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
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
“Rather than spending billions more on large EVs that now have no path to profitability, we are allocating that money into higher returning areas, more trucks and van hybrids, extended range electric vehicles, affordable EVs, and entirely new opportunities like energy storage.”
Ford is canceling the all-electric F-150 Lightning and also announced it would take a $19.5 billion charge as it aims to quickly restructure its strategy regarding electrification efforts, a massive blow for the Detroit-based company that was once one of the most gung-ho on transitioning to EVs.
The announcement comes as the writing on the wall seemed to get bolder and more identifiable. Ford was bleeding money in EVs and, although it had a lot of success with the all-electric Lightning, it is aiming to push its efforts elsewhere.
It will also restructure its entire strategy on EVs, and the Lightning is not the only vehicle getting the boot. The T3 pickup, a long-awaited vehicle that was developed in part of a skunkworks program, is also no longer in the company’s plans.
Instead of continuing on with its large EVs, it will now shift its focus to hybrids and “extended-range EVs,” which will have an onboard gasoline engine to increase traveling distance, according to the Wall Street Journal.
“Ford no longer plans to produce select larger electric vehicles where the business case has eroded due to lower-than-expected demand, high costs, and regulatory changes,” the company said in a statement.
🚨 Ford has announced it is discontinuing production of the F-150 Lightning, as it plans to report a charge of $19.5 billion in special items.
The Lightning will still be produced, but instead with a gas generator that will give it over 700 miles of range.
“Ford no longer… pic.twitter.com/ZttZ66SDHL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 15, 2025
While unfortunate, especially because the Lightning was a fantastic electric truck, Ford is ultimately a business, and a business needs to make money.
Ford has lost $13 billion on its EV business since 2023, and company executives are more than aware that they gave it plenty of time to flourish.
Andrew Frick, President of Ford, said:
“Rather than spending billions more on large EVs that now have no path to profitability, we are allocating that money into higher returning areas, more trucks and van hybrids, extended range electric vehicles, affordable EVs, and entirely new opportunities like energy storage.”
CEO Jim Farley also commented on the decision:
“Instead of plowing billions into the future knowing these large EVs will never make money, we are pivoting.”
Farley also said that the company now knows enough about the U.S. market “where we have a lot more certainty in this second inning.”
SpaceX employees, including its CEO Elon Musk, shaded American Airlines on social media this past weekend due to the company’s reported talks with Amazon’s Starlink rival, Leo.
Starlink has been adopted by several airlines, including United Airlines, Qatar Airways, Hawaiian Airlines, WestJet, Air France, airBaltic, and others. It has gained notoriety as an extremely solid, dependable, and reliable option for airline travel, as traditional options frequently cause users to lose connection to the internet.
Many airlines have made the switch, while others continue to mull the options available to them. American Airlines is one of them.
A report from Bloomberg indicates the airline is thinking of going with a Starlink rival owned by Amazon, called Leo. It was previously referred to as Project Kuiper.
American CEO Robert Isom said (via Bloomberg):
“While there’s Starlink, there are other low-Earth-orbit satellite opportunities that we can look at. We’re making sure that American is going to have what our customers need.”
Isom also said American has been in touch with Amazon about installing Leo on its aircraft, but he would not reveal the status of any discussions with the company.
The report caught the attention of Michael Nicolls, the Vice President of Starlink Engineering at SpaceX, who said:
“Only fly on airlines with good connectivity… and only one source of good connectivity at the moment…”
CEO Elon Musk replied to Nicolls by stating that American Airlines risks losing “a lot of customers if their connectivity solution fails.”
American Airlines will lose a lot of customers if their connectivity solution fails
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 14, 2025
There are over 8,000 Starlink satellites in orbit currently, offering internet coverage in over 150 countries and territories globally. SpaceX expands its array of satellites nearly every week with launches from California and Florida, aiming to offer internet access to everyone across the globe.
Currently, the company is focusing on expanding into new markets, such as Africa and Asia.
News
Tesla Model Y Standard stuns in new range test, besting its Premium siblings
Tesla’s newer vehicles have continued to meet or exceed their EPA estimates. This is a drastic change, as every 2018-2023 model year Tesla that Edmunds assessed did not meet its range estimates.
The Tesla Model Y Standard stunned in a new range test performed by automotive media outlet Edmunds, besting all of its Premium siblings that are more expensive and more luxurious in terms of features.
Testing showed the Model Y Standard exceeded its EPA-estimated range rating of 321 miles, as Edmunds said it is the “longest-range Model Y that we’ve ever put on our loop.” In the past, some vehicles have come up short in comparison with EPA ranges; for example, the Model Y’s previous generation vehicle had an EPA-estimated range of 330 miles, but only drove 310.
Additionally, the Launch Series Model Y, the first configuration to be built in the “Juniper” program, landed perfectly on the EPA’s range estimates at 327 miles.
It was also more efficient than Premium offerings, as it utilized just 22.8 kWh to go 100 miles. The Launch Series used 26.8 kWh to travel the same distance.
It is tested using Edmunds’ traditional EV range testing procedure, which follows a strict route of 60 percent city and 40 percent highway driving. The average speed throughout the trip is 40 MPH, and the car is required to stay within 5 MPH of all posted speed limits.
Each car is also put in its most efficient drive setting, and the climate is kept on auto at 72 degrees.
“All of this most accurately represents the real-world driving that owners do day to day,” the publication says.
With this procedure, testing is as consistent as it can get. Of course, there are other factors, like temperature and traffic density. However, one thing is important to note: Tesla’s newer vehicles have continued to meet or exceed their EPA estimates. This is a drastic change, as every 2018-2023 model year Tesla that Edmunds assessed did not meet its range estimates.
Tesla Model Y Standard vs. Tesla Model Y Premium
Tesla’s two Model Y levels both offer a great option for whichever fits your budget. However, when you sit in both cars, you will notice distinct differences between them.
The Premium definitely has a more luxurious feel, while the Standard is stripped of many of the more premium features, like Vegan Leather Interior, acoustic-lined glass, and a better sound system.
You can read our full review of the Model Y Standard below:
Tesla Model Y Standard Full Review: Is it worth the lower price?
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
SpaceX shades airline for seeking contract with Amazon’s Starlink rival
