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’s new Full Self-Driving pricing strategy will eliminate one recurring complaint that many owners have had in the past: FSD transfers.
In the past, if a Tesla owner purchased the Full Self-Driving suite outright, the company did not allow them to transfer the purchase to a new vehicle, essentially requiring them to buy it all over again, which could obviously get pretty pricey.
This was until Q3 2023, when Tesla allowed a one-time amnesty to transfer Full Self-Driving to a new vehicle, and then again last year.
Tesla is now allowing it to happen again ahead of the February 14th deadline.
The program has given people the opportunity to upgrade to new vehicles with newer Hardware and AI versions, especially those with Hardware 3 who wish to transfer to AI4, without feeling the drastic cost impact of having to buy the $8,000 suite outright on several occasions.
Now, that issue will never be presented again.
Last night, Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced on X that the Full Self-Driving suite would only be available in a subscription platform, which is the other purchase option it currently offers for FSD use, priced at just $99 per month.
Tesla is shifting FSD to a subscription-only model, confirms Elon Musk
Having it available in a subscription-only platform boasts several advantages, including the potential for a tiered system that would potentially offer less expensive options, a pay-per-mile platform, and even coupling the program with other benefits, like Supercharging and vehicle protection programs.
While none of that is confirmed and is purely speculative, the one thing that does appear to be a major advantage is that this will completely eliminate any questions about transferring the Full Self-Driving suite to a new vehicle. This has been a particular point of contention for owners, and it is now completely eliminated, as everyone, apart from those who have purchased the suite on their current vehicle.
Now, everyone will pay month-to-month, and it could make things much easier for those who want to try the suite, justifying it from a financial perspective.
The important thing to note is that Tesla would benefit from a higher take rate, as more drivers using it would result in more data, which would help the company reach its recently-revealed 10 billion-mile threshold to reach an Unsupervised level. It does not cost Tesla anything to run FSD, only to develop it. If it could slice the price significantly, more people would buy it, and more data would be made available.
News
Tesla Model 3 and Model Y dominates U.S. EV market in 2025
The figures were detailed in Kelley Blue Book’s Q4 2025 U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales Report.
Tesla’s Model 3 and Model Y continued to overwhelmingly dominate the United States’ electric vehicle market in 2025. New sales data showed that Tesla’s two mass market cars maintained a commanding segment share, with the Model 3 posting year-to-date growth and the Model Y remaining resilient despite factory shutdowns tied to its refresh.
The figures were detailed in Kelley Blue Book’s Q4 2025 U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales Report.
Model 3 and Model Y are still dominant
According to the report, Tesla delivered an estimated 192,440 Model 3 sedans in the United States in 2025, representing a 1.3% year-to-date increase compared to 2024. The Model 3 alone accounted for 15.9% of all U.S. EV sales, making it one of the highest-volume electric vehicles in the country.
The Model Y was even more dominant. U.S. deliveries of the all-electric crossover reached 357,528 units in 2025, a 4.0% year-to-date decline from the prior year. It should be noted, however, that the drop came during a year that included production shutdowns at Tesla’s Fremont Factory and Gigafactory Texas as the company transitioned to the new Model Y. Even with those disruptions, the Model Y captured an overwhelming 39.5% share of the market, far surpassing any single competitor.
Combined, the Model 3 and Model Y represented more than half of all EVs sold in the United States during 2025, highlighting Tesla’s iron grip on the country’s mass-market EV segment.
Tesla’s challenges in 2025
Tesla’s sustained performance came amid a year of elevated public and political controversy surrounding Elon Musk, whose political activities in the first half of the year ended up fueling a narrative that the CEO’s actions are damaging the automaker’s consumer appeal. However, U.S. sales data suggest that demand for Tesla’s core vehicles has remained remarkably resilient.
Based on Kelley Blue Book’s Q4 2025 U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales Report, Tesla’s most expensive offerings such as the Tesla Cybertruck, Model S, and Model X, all saw steep declines in 2025. This suggests that mainstream EV buyers might have had a price issue with Tesla’s more expensive offerings, not an Elon Musk issue.
Ultimately, despite broader EV market softness, with total U.S. EV sales slipping about 2% year-to-date, Tesla still accounted for 58.9% of all EV deliveries in 2025, according to the report. This means that out of every ten EVs sold in the United States in 2025, more than half of them were Teslas.
News
Tesla Model 3 and Model Y earn Euro NCAP Best in Class safety awards
“The company’s best-selling Model Y proved the gold standard for small SUVs,” Euro NCAP noted.
Tesla won dual categories in the Euro NCAP Best in Class awards, with the Model 3 being named the safest Large Family Car and the Model Y being recognized as the safest Small SUV.
The feat was highlighted by Tesla Europe & Middle East in a post on its official account on social media platform X.
Model 3 and Model Y lead their respective segments
As per a press release from the Euro NCAP, the organization’s Best in Class designation is based on a weighted assessment of four key areas: Adult Occupant, Child Occupant, Vulnerable Road User, and Safety Assist. Only vehicles that achieved a 5-star Euro NCAP rating and were evaluated with standard safety equipment are eligible for the award.
Euro NCAP noted that the updated Tesla Model 3 performed particularly well in Child Occupant protection, while its Safety Assist score reflected Tesla’s ongoing improvements to driver-assistance systems. The Model Y similarly stood out in Child Occupant protection and Safety Assist, reinforcing Tesla’s dual-category win.
“The company’s best-selling Model Y proved the gold standard for small SUVs,” Euro NCAP noted.
Euro NCAP leadership shares insights
Euro NCAP Secretary General Dr. Michiel van Ratingen said the organization’s Best in Class awards are designed to help consumers identify the safest vehicles over the past year.
Van Ratingen noted that 2025 was Euro NCAP’s busiest year to date, with more vehicles tested than ever before, amid a growing variety of electric cars and increasingly sophisticated safety systems. While the Mercedes-Benz CLA ultimately earned the title of Best Performer of 2025, he emphasized that Tesla finished only fractionally behind in the overall rankings.
“It was a close-run competition,” van Ratingen said. “Tesla was only fractionally behind, and new entrants like firefly and Leapmotor show how global competition continues to grow, which can only be a good thing for consumers who value safety as much as style, practicality, driving performance, and running costs from their next car.”
Tesla Full Self-Driving pricing strategy eliminates one recurring complaint
Tesla Model 3 and Model Y dominates U.S. EV market in 2025
