News
SpaceX’s NASA Starship contract safe for now as Blue Origin looks to Congress
Fresh off of a major contract loss during a competition to build NASA’s next crewed Moon lander, Blue Origin has begun aggressively lobbying Congress for the contract NASA didn’t give it.
Thankfully, albeit not at first, a modification has been made to an amendment first proposed by a Senator that has long pursued favorable treatment of Blue Origin that will prevent that legislation – if it passes – from unfairly interrupting the $2.9 billion contract NASA already awarded SpaceX. Announced on April 16th, that award came as a shock, effectively cementing SpaceX’s lunar Starship as both the cheapest and most technically sound proposal to return humanity to the Moon.
As such, although NASA made it clear that it would have selected two of the three competing proposals in a perfect scenario, Congress allocated just a quarter of the Human Landing System (HLS) funding NASA requested, forcing the agency between a rock and a hard place.
NASA repeatedly stated as much both before and after the decision was announced, effectively implying that the agency had learned its lesson with the Commercial Crew Program, in which it had selected two redundant providers – Boeing and SpaceX – only for Congress to systematically underfund the program for years. As a direct result of years of underfunding during an early and formative period, both providers suffered at least 2-3 years of delays, followed by another few years of more organic delays as development matured and new challenges were unsurprisingly uncovered.
Politically, NASA could never say that – effectively biting the hand that (under)feeds – out loud, but it was strongly implied in an official HLS source selection statement released to partially explain why it had chosen SpaceX and SpaceX alone. Almost instantly, both losing competitors – Blue Origin and Dynetics – filed protests with the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) filled with far more bizarre, rambling tangents than coherent legal arguments.
Unless GAO operates on a different standard than the court of law or uncovers something nefarious behind closed doors, a close reading of both partially redacted protests does not bode well for either document’s ability to sway the office’s opinion. Almost as if Blue Origin itself is aware of just how frivolous its protest really is, the company – seemingly backed by partners Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Leidos – wasted no time lobbying Senator Maria Cantwell for an alternate avenue to get what it wants and the government money founder Jeff Bezos feels entitled to.
Cantwell represents Washington State, where both Amazon and Blue Origin are headquartered, and has frequently spoken out in support of – or personally introduced – legislation that would specifically favor Bezos’ space company. On May 12th, Cantwell introduced an amendment that would purportedly “maintain competitiveness” by forcing NASA to select a second HLS winner in addition to SpaceX. Without irony, the authorization bill also demanded that NASA make that decision within a mere 30 days.
Under those conditions, Congress would authorize $10 billion for NASA to develop and demonstrate two landers with an uncrewed and crewed Moon landing each – the original plan. Insultingly, Cantwell tacked that amendment onto an authorization bill, meaning that even if Congress were to pass the bill and the President were to sign it into law, Congress would still have to actually allocate that $10 billion in the form of a more than 10% boost to NASA’s annual budget. Historically, even if Congress were to defy all recent precedent and significantly boost NASA’s 2022 budget, there is no guarantee that that raise would be upheld for four or more years, which it would need to be for the authorization bill to be anything more than a hollow promise.
More recently, a clause was thankfully added clarifying that NASA is not allowed to “modify, terminate, or rescind” SpaceX’s HLS contract to comply with the amendment. Additionally, while still amounting to a legal gun to NASA’s head to force it to into a contract it knows it cant afford, the modification gives NASA 60 days to award a second lander contract. Based on the agency’s own selection statement, Blue Origin’s National Team would almost certainly be the recipient in the event that the bill becomes law, forcing NASA to commit more than $9 billion – instead of $2.9 billion – to the next stage of HLS development with no guarantee that its budget will be raised accordingly.
In the meantime, GAO still has to complete its reviews of Blue Origin and Dynetic’s protests and the White House has to submit its FY2022 budget request and consider adding NASA funding to its proposed jobs and infrastructure package.
News
Tesla Sweden strikers see tax issues over IF Metall union error
To address the issue, IF Metall is encouraging Tesla strikers to return the refunded tax amounts to the union.
A tax correction is set to return two years of income tax payments to Tesla strikers in Sweden, after authorities determined that conflict compensation during a labor dispute should not have been taxed.
The issue is caused by a decision by IF Metall to treat strike compensation for Tesla workers as taxable income during the ongoing labor dispute with Tesla Sweden. That approach has now been reversed following guidance from the Swedish Tax Agency.
Strike compensation is typically tax-free under Sweden’s Income Tax Act, as noted in a report from Dagens Arbete (DA). However, two years ago, IF Metall’s board decided to classify payments to Tesla strikers as taxable.
“We did it to secure SGI, unemployment insurance and public pension. Those were the risks we saw when the strike had already dragged on,” Kent Bursjöö, financial manager at IF Metall, stated.
According to Bursjöö, the union wanted to ensure that members continued to register earned income with the tax agency, protecting benefits tied to income history. At the end of January, however, the Swedish Tax Agency informed the union that compensation during a labor dispute must be tax-free.
