News
SpaceX’s upgraded Starship set for test flight despite sore NASA contract losers
Within the last week, while SpaceX has been diligently working to ready an upgraded Starship prototype for its first launch, former competitors Blue Origin and Dynetics – both of which recently lost a historic NASA Moon lander contract to SpaceX – have filed “protests” and forced the space agency to freeze work (and funds).
That means that NASA is now legally unable to use funds or resources related to its Human Lander System (HLS) program or the $2.9 billion contract it awarded SpaceX on April 16th to develop a variant of Starship to return humanity to the Moon. However, just like SpaceX has already spent a great deal of its own time and money on Starship development and – more recently – a rapid-fire series of launches, the company appears to have no intention of letting sore losers hamper its rocket factory or test campaign.
Instead, on the same two days Blue Origin and Dynetics loudly filed official protests with the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), SpaceX performed two back-to-back static fire tests with a Starship prototype and Raptor engines outfitted with “hundreds of improvements.” Technical challenges and unsavory weather conditions forced SpaceX to call off a launch planned sometime last week but the company now appears to be on track to launch Starship prototype SN15 as early as Tuesday, May 4th.
In principle, the ability for companies to protest US government contracting decisions is a necessity and (nominally) a net good but it can easily be misused – and often in damaging ways. In the case of Blue Origin and Dynetics, it’s difficult not to perceive both protests as examples of the latter.
Blue Origin effectively disagrees with every single major point made and conclusion drawn by NASA’s Source Selection Authority (Kathy Lueders) and a separate panel of experts – often to the point that the company is strongly implying that it understands NASA’s contracting process better than the space agency itself. Blue Origin partners Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin are both partially or fully responsible for several of their own catastrophic acquisition boondoggles (F-35, Orion, SLS, James Webb Space Telescope, etc.) and are part of the military-industrial complex primarily responsible for turning US military and aerospace procurement into the quagmire of political interests, quasi-monopolies, and loopholes it is today.
The primary argument is generally shared by both protestors. In essence, Dynetics [p. 23; PDF] and Blue Origin [PDF] believe that it was unfair or improper for NASA to select just a single provider from the three companies or groups that competed. They argue that downselecting to one provider in lieu of budget shortfalls changed the procurement process and competition so much that NASA should have effectively called it quits and restarted the entire five-month process. Blue Origin and Dynetics also both imply that they were somehow blindsided by NASA’s concerns about a Congressional funding shortfall.
In reality, NASA could scarcely have been clearer that it was exceptionally sensitive about HLS funding and extremely motivated to attempt to return humans to the Moon by 2024 with or without the full support of Congress – albeit in fewer words. As Lueders herself noted in the HLS Option A award selection statement, the solicitation Blue, Dynetics, and SpaceX responded to states – word for word – that “the overall number of awards will be dependent upon funding availability and evaluation results.”
Additionally, implications that NASA somehow blindsided offerors with its lack of funding are woefully ignorant at best and consciously disingenuous at worse. Anyone with even the slightest awareness of the history of large-scale NASA programs would know that the space agency’s budget is all but exclusively determined by Congress each year and liable to change just as frequently if political winds shift. Short of blackmailing members of Congress or wistfully hoping that other avenues of legal political influence and partnership actually lead to desired funding and priorities appearing in appropriations legislation, NASA knows the future of its budget about as well as anyone else with access to the internet and a rudimentary awareness of history and current events.
It became clear that Congress was likely to drastically underfund NASA’s HLS program as early as November 2020 – weeks before HLS Option A proposals were due. The latest appropriations bill was passed on January 3rd, 2021, providing NASA $850 million of the ~$3.4 billion it requested for HLS. Historically, NASA’s experience with the Commercial Crew Program – public knowledge available to anyone – likely made it clear to the agency that it could not trust Congress to fund its priorities in good faith when half a decade of drastic underfunding ultimately delayed the critical program by several years. That damage was done by merely halving NASA Commercial Crew budget request from 2010 to 2013, whereas Congress had already set itself on a path to provide barely a quarter of the HLS funds NASA asked for in the weeks before Moon lander proposals were due.
