential for the formation of both legs and sensory papillae. When the researchers employed CRISPR-Cas9 to disrupt *tbx3a* in genetically modified sea robins, the fish emerged with fewer or malformed legs, indicating the gene’s critical role in proper leg development.

### Evolutionary Perspectives

The evolution of sensory legs in sea robins exemplifies how organisms can uniquely adapt to their environments. The researchers speculate that the ancestors of sea robins primarily utilized their legs for movement. Over time, these legs likely evolved to incorporate sensory functions, enabling the fish to detect prey on the ocean floor’s surface. In species like *P. carolinus*, which evolved to locate prey buried beneath the sand, the legs further adapted to include taste receptors, allowing them to find concealed sustenance.

The genetic prevalence of sensory legs was validated when the researchers engineered hybrids of sea robin species with and

Judge Rebukes Florida for Suppressing Political Advertisement, Referencing First Amendment Protections

### Florida Threatened TV Stations Over Ad Criticizing State’s Abortion Law: A Legal Battle Over Free Speech

In a recent legal showdown, Florida’s government, spearheaded by Governor Ron DeSantis, sought to silence a political advertisement that took aim at the state’s stringent abortion regulations. The ad, crafted by the advocacy organization Floridians Protecting Freedom, showcases a woman’s account of her experience with abortion following a terminal brain cancer diagnosis. The state’s reaction to this commercial has ignited a fervent discussion regarding the limits of free speech, the government’s role in managing political dialogue, and the ramifications of Florida’s abortion statutes.

#### The Legal Dispute

The saga commenced when the Florida Department of Health, directed by Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, issued legal threats to television stations broadcasting the advertisement, asserting it contained misleading information regarding Florida’s Heartbeat Protection Act. The department contended that the ad inaccurately portrayed the state’s abortion law, which limits abortions beyond the six-week mark, except when the mother’s life is jeopardized.

Conversely, the ad narrates the story of a woman named Caroline, who was diagnosed with stage four brain cancer at 20 weeks into her pregnancy. She articulates that, under the existing law, she would have been unable to procure an abortion, despite the potential risk to her life if she continued the pregnancy. The advertisement endorses a proposed ballot initiative, Amendment 4, aimed at removing abortion restrictions in Florida.

In reaction to the state’s legal threats, Floridians Protecting Freedom initiated a lawsuit against Ladapo and the Department of Health, arguing that the state’s conduct infringed upon their First Amendment rights by trying to censor political expression. The case was presented to US District Judge Mark Walker, who granted a temporary restraining order that halted the state’s attempts to stifle the advertisement.

#### Judge Walker’s Ruling: A Defense of Free Speech

In his decision, Judge Walker delivered a robust condemnation of the state’s actions, highlighting the significance of upholding free speech, especially concerning political dialogue. “To put it plainly for the State of Florida: it’s the First Amendment, stupid,” Walker stated, reinforcing the fundamental right to free speech protected by the US Constitution.

Walker elaborated further, asserting that the state’s efforts to suppress the advertisement constituted a breach of the First Amendment. “Whether it’s a woman’s right to choose, or the right to discuss it, Plaintiff’s stance remains the same—’don’t tread on me,'” he noted. The judge emphasized that the government cannot stifle political expression merely because it opposes the message or deems it inaccurate.

The temporary restraining order prohibits Ladapo and the Department of Health from undertaking any further measures to pressure or intimidate television stations into retracting the advertisement. The order is scheduled to expire on October 29, but a hearing for a preliminary injunction, which could prolong the protection as the case progresses, is set for that same day.

#### The Ballot Measure: Amendment 4

At the core of this legal conflict is Amendment 4, a proposed modification to the Florida Constitution that would uphold the right to abortion prior to fetal viability or when necessary for the patient’s health. The amendment aims to prevent the state from enacting regulations that prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion under these circumstances. However, it would still permit the Legislature to mandate parental notification before a minor obtains an abortion.

Floridians Protecting Freedom, the initiative’s advocate, is promoting the passage of Amendment 4 as a means to protect reproductive rights in Florida. The organization contends that the current abortion laws, particularly the Heartbeat Protection Act, are excessively restrictive and threaten the well-being and lives of women like Caroline.

#### The State’s Response and Claims of False Advertising

In its legal warnings to television stations, the Florida Department of Health claimed that the advertisement was “categorically false” since the state’s abortion regulations do allow exceptions for situations where the woman’s life is in danger. However, Floridians Protecting Freedom countered that the exceptions under the law are too restrictive and would not have applied in Caroline’s scenario.

