Connect with us

News

NASA asks SpaceX to decide the fate of ‘Dragon XL’ lunar cargo spacecraft

Published

on

In a new Request For Information (RFI) quietly released by NASA on April Fools’ Day, the space agency appears to have indirectly asked SpaceX to determine the fate of its ‘Dragon XL’ lunar cargo spacecraft.

In March 2020, NASA announced that it had selected SpaceX to deliver the bulk of pressurized and unpressurized cargo it would need to crewed and operate a proposed “Gateway” lunar space station for the first several years of its existence. To accomplish that task, SpaceX would develop a heavily-modified single-use version of its Dragon 2 spacecraft with more propellant storage, more space for cargo, and a range of other design changes.

Known as Dragon XL, that spacecraft would weigh around 15 to 16 tons (~33,000-35,000 lb) at liftoff and likely require a fully or partially expendable Falcon Heavy launch for each mission to the Moon. At the time, it was a fairly balanced and reasonable choice on NASA’s part, leveraging existing investments and experience with SpaceX and Dragon and erecting no major technical hurdles. However, more than two years later, NASA still hasn’t started work on the contract.

That’s why the new April 1st RFI is so intriguing. NASA begins by referencing fine print in the original 2018 Gateway Logistics Services (GLS) Request For Proposals (RFP) that allows the agency to continue receiving and considering new proposals from new and existing providers throughout the program’s planned 17-year lifespan. The agency says its primary motivations are for “information and planning purposes, to request feedback, to promote competition,” and to “[determine] whether to conduct an on-ramp in 2022.” NASA doesn’t specify what exactly that means, but in the context of the rest of the text, it appears that the agency wants to use this RFI to help determine whether or not to finally “on-ramp” its existing Dragon XL contract with SpaceX.

Advertisement

However, the document gets far more interesting and suggestive. Later, NASA spells out what exactly it wants respondents to discuss. In a list of eight main questions, the agency repeatedly hints at a desire to substantially expand the scope of GLS. In question #8, NASA asks if, to help “create a vibrant supply chain in deep space,” respondents would be able to deliver additional cargo to “cislunar orbits [and] the lunar surface” or offer a “dedicated delivery tug capability” or “rapid response delivery service.”

NASA also asks for information on ways prospective GLS providers could “[minimize] the cost impact of…requirement changes,” “reduce operating costs,” and “minimize upfront costs.” In questions #2 and #3, NASA requests details about “new and/or innovative capabilities” that could “significantly increase…cargo delivery capacity” within “the next five years” and states that “offerors exceeding the minimum [cargo] capabilities may be viewed more favorably.”

The Gateway’s first two modules are tentatively working towards a launch on a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket no earlier than late 2024. (NASA)

NASA seems very interested in the potential benefits of alternative deep space cargo transport services that are both cheaper and more capable than Dragon XL. Between the lines, however, the RFI also reads as if it was written directly to SpaceX. The first question is perhaps the most telling: “Is your company interested in on-ramping to the GLS contract to provide Logistics Services as described in the original solicitation?”

SpaceX is the only company with an existing GLS contract that it could “on-ramp to” – a roundabout way to say “start work on”. In the following questions, NASA then repeatedly expresses interest in cargo transport capabilities well beyond the original contract’s requirements and asks about innovative new capabilities that could enable such improvements. NASA even “recognizes” and hints at a willingness to consider unorthodox solutions that, for example, might require “more than one launch” per cargo delivery or help “minimize upfront costs to the Government.” Put simply, while it does open the door for just about any US company to inform NASA about new GLS options, it’s hard not to conclude that this new RFI is at least partially designed to give SpaceX an opportunity to propose Dragon XL alternatives or upgrades.

SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander design as of 2021.