Ultimately, the protests filed by Blue Origin and Dynetics are packed to the brim with petty axe-grinding, attempts to paint SpaceX in a negative light, and a general lack of indication that either company is operating in good faith. Instead, their protests appear all but guaranteed to fail while simultaneously forcing NASA to freeze HLS work and delay related disbursements for up to 100 days. Given that SpaceX is now technically working to design, build, qualify, and fly an uncrewed Lunar Starship prototype by 2023 and a crewed demonstration landing by 2024, 100 days represents a full 7-10% of the time that’s available to complete that extraordinary task.
Ironically, the protests made by Blue Origin and Dynetics have already helped demonstrate why NASA’s decision – especially in light of unambiguous budgetary restrictions – to sole-source its HLS Moon lander contract to SpaceX was an astute one. Had a victorious Blue Origin or Dynetics been in a similar position to SpaceX, it’s almost impossible to imagine either team continuing work to a significant degree in lieu of NASA funding or direction. SpaceX, on the other hand, hasn’t missed a beat and looks set to continue Starship development, production, and testing around the clock regardless of NASA’s capacity to help.
In other words, with a little luck, the actual schedule impact of a maximum 100-day work and funding freeze should be a tiny fraction of what it could have been if NASA had selected an HLS provider more interested in profit margins and stock buybacks than creating a sustainable path for humanity’s expansion beyond Earth.
SpaceX has updated its target for the thirteenth integrated flight test of Starship, aiming for as early as Thursday, July 23. The 90-minute launch window opens at 5:45 p.m. CT from the company’s Starbase facility in South Texas.
The target flight was initially rescheduled for today, but SpaceX pushed it back again.
This latest adjustment follows an aborted attempt earlier in the week and reflects the iterative, rapid-development approach that has defined the Starship program. With the vehicle already stacked and ground teams making final preparations, the mission represents another step toward proving the full reusability of the world’s most powerful rocket system.
Now targeting to launch Starship’s thirteenth flight test as early as Thursday, July 23 → https://t.co/Rp7VwBzpWx pic.twitter.com/Y0YNzfc5zk
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) July 19, 2026
The original launch attempt on July 16 was scrubbed at T-0 when several Raptor engines on the Super Heavy booster failed to ignite properly. The automatic abort system triggered just as the engines began their startup sequence, preventing liftoff.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk confirmed that some engines did not start as expected, prompting the decision to replace two Raptors on Booster 20 to ensure reliability. The issue occurred despite a successful full-duration static fire earlier, highlighting the complexities of coordinating 33 engines under flight conditions.
This cautious approach underscores SpaceX’s commitment to safety amid an aggressive test cadence.
Flight 13 builds directly on the lessons from Flight 12 in May 2026. The Super Heavy booster’s primary goals include a successful liftoff, ascent, stage separation, boostback burn, and controlled splashdown in the Gulf of America.
Hardware and software modifications address the off-nominal flip and boostback burn problems from the prior flight, where propellant slosh and engine relight issues led to an uncontrolled impact.
For the Starship upper stage, objectives include deploying 20 operational Starlink V3 satellites, the first real payload of this type, performing a single Raptor engine relight in space, and executing a controlled entry, descent, and splashdown in the Indian Ocean. Propulsion upgrades aim to improve engine-out capability after one vacuum Raptor was lost on Flight 12.
Additional test elements focus on heat shield performance. Six satellites carry cameras to image the tiles during flight, while white-painted tiles and upgraded attachments on flaps and the aft skirt will gather data for future reusability.
The FAA completed its mishap investigation into Flight 12 earlier this month, clearing the regulatory path.
This suborbital mission, the second with V3 vehicles, advances Starship toward operational missions, including potential crewed flights and support for NASA’s Artemis program. Success would mark significant progress in rapid reusability and satellite deployment from the massive system.
Elon Musk dismissed reports claiming SpaceX had placed a massive order for NVIDIA GPUs worth $52 billion. The denial came hours after Taiwanese media, citing unnamed industry sources, reported that SpaceX planned to acquire approximately 13,000 AI server racks, equating to roughly 1 million GB300 GPUs, from Foxconn.
Each rack was estimated at around $4 million, with deliveries potentially starting in late 2025.
The story suggested this would mark SpaceX’s first major foray into Foxconn-manufactured NVIDIA hardware, breaking from suppliers like Supermicro and Dell. Musk responded bluntly on X:
This is fake news
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 20, 2026
Despite the denial, the rumored scale aligns with SpaceX’s explosive growth in AI infrastructure. NVIDIA’s GB300 (successor to the GB200 NVL) racks deliver unprecedented performance for large-scale training and inference. A $52 billion commitment would dwarf most corporate AI budgets and provide the compute muscle needed for frontier models.