According to Florida law, abortions after six weeks are permitted only if two physicians affirm that the procedure is vital to save the woman’s life or to avert “substantial and irreversible physical impairment.” Given Caroline’s terminal diagnosis, while an abortion might have prolonged her life, it would not have saved it. Thus, the organization contended, she would not have qualified for an abortion under the current legal framework.

#### Judge Walker’s Criticism of the State’s Censorship Attempts

In his ruling, Judge Walker denounced the state’s endeavor to suppress the advertisement by branding it as false advertising. He remarked that political speech, even if contentious or contested, lies at the heart of the protections offered by the First Amendment. “The government cannot justify its indirect censorship of political expression simply by declaring the disfavored speech to be ‘false,'” Walker asserted.

Amazon Executive Suggests Employees Explore Alternative Opportunities if Dissatisfied with Return-to-Office Policy

# The Legal and Workforce Consequences of Amazon’s Return-to-Office (RTO) Directive

In recent times, the argument regarding remote versus in-office work has escalated, particularly as firms such as Amazon advocate for a comeback to pre-pandemic office standards. Amazon’s latest announcement enforcing a five-day-a-week return to the office (RTO) by 2025 has ignited debate among its employees and raised issues concerning the possible legal and operational ramifications of such initiatives.

## Overview of Amazon’s RTO Directive

In September 2024, Amazon notified its workforce that beginning in 2025, they would be mandated to return to the office full-time, five days a week. At present, Amazon employees are permitted to work remotely two days a week, but this leeway will soon be revoked. In a memo from Amazon CEO Andy Jassy, he indicated that the push for a full-time office presence is rooted in the belief that physical workspaces promote better company culture and improve collaboration. Jassy remarked that “it’s easier for our teammates to learn, model, practice, and strengthen our culture” when they are together in the office.

Nonetheless, this mandate has not been universally accepted. In an all-hands meeting for Amazon Web Services (AWS) in October 2024, AWS CEO Matt Garman acknowledged that some employees may not excel in an office setting. He proposed that those who are unhappy with the RTO mandate might consider opportunities elsewhere. While Garman underscored that his statements were not intended negatively, his comments have led to conjecture that Amazon’s RTO directive could be a tactic to induce voluntary attrition.

## Is RTO a Means to Lower Workforce Numbers?

Amazon’s RTO policy has encountered pushback from workers, many of whom believe that the directive serves as a covert attempt to decrease workforce size without necessitating layoffs. This suspicion isn’t exclusive to Amazon; other organizations, like Dell, have enacted similar RTO policies, prompting employees to question whether the motive is to drive attrition instead of enhancing collaboration.

In July 2023, Amazon started requiring employees to move to their team’s central hub location, cautioning that noncompliance would be regarded as a “voluntary resignation.” This action, in conjunction with the forthcoming RTO directive, has prompted numerous Amazon employees to contemplate leaving the organization. A survey by Blind, an anonymous online community for professionals, indicated that 73% of Amazon employees were considering seeking new employment due to the RTO requirements. Furthermore, 32% of respondents claimed to know someone who had already left due to the policy.

## Legal Risks Associated with RTO as a Means of Employee Departure

While some firms may interpret RTO mandates as a method to reduce workforce numbers without layoffs, legal specialists caution that such tactics could subject employers to considerable legal liabilities. Helen D. (Heidi) Reavis, managing partner at Reavis Page Jump LLP, an employment and media law firm, highlighted the potential legal repercussions of utilizing RTO policies to incentivize resignations.

Reavis noted that if the employees affected by RTO mandates belong disproportionately to protected groups—such as women with children, individuals with disabilities, or older employees—employers might face class-action lawsuits or other group litigation. These lawsuits could contend that RTO policies serve as a pretext for targeting specific worker demographics, rather than being based on valid business necessities.

Additionally, Reavis mentioned that employees might have grounds for breach of contract or breach of implied contract claims, depending on their employment agreement stipulations. For instance, if an employee was hired with the understanding that remote work was an available option, an abrupt shift to mandatory in-office work could be perceived as a breach of the employment contract. Employers must guarantee that their RTO mandates are consistent with their employment policies and handbooks to mitigate potential legal disputes.

## The Effect of RTO on Employee Retention

Even if Amazon’s RTO mandate is not aimed at driving employees away, it is highly probable that it will lead to notable turnover. The Blind survey previously cited revealed that a significant segment of Amazon’s workforce is currently contemplating departure due to the RTO initiative. This pattern is not isolated to Amazon; other organizations that have enacted stringent RTO policies have seen analogous results.

A survey carried out by BambooHR in June 2024 indicated that 25% of C-suite executives and 18% of HR professionals hoped that RTO mandates would trigger voluntary turnover. However, this approach carries risks. The same survey found that 45% of respondents at companies with RTO policies reported losing significant employees as a consequence. Major firms such as Apple, Microsoft, and SpaceX have all noted a marked outflow of senior talent attributable to RTO mandates.