The most obvious option: Starship. Through the Human Landing System (HLS) program, NASA has already committed to investing at least $3 billion to develop a crewed Starship Moon lander and the fully-reusable launch vehicle and refueling infrastructure required to launch and operate it. With barely any modification, the Starship architecture SpaceX and NASA are already developing could be used to deliver dozens of tons of pressurized cargo to cislunar space, lunar orbit, the Gateway, the lunar surface, or just about anywhere else NASA wants. Leveraging that significant investment would also tick almost every box in NASA’s new RFI by drastically reducing upfront and total development costs, helping to stimulate a “vibrant” deep space supply chain, and beating Dragon XL’s cargo capabilities by a factor of 5, 10, or even 20+.

Of course, there are technical challenges and reasons to believe that Starship can’t easily replace Dragon XL. Even Dragon XL risked running into Gateway’s visiting vehicle mass limit of just 14 tons. Starship would likely weigh at least 100-200 tons – more than the entire Gateway. Dragon XL would use non-cryogenic propellant and is baselined to spend at least 6-12 months at a time at the Gateway. NASA has also studied the possibility of using Dragon XL as a crew cabin or bathroom to temporarily relieve Gateway’s extremely cramped habitable volume. Starship’s main engines use cryogenic propellant that wants nothing more than to warm up and boil into gas, making it far harder to keep at the station for months at a time. Those problems are likely solvable, but it’s still worth noting that Starship is not a perfect fit right out of the box.

Advertisement

The RFI could also end with a whimper if SpaceX simply tells NASA that it’s happy to proceed with Dragon XL as proposed. Only time will tell. NASA is planning to hold an industry day on April 20th to better explain the RFI’s goals and wants responses by May 31st, 2022, after which the agency will decide whether or not to follow up with a solicitation or on-ramp Dragon XL.

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Tesla Optimus V3 hand and arm details revealed in new patents

Two new patents, which were coincidentally filed on the same day as the “We, Robot” event back in October 2024, protect Tesla’s mechanically actuated, tendon-driven architecture.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla China

Tesla is planning to soon reveal its latest and greatest version of the Optimus humanoid robot, and a series of new patents for the hands and arms, with the former being, admittedly, one of the most challenging parts of developing the project.

Two new patents, which were coincidentally filed on the same day as the “We, Robot” event back in October 2024, protect Tesla’s mechanically actuated, tendon-driven architecture.

The designs relocate heavy actuators to the forearm, route cables through a sophisticated wrist design, and employ innovative joint assemblies to achieve human-like dexterity while enabling lightweight construction and high-volume manufacturing.

Core Tendon-Driven Hand Architecture

The primary patent, which is titled “Mechanically Actuated Robotic Hand,” details a cable/tendon-driven system.

Actuators are positioned in the forearm rather than the hand. Each finger features four degrees of freedom (DoF), while the wrist adds two more.

Three thin, flexible control cables (tendons) per finger extend from the forearm actuators, pass through the wrist, and connect to the finger segments. Integrated channels within the finger phalanges guide these cables selectively—routing behind some joints and forward of others—to enable independent bending without unintended motion.

Patent diagrams illustrate thick cable bundles emerging from the wrist into the palm and fingers, with labeled pivots and routing guides. This setup closely mirrors human forearm-muscle and tendon anatomy, where most hand control originates proximally.

Advanced Wrist Routing Innovation

One of the standout features is the wrist’s cable transition mechanism. Cables shift from a lateral stack on the forearm side to a vertical stack on the hand side through a specialized transition zone.

This geometry significantly reduces cable stretch, torque, friction, and crosstalk during combined yaw and pitch wrist movements — common failure points in simpler tendon systems that cause imprecise or jerky motion.

By minimizing these issues, the design supports smoother, more reliable multi-axis wrist operation, essential for complex real-world tasks.

Companion Patents on Appendage and Joint Design

Two supporting patents provide additional depth. “Robotic Appendage” covers the overall forearm-to-palm-to-finger assembly, with a palm body movably coupled to the forearm and finger phalanges linked by tensile cables returning to forearm actuators. Tensioning these cables repositions the phalanges precisely.