SpaceX already operates gigawatt-scale terrestrial clusters like Colossus in Memphis, Tennessee, and has monetized them aggressively through leasing deals.
SpaceX’s newest Starmind will make earth data centers obsolete
Major customers include Anthropic (paying ~$1.25 billion monthly for 220,000+ GPUs), Google (~$920 million monthly for 110,000 GPUs), and Reflection AI. These arrangements are projected to generate tens of billions in annual revenue, far outpacing traditional SpaceX businesses.
Such an investment would fuel internal AI efforts, particularly Grok models under the integrated SpaceXAI division, while supporting ambitious orbital data center plans. SpaceX envisions launching thousands of AI-optimized satellites powered by solar energy and cooled in space, bypassing terrestrial power and land constraints.
This “Starmind” constellation could position the company as a leader in space-based computing.
SpaceX as an Emerging AI Powerhouse
Once primarily known for reusable rockets and Starlink satellite internet, SpaceX has transformed into a multifaceted AI player.
The 2026 acquisition of xAI integrated Grok development directly into the company. Starlink’s low-latency global network complements massive compute clusters, enabling efficient data flow for training and serving AI models.
Musk has long argued that AI scaling demands solutions beyond Earth, citing things like real estate and electricity limits on the ground.
While the Foxconn deal may not be in the cards, SpaceX’s trajectory is continuing on the path of blending aerospace engineering with hyperscale AI to dominate both launches and intelligence infrastructure.
Elon Musk shed more details on the upcoming improvements to Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite, specifically one that the CEO mentioned last week, which should help owners see fewer interventions.
Last week, Musk hinted that one major improvement that Tesla planned to roll out to Full Self-Driving users was the car’s ability “to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”
Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences
This small bit of detail was linked to a post from Tesla community member Whole Mars, who said that FSD’s tendency to exit the carpool lane, a feature that owners can turn on but at times the car will disregard.
It sounds like, based on Musk’s two responses since that original post, it is safe to say the things FSD will start to remember are wide-ranging. However, it seems the biggest differences will be noticed with parking performance, which Musk continues to mention.
Highway Lane Preferences
The initial post Musk mentioned, with these new remembered preferences soon to arrive for Tesla owners everywhere, was the Carpool/Express Lane.
Tesla has a setting in the FSD menu that lets drivers enable HOV Lane travel. However, the car won’t always stay in that suggested or preferred lane.
The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 18, 2026
Some owners have also complained of left lane camping, an illegal maneuver in at least some states. Cruising in the passing lane has resulted in tickets for some, as it is illegal in over 30 states in the U.S.
Tesla did not confirm if these preferences would also be included in new FSD behaviors, but it would certainly help move the company toward fewer interventions.
Parking Preferences
This seems to be the real focus of the entire operation, as Musk stated several weeks ago that parking was overwhelmingly the most frequent reason for interventions.
The major issue with parking is not necessarily the parking “performance,” as FSD is generally good at parking. It definitely has its issues; we’ve recorded plenty of them, including this one as recent as last week:
Yeah it seems like FSD v14.3.5 is having some issues with parking early on https://t.co/Bw5ULfVmDq pic.twitter.com/RHdpjOEpIo
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 13, 2026
However, the changes coming are more about preferences, meaning where you park and how your car enters the spot, either pulling in or backing in. Owners have also reported that pulling into the correct driveway is a relatively rare thing for FSD, something else that needs to be confronted.
Musk basically confirmed that all of these things would be part of Tesla’s plan to address driver preferences with FSD:
Yes
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 20, 2026
It’s obvious there is something big coming with FSD, and the company’s focus seems to be eliminating any intervention that would be related to preferences. This is probably the biggest bottleneck between Tesla and being fully autonomous. Critical interventions do occur, but they are much less frequent.
The only time a driver should be taking over is because of a critical intervention; this seems to be the goal of Tesla right now.
This all seems to be a priority as Tesla continues to move closer to the prospect of unsupervised driving.
SpaceX adjusts Starship Flight 13 test launch target date once again
Elon Musk debunks $52 billion SpaceX-NVIDIA GPU deal