“Of course, we knew that it could be tax-free. But we clearly didn’t know that it couldn’t be taxable,” Bursjöö said.
Following discussions with auditors and tax authorities, IF Metall began correcting the payments. As a result, two years of paid income tax will now be credited back to the affected strikers’ tax accounts. The union will also recover previously paid employer contributions.
However, the correction creates secondary effects. Since the payments will now be treated as tax-free, pension contributions tied to those earnings will be withdrawn, potentially affecting state pension accrual and income-based benefits such as parental or sickness benefits.
To address this, IF Metall is encouraging members to return the refunded tax amounts to the union. In exchange, the union plans to pay 18.5% into occupational pensions on their behalf. “Otherwise, it will be a form of overcompensation when they get the tax paid back,” Bursjöö said.
That being said, the IF Metall officer acknowledged that the union’s legal ability to reclaim the funds from its improperly paid Tesla Sweden strikers is limited. “The legal possibilities are probably limited, from what we can see. But we assume that most people see the value of securing their pension,” Bursjöö said.
News
Tesla sues California DMV over Autopilot and FSD advertising ruling
The complaint seeks to remove the agency’s conclusion that Tesla falsely promoted the capabilities of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving.
Tesla has filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in an effort to overturn a prior ruling that found the automaker engaged in false advertising related to its driver-assistance systems.
The complaint seeks to remove the agency’s conclusion that Tesla misled customers about the capabilities of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving.
Tesla’s legal action follows a decision by California’s Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), which concluded that Tesla’s earlier marketing of “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving” violated state law, as noted in a CNBC report.
While the DMV opted not to suspend Tesla’s license after determining the company had updated its marketing language for its advanced driver-assistance systems, Tesla is asking the court to go further and reverse the agency’s conclusion.
In its Feb. 13 complaint, Tesla’s attorneys argued that the DMV “wrongfully and baselessly” labeled the company a “false advertiser” for its Autopilot and FSD systems. The filing argued that regulators failed to demonstrate that consumers were actually misled about the capabilities of Tesla’s systems.
According to Tesla’s complaint, the DMV “never proved consumers in the state had been confused about whether its cars were safe to drive without a human at the wheel.”
Tesla’s legal team further stated: “It was impossible to buy a Tesla equipped with either Autopilot or Full Self-Driving Capability, or to use any of their associated features, without seeing clear and repeated statements that they do not make the vehicle autonomous.”
Tesla now promotes its driver-assistance system as “Full Self-Driving (Supervised),” a name that overemphasizes the need for active driver attention.
Tesla’s autonomous driving program is a pivotal part of the company’s future, with CEO Elon Musk stating that self-driving technology will truly be the solution that will push Tesla into its full potential. The company is currently operating a Robotaxi pilot in Austin and the Bay Area, and the company recently announced that it has produced the first Cybercab from Giga Texas’ production line.
News
Tesla is making two big upgrades to the Model 3, coding shows
According to coding found in the European and Chinese configurators, Tesla is planning to make two big upgrades: Black Headliner offerings and a new 16-inch QHD display, similar to that on the Model Y Performance.
Tesla is making two big upgrades to the Model 3, one of which is widely requested by owners and fans, and another that it has already started to make on some trim levels of other models within the lineup.
The changes appear to be taking effect in the European and Chinese markets, but these are expected to come to the United States based on what Tesla has done with the Model Y.
According to coding found in the European and Chinese configurators, Tesla is planning to make two big upgrades: Black Headliner offerings and a new 16-inch QHD display, similar to that on the Model Y Performance.
These changes in the coding were spotted by X user BERKANT, who shared the findings on the social media platform this morning:
🚨 Model 3 changes spotted in Tesla backend
• New interior code: IN3PB (Interior 3 Premium Black)
• Linked to Alcantara-style black headliner
• Mapped to 2026 Model 3 Performance and Premium VINs• EPC now shows: “Display_16_QHD”
• Multiple 2026 builds marked with… pic.twitter.com/OkDM5EdbTu— BERKANT (@Tesla_NL_TR) February 23, 2026
It appears these new upgrades will roll out with the Model 3 Performance and Tesla’s Premium trim levels of the all-electric sedan.
The changes are welcome. Tesla fans have been requesting that its Model 3 and Model Y offerings receive a black headliner, as even with the black interior options, the headliner is grey.
Tesla recently upgraded Model Y vehicles to this black headliner option, even in the United States, so it seems as if the Model 3 will get the same treatment as it appears to be getting in the Eastern hemisphere.
Tesla has been basically accentuating the Model 3 and Model Y with small upgrades that owners have been wanting, and it has been a focal point of the company’s future plans as it phases out other vehicles like the Model S and Model X.
Additionally, Tesla offered an excellent 0.99% APR last week on the Model 3, hoping to push more units out the door to support a strong Q1 delivery figure at the beginning of April.
Tesla Sweden strikers see tax issues over IF Metall union error
Tesla sues California DMV over Autopilot and FSD advertising ruling