Furthermore, a report from HR platform provider Remote, entitled “2024 Global Workforce Report: Why Global Teams Are Surging,” determined that 73% of hiring leaders had seen employees depart to organizations presenting more

Report: US Believes TSMC Assisted Huawei in Evading Export Restrictions

**US Investigating Possible TSMC Assistance to Huawei in AI Chip Production**

The U.S. Department of Commerce is reportedly conducting an investigation into Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) amid concerns that the chip manufacturer may have breached U.S. export regulations by aiding Huawei Technologies in the creation of artificial intelligence (AI) or smartphone chips. This inquiry, still in its preliminary phase, arises during a period of increased friction between the U.S. and China, particularly concerning technological supremacy in fields such as AI and 5G.

### Backdrop of the Investigation

The U.S. has historically viewed Huawei as a national security threat, especially following claims that the Chinese tech company contravened U.S. export regulations by offering financial services to Iran. Consequently, Huawei has faced a range of restrictions, including a prohibition on accessing American-made 5G chips vital for AI applications. To further limit China’s access to cutting-edge technology, especially in the semiconductor and AI realms, the U.S. government has also instituted tariffs and additional measures.

This ongoing investigation focuses on the possibility that TSMC, the world’s largest contract chip manufacturing entity, may have evaded these limitations by directly or indirectly supplying Huawei with chips. According to sources cited by *The Information*, U.S. officials are looking into whether TSMC could have sold chips to intermediary firms that subsequently placed orders on behalf of Huawei, thereby bypassing U.S. export laws.

### TSMC’s Position

TSMC has refuted any allegations of misconduct, asserting that it operates as a “law-abiding company” dedicated to adhering to all legal requirements and regulations, including U.S. export controls. The company has highlighted that it has an export system in place to oversee and guarantee compliance with these regulations. Furthermore, TSMC has stated its intention to fully cooperate with the U.S. investigation, pledging to take immediate corrective measures if any issues are identified.

Nevertheless, the U.S. Department of Commerce has not yet officially acknowledged the investigation and has declined to provide commentary regarding the situation when contacted by multiple media outlets.

### Implications for TSMC

The stakes are significant for TSMC. Should the inquiry substantiate claims that the company assisted Huawei in obtaining U.S.-made chips, TSMC could encounter considerable repercussions, including hefty fines or restrictions on its access to U.S. technology. Such outcomes could have extensive repercussions not only for TSMC but also for its clients, which include major American companies such as Apple, Nvidia, and Qualcomm.

For instance, in a comparable case from last year, Seagate faced a $300 million fine for shipping 7 million disk drives to Huawei in violation of U.S. export controls. Given TSMC’s larger role in the global semiconductor supply chain, it could face even harsher penalties if proven guilty of similar infractions.

### Effect on the CHIPS Act and U.S. Tech Policy

The investigation also brings into question the future of U.S. collaboration with TSMC, especially regarding the Biden administration’s CHIPS Act aimed at strengthening domestic semiconductor production. In April 2024, TSMC was awarded $6.6 billion in CHIPS Act funding to facilitate investment in advanced semiconductor manufacturing facilities in Phoenix, Arizona. These facilities are anticipated to be essential in ensuring a stable domestic supply of chips for AI, consumer electronics, and other advanced-tech industries.

If TSMC is found to have contravened U.S. export regulations, its access to CHIPS Act funding could be threatened. The Department of Commerce has established stringent criteria to prevent CHIPS dollars from benefiting foreign nations of concern, including China. Violating these stipulations could lead to the reclamation of CHIPS Act funds, although such an outcome seems improbable given TSMC’s critical role in U.S. tech strategy.

### Wider Consequences for U.S.-China Tech Relations

The inquiry into TSMC represents the latest chapter in the ongoing technology competition between the U.S. and China. As both nations strive for supremacy in key technologies such as AI and 5G, the U.S. has increasingly aimed to restrict China’s access to sophisticated technology. Beyond export controls, the U.S. has implemented tariffs and passed legislation intended to prevent China from obtaining American-made AI and AI-enabling technologies.

Huawei, in particular, has been a central figure in U.S. endeavors to limit China’s technological progression. The launch of the Mate 60 smartphone by the company, featuring advanced 5G chips, raised concerns in the U.S. due to uncertainties regarding how Huawei managed to produce such chips despite restrictions on its access to U.S. technology.

If the U.S. investigation confirms that TSMC had a role in aiding Huawei in developing these chips, it could prompt even more stringent measures to restrict China’s access to advanced semiconductors. Such actions could escalate tensions between the two nations and disrupt global supply chains, especially within the semiconductor sector.