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.
-->
News
Tesla is improving Giga Berlin’s free “Giga Train” service for employees
With this initiative, Tesla aims to boost the number of Gigafactory Berlin employees commuting by rail while keeping the shuttle free for all riders.
Tesla will expand its factory shuttle service in Germany beginning January 4, adding direct rail trips from Berlin Ostbahnhof to Giga Berlin-Brandenburg in Grünheide.
With this initiative, Tesla aims to boost the number of Gigafactory Berlin employees commuting by rail while keeping the shuttle free for all riders.
New shuttle route
As noted in a report from rbb24, the updated service, which will start January 4, will run between the Berlin Ostbahnhof East Station and the Erkner Station at the Gigafactory Berlin complex. Tesla stated that the timetable mirrors shift changes for the facility’s employees, and similar to before, the service will be completely free. The train will offer six direct trips per day as well.
“The service includes six daily trips, which also cover our shift times. The trains will run between Berlin Ostbahnhof (with a stop at Ostkreuz) and Erkner station to the Gigafactory,” Tesla Germany stated.
Even with construction continuing at Fangschleuse and Köpenick stations, the company said the route has been optimized to maintain a predictable 35-minute travel time. The update follows earlier phases of Tesla’s “Giga Train” program, which initially connected Erkner to the factory grounds before expanding to Berlin-Lichtenberg.
-->Tesla pushes for majority rail commuting
Tesla began production at Grünheide in March 2022, and the factory’s workforce has since grown to around 11,500 employees, with an estimated 60% commuting from Berlin. The facility produces the Model Y, Tesla’s best-selling vehicle, for both Germany and other territories.
The company has repeatedly emphasized its goal of having more than half its staff use public transportation rather than cars, positioning the shuttle as a key part of that initiative. In keeping with the factory’s sustainability focus, Tesla continues to allow even non-employees to ride the shuttle free of charge, making it a broader mobility option for the area.
News
Tesla Model 3 and Model Y dominate China’s real-world efficiency tests
The Tesla Model 3 posted 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y followed closely at 21.8 kWh/100 km.
Tesla’s Model 3 and Model Y once again led the field in a new real-world energy-consumption test conducted by China’s Autohome, outperforming numerous rival electric vehicles in controlled conditions.
The results, which placed both Teslas in the top two spots, prompted Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun to acknowledge Tesla’s efficiency advantage while noting that his company’s vehicles will continue refining its own models to close the gap.
Tesla secures top efficiency results
Autohome’s evaluation placed all vehicles under identical conditions, such as a full 375-kg load, cabin temperature fixed at 24°C on automatic climate control, and a steady cruising speed of 120 km/h. In this environment, the Tesla Model 3 posted 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y followed closely at 21.8 kWh/100 km, as noted in a Sina News report.
These figures positioned Tesla’s vehicles firmly at the top of the ranking and highlighted their continued leadership in long-range efficiency. The test also highlighted how drivetrain optimization, software management, and aerodynamic profiles remain key differentiators in high-speed, cold-weather scenarios where many electric cars struggle to maintain low consumption.
Xiaomi’s Lei Jun pledges to continue learning from Tesla
Following the results, Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun noted that the Xiaomi SU7 actually performed well overall but naturally consumed more energy due to its larger C-segment footprint and higher specification. He reiterated that factors such as size and weight contributed to the difference in real-world consumption compared to Tesla. Still, the executive noted that Xiaomi will continue to learn from the veteran EV maker.
“The Xiaomi SU7’s energy consumption performance is also very good; you can take a closer look. The fact that its test results are weaker than Tesla’s is partly due to objective reasons: the Xiaomi SU7 is a C-segment car, larger and with higher specifications, making it heavier and naturally increasing energy consumption. Of course, we will continue to learn from Tesla and further optimize its energy consumption performance!” Lei Jun wrote in a post on Weibo.
-->Lei Jun has repeatedly described Tesla as the global benchmark for EV efficiency, previously stating that Xiaomi may require three to five years to match its leadership. He has also been very supportive of FSD, even testing the system in the United States.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk reveals what will make Optimus’ ridiculous production targets feasible
Musk recent post suggests that Tesla has a plan to attain Optimus’ production goals.
Elon Musk subtly teased Tesla’s strategy to achieve Optimus’ insane production volume targets. The CEO has shared his predictions about Optimus’ volume, and they are so ambitious that one would mistake them for science fiction.
Musk’s recent post on X, however, suggests that Tesla has a plan to attain Optimus’ production goals.
The highest volume product
Elon Musk has been pretty clear about the idea of Optimus being Tesla’s highest-volume product. During the Tesla 2025 Annual Shareholder Meeting, Musk stated that the humanoid robot will see “the fastest production ramp of any product of any large complex manufactured product ever,” starting with a one-million-per-year line at the Fremont Factory.
Following this, Musk stated that Giga Texas will receive a 10 million-per-year unit Optimus line. But even at this level, the Optimus ramp is just beginning, as the production of the humanoid robot will only accelerate from there. At some point, the CEO stated that a Mars location could even have a 100 million-unit-per-year production line, resulting in up to a billion Optimus robots being produced per year.
Self-replication is key
During the weekend, Musk posted a short message that hinted at Tesla’s Optimus strategy. “Optimus will be the Von Neumann probe,” the CEO wrote in his post. This short comment suggests that Tesla will not be relying on traditional production systems to make Optimus. The company probably won’t even hire humans to produce the humanoid robot at one point. Instead, Optimus robots could simply produce other Optimus robots, allowing them to self-replicate.
-->The Von Neumann is a hypothetical self-replicating spacecraft proposed by the mathematician and physicist John von Neumann in the 1940s–1950s. The hypothetical machine in the concept would be able to travel to a new star system or location, land, mine, and extract raw materials from planets, asteroids, and moons as needed, use those materials to manufacture copies of itself, and launch the new copies toward other star systems.
If Optimus could pull off this ambitious target, the humanoid robot would indeed be the highest volume product ever created. It could, as Musk predicted, really change the world.
Tesla is improving Giga Berlin’s free “Giga Train” service for employees
Tesla Model 3 and Model Y dominate China’s real-world efficiency tests