“Joint Assembly for Robotic Appendage” describes curved contact surfaces on mating structures paired with a composite flexible member. This allows smooth pivoting while maintaining consistent tension, enhancing durability, and simplifying assembly for mass production.

Executive Insights on Hand Development Challenges

Tesla executives have consistently described the hand as the most difficult component of Optimus.

Elon Musk has called it “the majority of the engineering difficulty of the entire robot,” emphasizing that human hands possess roughly 27–28 DoF with an intricate tendon network powered largely by forearm muscles. He has likened the challenge to something “harder than Cybertruck or Model X… somewhere between Model X and Starship.”

Elon Musk shares ridiculous fact about Optimus’ hand demos

In mid-2025, Musk acknowledged that Tesla was “struggling” to finalize the hand and forearm design. By early 2026, he stated that the company had overcome the “hardest” problems, including human-level manual dexterity, real-world AI integration, and volume production scalability.

He estimated the electromechanical hand represents about 60 percent of the overall Optimus challenge, compounded by the lack of an existing supply chain for such precision components.

These patents directly tackle the acknowledged pain points: relocating actuators reduces hand mass and inertia for better speed and efficiency; advanced wrist routing and joint geometry address friction and crosstalk; and simplified, stackable parts visible in the diagrams indicate readiness for high-volume manufacturing.

Implications for Optimus Production and Leadership

Collectively, the patents portray the Optimus v3 hand not as a mere prototype, but as a production-oriented system engineered from first principles.

The 22-DoF architecture, forearm-driven tendons, and crosstalk-minimizing wrist deliver a clear competitive edge in dexterity. They align with Musk’s view that high-volume manufacturing is one of the three critical elements missing from most other humanoid projects.

For Optimus to become the most capable humanoid robot, its hand needed to replicate the useful and applicable design of the human counterpart.

These filings demonstrate that Tesla has transformed years of engineering challenges into patented, elegant solutions — positioning the company strongly in the race toward general-purpose robotics.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla intertwines FSD with in-house Insurance for attractive incentive

Every mile logged under FSD now carries a documented financial value—lower risk, lower cost—based on Tesla’s internal driving data rather than external crash statistics alone.

Published

on

tesla interior operating on full self driving
Credit: TESLARATI

Tesla intertwined its Full Self-Driving (Supervised) suite with its in-house Insurance initiative in an effort to offer an attractive incentive to drivers.

Tesla announced that its new Safety Score 3.0 will automatically have a perfect score of 100 with every mile driven with Full Self-Driving (Supervised) enabled.

The change is designed to boost customers’ average safety scores and deliver noticeably lower monthly premiums.

The move marks the clearest link yet between Tesla’s autonomous driving technology and its proprietary insurance product. Tesla Insurance already relies on real-time vehicle data—such as acceleration, braking, following distance, and speed—to calculate a Safety Score between 0 and 100. Higher scores have long translated into cheaper rates.

Under the previous system, however, even brief manual interventions could drag down the average, frustrating owners who rely heavily on FSD. Version 3.0 eliminates that penalty for supervised autonomous miles, effectively treating FSD-driven segments as the safest possible driving behavior.

The incentive is immediate and financial. Drivers who keep FSD engaged for the majority of their trips will see their overall score rise, potentially shaving hundreds of dollars off annual premiums.

Tesla framed the update as a direct response to customer feedback, many of whom had complained that the old scoring model punished the very behavior it was meant to encourage.

For now, the program applies only to new policies in six states: Indiana, Tennessee, Texas, Arizona, Virginia, and Illinois.

Existing policyholders are not yet included, a point that drew swift questions from the Tesla community. Many owners in other states, including California and Georgia, expressed hope that the benefit would expand nationwide soon.

The announcement arrives as Tesla continues to roll out FSD Supervised updates and push for regulatory approval of more advanced autonomy. By tying insurance savings directly to FSD usage, the company is putting its own actuarial weight behind the technology’s safety claims.

