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.
A Tesla Semi was involved in a fatal collision on U.S. Highway 50 in Dayton, Nevada, on Sunday, June 28, 2026, marking the first known fatal crash involving the electric Class 8 truck. The incident occurred around 7:20 a.m. at the intersection with Traditions Parkway, approximately 40 miles east of Reno and close to Tesla’s Gigafactory Nevada.
According to the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office and the Nevada State Police Highway Patrol, a semi-truck struck two passenger vehicles stopped at a traffic signal. The truck hit the vehicles from behind. Two people were pronounced dead at the scene, and a third person suffered life-threatening injuries and was flown to a hospital, Forbes reported.
Preliminary statements gathered at the scene by the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office suggested the truck driver may have fallen asleep at the wheel. However, the Nevada Highway Patrol, which is leading the investigation, stated that the official cause has not yet been determined.
Additional information is expected to be released early the following week. The truck was seized for evidence as part of the ongoing probe.
Responders at the scene included deputies from the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office, personnel from the Nevada Highway Patrol, Central Lyon County Fire Department, and the Nevada Department of Transportation. The crash led to the temporary closure of U.S. 50 in both directions.
The Tesla Semi is Tesla’s battery-electric heavy-duty truck, produced at the nearby Gigafactory in Nevada. Authorities initially described the vehicle as a semi-truck; its make was subsequently confirmed through reporting and scene identification; an interesting bit of information here, as the Semi is not yet available publicly and many do not know that Tesla builds electric trucks.
The investigation remains active, with no further official details on contributing factors or vehicle systems released as of early July 2026.
This incident highlights ongoing scrutiny of commercial vehicle safety on Nevada highways, particularly involving fatigue. Law enforcement continues to gather evidence and witness statements.
Tesla has expanded its Robotaxi program to Miami, Florida, marking the third state the autonomous ride-hailing platform has made its way to since launching last Summer.
Tesla announced today that the Robotaxi suite would now officially launch rides in a geofence in Miami:
🚨 Tesla’s “Long Weekend” continues with a HUGE announcement regarding Robotaxi!
It’s now in Miami!
Miami joins Austin, Dallas, Houston, and the Bay Area! https://t.co/ujjYjJT3Im pic.twitter.com/yPe1ZdSQIE
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 3, 2026
The first geofence in Miami covers approximately 10 to 14 square miles. The area appears to be focused on western and central Miami, including Miami International Airport (MIA). It also includes popular routes like SR 826 (Palmetto Expressway), US 41 (Tamiami Trail), and connectors such as SR 968, 953, 959, and 972.
This is Tesla’s initial Miami launch zone, smaller and more targeted than some competitors’ areas (for example, Waymo’s initial rollout was broader in eastern neighborhoods). It prioritizes high-traffic, airport-linked routes before wider expansion.
The expansion is a huge signal for Tesla that it is now operating in Florida, a heavy-traffic state with many tourist areas, including Fort Lauderdale, Palm Beach, and the Boynton area, all of which are coastal and will attract perhaps millions of tourists in any given year.
¿Qué lo que Miami?
Robotaxi now available in Miami pic.twitter.com/P1m283seZU
— Tesla Robotaxi (@robotaxi) July 3, 2026
The Tesla Robotaxi network launched last year on June 22, in Austin, Texas, beginning limited commercial operations in that city. It expanded shortly thereafter into the San Francisco Bay Area of California in late July 2025, marking entry into a second state with service covering key areas such as San Francisco, San Jose, and Berkeley.
Full commercial service was achieved in Austin by November 18, 2025, strengthening its presence within Texas before further growth.
In 2026, the network continued expanding across Texas with the addition of Dallas and Houston on April 18, significantly broadening its footprint in the state. This new launch into Miami marks Tesla entering a new state and bringing active locations to include Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio in Texas, and the Bay Area in California.
These sequential expansions have steadily increased the network’s reach across major metropolitan areas in Texas, California, and Florida, focusing on scaling operations city by city and state by state since the initial Austin debut.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has tempered expectations for the company’s humanoid robot Optimus, emphasizing that initial production will ramp up slowly despite recent progress on the manufacturing line. In a July 1 reply on X, Musk responded to optimistic community speculation by stating, “No, Optimus production will be extremely slow at first, as everything is new. This is not like making a car.”
No, Optimus production will be extremely slow at first, as everything is new. This is not like making a car.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 1, 2026
The comment came in response to a post theorizing that Tesla had accelerated Optimus V3 development and might soon unveil an impressive demonstration with multiple units already in meaningful production. Musk’s clarification highlights the fundamental differences between scaling a novel humanoid robot and Tesla’s established automotive operations, which benefit from over a century of refined supply chains, tooling, and processes.
Recent updates show tangible advancement. Musk shared a photo of himself walking the Optimus production line at Fremont, where Tesla is converting former Model S/X manufacturing space. According to Q1 2026 earnings commentary, limited production is slated to begin in late July or August 2026 on this converted line.
Tesla Optimus project fires up as Musk sees production line progress
Musk previously noted that Optimus features roughly 10,000 unique parts, making early output rates “literally impossible to predict” and describing them as “quite slow.” A larger dedicated factory at Giga Texas is under construction, targeting higher-volume production around summer 2027 with long-term annual capacity potentially reaching millions of units.
Some experts point out that pioneering humanoid robotics demands inventing new automation techniques, actuator supply chains, and quality-control standards in real time. Unlike vehicles, where components and assembly methods are mature, every element of Optimus—from dexterous hands to AI-integrated movement—requires fresh engineering solutions. Early units are expected to handle simple factory tasks before expanding to more complex roles.
This cautious approach aligns with Tesla’s history of under-promising and over-delivering on complex technologies. While enthusiasts hoped for rapid deployment, Musk’s message underscores a deliberate strategy: prioritize reliability and iterative improvement over rushed volume.
Analysts suggest the S-curve ramp typical of new manufacturing will eventually accelerate once foundational issues are resolved, positioning Optimus as a potential trillion-dollar product line.
Musk has long envisioned Optimus transforming labor markets, assisting in homes, factories, and hazardous environments. By setting realistic timelines, Tesla aims to build sustainable momentum rather than risk disappointment. As the Fremont line comes online this summer, investors and fans will watch closely for the first production metrics and capability demonstrations.
Tesla Semi involved in first known fatal crash in Nevada
Tesla expands Robotaxi to Florida, marking its third state for autonomy
