Connect with us

News

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

Published

4 years ago

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.

Related Topics:

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

Investor's Corner

Lucid denies rumors of bankruptcy after over 40% stock drop

Published

11 hours ago

on

July 14, 2026

By

Credit: Lucid

Electric vehicle maker Lucid Group has denied rumors of an imminent bankruptcy after a report from this morning sent the stock on a dramatic drop on Wall Street, seeing losses of more than 40 percent during trading hours.

Lucid’s Director of Communications, Nick Twork, responded to the report from Eletric-Vehicles.com, which stated the company’s restructuring advisor, AlixPartners, was asked to review two decisions: taking Lucid shares private or filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

The report also claims AlixPartners told the Lucid board to “concentrate on Gravity production while improving its quality, and to temporarily hold back the Lucid Air, the sedan that has defined the company since its launch.”

Twork said:

Shares rebounded after the response to the report, halving its losses as the trading day neared 3 p.m. Eastern.

Lucid has struggled to get its sales off the ground and into more respectable numbers, but the company is in its early years, when things are hard to begin with. It is also backed by several notable investors, including the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF), which has nearly limitless money and likely would not ditch an investment of this size so soon.

Lucid shares were down just 14 percent at the time of publication, a far cry from the 55 percent its losses topped out at during the day.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla owner attempts resale of Model S Signature Edition for over $260k

Published

15 hours ago

on

July 14, 2026

By

Credit: Tesla

A Tesla owner who purchased a Model S Signature Edition, one of the final 250 units of the all-electric flagship vehicle that the company discontinued earlier this year, is attempting to sell the car despite a no-resale clause that prohibits reselling for the first year.

The car is being sold by J&S Autohaus in Ewing, New Jersey, and is priced at $260,490, well above the $159,420 that Tesla sold it for earlier this year.

To those who do not know, the Model S Signature was a highly exclusive, limited-run farewell variant of the Model S Plaid that was produced this year to mark the end of production of both the Model S and Model X, Tesla’s two flagship vehicles.

Limited to just 250 units with invite-only sales, it serves as a collector’s item celebrating the legacy of the Model S, which helped pioneer Tesla’s electric vehicle success since its 2012 launch.

It bundles top-tier performance with bespoke cosmetic and luxury upgrades, plus Tesla’s Luxe Package. Here’s what the Model S Signature has over the typical Model S Plaid:

  • Exclusive Exterior – Unique Garnet Red Paint, matching door handles, gold Tesla “T” badges upfront, gold Plaid and Signature badging at the rear.
  • Premium Interior – White Alcantara upholstery with gold piping/accents, gold Plaid seat badges, Signature-marked door sills, individually numbered dashboard plaque, gold puddle lights, special interior lighting sequence, and a custom Signature key fob.
  • Performance Upgrades – Carbon-ceramic brakes with gold calipers
  • Bundled Luxe Package – Full Self-Driving (Supervised), four years of Premium Connectivity, free lifetime Supercharging
  • Performance Metrics – ~1,020 horsepower, sub-2-second 0-60 MPH, ~390-mile range

Tesla quickly introduced a No Resale Agreement for the Signature Editions of the Model S and Model X, which would penalize the seller for “the amount of $50,000 or the value received as consideration for the sale or transfer, whichever is greater.”

The company continues:

“If you sell or otherwise transfer the ownership of your Model S or Model X, the remainder of the Recommended Maintenance, Wheel and Tire Protection Plan, and Windshield Protection Plan will transfer automatically to the buyer. The Full Self-Driving (Supervised), Free Supercharging and Premium Connectivity will not transfer with the vehicle and will terminate once the ownership of the Model S or Model X is transferred.”

Tesla will likely come after the seller, especially as it has been about two months since Tesla launched deliveries.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Early Impressions: new features and early performance

Published

18 hours ago

on

July 14, 2026

By

Credit: TESLARATI

Tesla rolled out Full Self-Driving (Supervised) v14.3.5 yesterday, and about fifty miles of driving on the new version has given me enough time to highlight what seems to be strong about the release and what is not.

Additionally, Tesla has added a few new features with this specific update, which we’ll highlight as well.

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Performance

The new update is business as usual. Things seem to be running completely normal and necessary, but there are a few things that we’ve seemed to pick up on based on our own experience with v14.3.5, as well as what other users are seeing.

Initially, it seems to be more aware of its surroundings, making moves that are incredibly courteous to other drives and operating just a tad more reserved than what the suite might have done previously.

We had two instances where it showed this, the first being FSD needing to pass a Flagger Force vehicle that was placing down signage for the day. Their work truck was right at the front corner of a right-hand turn; typically where most cars travel when they take that turn.

FSD v14.3.5 recognized this, slowed down, and took the turn wide with no issues:

Additionally, v14.3.5 backed up for a semi truck that was making a wide turn onto a road my car was on. This is not new, but it seemed to be backing up for courtesy; it didn’t seem completely necessary, but it might have put some peace of mind in the truck driver’s head:

X user Mike P, also a Pennsylvania native like myself, shared three clips of his Tesla running v14.3.5 performing similar maneuvers. He said:

“FSD turns right into a small alley that only fits one car at a time, sees oncoming car, reverses out of alley to make space, realizes oncoming car is actually parking, re-enters alley.”
Check it out here:

It seems like Speed Profiles are still in need of some tweaking; I am adjusting what Speed Profile I’m in frequently, constantly changing it to get it to travel at the correct speed. This was an issue for me on v14.3.4. It seems like they’re just a little inconsistent.

Terrible Parking

Parking attempts on v14.3.5 were not good. There are quite a few people who have said this:

David Moss, the Tesla owner who has taken multiple coast-to-coast drives without any interventions, also has had some issues with parking early on with v14.3.5:

New Features

Tesla has added the ability to open Camera Preview at any time. Previously, it was only available in Park. Here’s what that feature looks like in action:

Check back later this week for a longer review of what we’ve noticed on Full Self-Driving v14.3.5.

Continue Reading