Every mile logged under FSD now carries a documented financial value—lower risk, lower cost—based on Tesla’s internal driving data rather than external crash statistics alone.

Tesla has not disclosed exact premium reductions or the full rollout timeline beyond the six launch states.

Still, the message is clear: the more drivers trust FSD Supervised, the more Tesla Insurance will reward them. In an era when legacy insurers remain cautious about autonomous tech, Tesla is betting that its own data will prove the safest miles are the ones driven hands-free.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla finalizes AI5 chip design, Elon Musk makes bold claim on capability

The Tesla CEO’s words mark a strategic shift. Tesla has long emphasized software-hardware co-design, squeezing maximum performance from every transistor. Musk previously described AI5 as optimized for edge inference in both Robotaxi and Optimus.

Published

on

Credit: Elon Musk | X

Tesla has finalized its chip design for AI5, as Elon Musk confirmed today that the new chip has reached the tape-out stage, the final step before mass production.

But in a brief reply on X, Musk clarified Tesla’s AI hardware roadmap, essentially confirming that the new chip will not be utilized for being “enough to achieve much better than human safety for FSD.”

He said that AI4 is enough to do that.

Instead, the AI5 chip will be focused on Tesla’s big-time projects for the future: Optimus and supercomputer clusters.

Musk thanked TSMC and Samsung for production support, noting that AI5 could become “one of the most produced AI chips ever.” Yet, the key pivot came in his direct answer: vehicles no longer need the bleeding-edge silicon.

Existing AI4 hardware, which is already deployed in hundreds of thousands of HW4-equipped Teslas, delivers safety metrics superior to human drivers for Full Self-Driving. AI5 will instead accelerate Optimus robot development and massive Dojo-style training clusters.

The Tesla CEO’s words mark a strategic shift. Tesla has long emphasized software-hardware co-design, squeezing maximum performance from every transistor. Musk previously described AI5 as optimized for edge inference in both Robotaxi and Optimus.

Now, with AI4 proving sufficient, the company avoids costly retrofits across its fleet while redirecting next-generation compute toward higher-value applications: dexterous robots and exponential training scale.

But is it reasonable to assume AI4 enables unsupervised self-driving? Yes, but with important caveats.

On the hardware side, the claim is credible. Tesla’s FSD stack runs end-to-end neural networks trained on billions of miles of real-world data. Internal safety data reportedly shows AI4-equipped vehicles already outperforming average human drivers by a significant margin in controlled metrics (collision avoidance, reaction time, edge-case handling).

Dual-redundant AI4 chips provide ample headroom for the driving task, leaving bandwidth for future model improvements without new silicon. Musk’s assertion aligns with Tesla’s pattern of over-provisioning compute early, then optimizing ruthlessly, exactly as HW3 once sufficed before HW4 scaled further.

Unsupervised autonomy, meaning Level 4 or higher, is not solely a compute problem. Regulatory approval remains the primary gate.

Even if AI4 achieves “much better than human” safety statistically, agencies like the NHTSA demand exhaustive validation, liability frameworks, and public trust.

Tesla’s supervised FSD has shown rapid gains in recent versions, yet real-world edge cases, like construction zones, emergency vehicles, and adverse weather, still require driver intervention in many jurisdictions. Competitors like Waymo operate limited unsupervised fleets, but only in geofenced areas with extensive mapping. Tesla’s vision-only, fleet-scale approach is more ambitious—and harder to certify globally.

In short, Musk’s post is both pragmatic and bullish. AI4 is likely capable of unsupervised FSD from a technical standpoint. Whether regulators and consumers agree, and how quickly, will determine if Tesla’s bet pays off.

The company’s capital-efficient path keeps existing cars relevant while pouring future compute into robots. If the safety data holds, unsupervised autonomy could arrive sooner than many expect.

Continue Reading