News
NASA asks SpaceX to decide the fate of ‘Dragon XL’ lunar cargo spacecraft
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Tesla Cybertruck is significantly different from traditional pickups on the market in a lot of ways. However, one feature that was recently modified with its interior was a highly requested characteristic that is present in other trucks, but was void from Cybertruck.
Tesla went with a five-seat configuration with Cybertruck: two in the front and three in the back. The spacious interior is matched with plenty of storage, especially up front, as a pass-through, center console, and other storage options, but some Tesla fans wanted something different: bench seating.
Bench seating is popular in many full-size pickups and allows three passengers to sit up front. The middle seat is usually accompanied by a fold-down storage unit with cupholders.
Tesla decided to opt for no bench seating up front, despite the fact that it equipped bench seating in the unveiling in 2019. Interior photos from the unveiling event from nearly six-and-a-half years ago show Tesla had originally planned to have a six-seat configuration.
This was adjusted after the company refined the design:
(Tesla Cybertruck interior configuration in 2019)
Despite Tesla abandoning this design, it does not mean owners were willing to accept it. One owner decided to modify their Tesla Cybertruck interior to equip that third seat between the driver’s and passenger’s thrones.
The fit is snug, and while it looks great, it is important to remember that this does not abide byregulations, as it would require an airbag to be technically legal. Please do not do this at home with your own Cybertruck:
-
- Credit: @blueskykites
-
- Credit: @blueskykites
-
- Credit: @blueskykites
The Cybertruck is a popular vehicle in terms of publicity, but its sales have been underwhelming since first delivered to customers back in 2023. It’s hard to believe it’s been out for two-and-a-half years, but despite this, Tesla has not been able to come through on its extensive order sheet.
This is mostly due to price, as Cybertruck was simply not as affordable as Tesla originally planned. Its three configurations were initially priced at $39,990, $49,990, and $69,990. At release, Cybertruck was priced above $100,000.
This priced out many of those who had placed orders, which is the main reason Cybertruck has not lived up to its expectations in terms of sales. The adjustments to the specific features, like the removal of the bench seat, likely did not impact sales as much as pricing did.
This modification shows some creativity by Tesla owners, but also shows that the Cybertruck could always be the subject of a potential refresh to include some of these features. Tesla routinely adjusts its vehicle designs every few years, so maybe the Cybertruck could get something like this if it chooses to refresh its all-electric pickup.
Elon Musk
Tesla CEO Elon Musk drops massive bomb about Cybercab
“And there is so much to this car that is not obvious on the surface,” Musk said.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk dropped a massive bomb about the Cybercab, which is the company’s fully autonomous ride-hailing vehicle that will enter production later this year.
The Cybercab was unveiled back in October 2024 at the company’s “We, Robot” event in Los Angeles, and is among the major catalysts for the company’s growth in the coming years. It is expected to push Tesla into a major growth phase, especially as the automaker is transitioning into more of an AI and Robotics company than anything else.
The Cybercab will enable completely autonomous ride-hailing for Tesla, and although its other vehicles will also be capable of this technology, the Cybercab is slightly different. It will have no steering wheel or pedals, and will allow two occupants to travel from Point A to Point B with zero responsibilities within the car.
Tesla shares epic 2025 recap video, confirms start of Cybercab production
Details on the Cybercab are pretty face value at this point: we know Tesla is enabling 1-2 passengers to ride in it at a time, and this strategy was based on statistics that show most ride-hailing trips have no more than two occupants. It will also have in-vehicle entertainment options accessible from the center touchscreen.
It will also have wireless charging capabilities, which were displayed at “We, Robot,” and there could be more features that will be highly beneficial to riders, offering a full-fledged autonomous experience.
Musk dropped a big hint that there is much more to the Cybercab than what we know, as a post on X said that “there is so much to this car that is not obvious on the surface.”
And there is so much to this car that is not obvious on the surface
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 2, 2026
As the Cybercab is expected to enter production later this year, Tesla is surely going to include a handful of things they have not yet revealed to the public.
Musk seems to be indicating that some of the features will make it even more groundbreaking, and the idea is to enable a truly autonomous experience from start to finish for riders. Everything from climate control to emergency systems, and more, should be included with the car.
It seems more likely than not that Tesla will make the Cybercab its smartest vehicle so far, as if its current lineup is not already extremely intelligent, user-friendly, and intuitive.
Investor's Corner
Tesla Q4 delivery numbers are better than they initially look: analyst
The Deepwater Asset Management Managing Partner shared his thoughts in a post on his website.
Longtime Tesla analyst and Deepwater Asset Management Managing Partner Gene Munster has shared his insights on Tesla’s Q4 2025 deliveries. As per the analyst, Tesla’s numbers are actually better than they first appear.
Munster shared his thoughts in a post on his website.
Normalized December Deliveries
Munster noted that Tesla delivered 418k vehicles in the fourth quarter of 2025, slightly below Street expectations of 420k but above the whisper number of 415k. Tesla’s reported 16% year-over-year decline, compared to +7% in September, is largely distorted by the timing of the tax credit expiration, which pulled forward demand.
“Taking a step back, we believe September deliveries pulled forward approximately 55k units that would have otherwise occurred in December or March. For simplicity, we assume the entire pull-forward impacted the December quarter. Under this assumption, September growth would have been down ~5% absent the 55k pull-forward, a Deepwater estimate tied to the credit’s expiration.
“For December deliveries to have declined ~5% year over year would imply total deliveries of roughly 470k. Subtracting the 55k units pulled into September results in an implied December delivery figure of approximately 415k. The reported 418k suggests that, when normalizing for the tax credit timing, quarter-over-quarter growth has been consistently down ~5%. Importantly, this ~5% decline represents an improvement from the ~13% declines seen in both the March and June 2025 quarters.“
Tesla’s United States market share
Munster also estimated that Q4 as a whole might very well show a notable improvement in Tesla’s market share in the United States.
“Over the past couple of years, based on data from Cox Automotive, Tesla has been losing U.S. EV market share, declining to just under 50%. Based on data for October and November, Cox estimates that total U.S. EV sales were down approximately 35%, compared to Tesla’s just reported down 16% for the full quarter. For the first two months of the quarter, Cox reported Tesla market share of roughly a 65% share, up from under 50% in the September quarter.
“While this data excludes December, the quarter as a whole is likely to show a material improvement in Tesla’s U.S. EV market share.“
Tesla Cybertruck undergoes interior mod that many owners wanted
Tesla CEO Elon Musk drops massive bomb about Cybercab
