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 is shipping a new feature that silences neighborhood Supercharger complaints, prompting drivers to be aware of those who might be impacted by excessive noise nearby.
Tesla is now rolling out a new location-specific “Quiet Charging Zone” that prompts drivers to lower their vehicle’s audio volume in an effort to make things comfortable for everyone, even those who are not Tesla owners.
Another beautiful example of Tesla’s vertical integration.
Neighbors were complaining about noise and commotion at this new Supercharger in San Francisco.
So Tesla pushed a software update that asks people to turn their volume down, with a button to do it in 1 tap. Smart. pic.twitter.com/8esuliuzwr
— Whole Mars Catalog (@wholemars) May 20, 2026
This is an impactful feature that will resolve many complaints from those who are living nearby.
When a Tesla plugs into this Supercharger and its media volume exceeds a certain level, the vehicle’s central touchscreen displays a polite notification: “Could you turn the volume down? Please be mindful of our neighbors.”
Accompanying the message is a prominent “Lower” button. One tap automatically reduces the audio to a more considerate level. Physical “Quiet Charging Zone” signs posted at the station reinforce the request, creating a cohesive experience that blends digital nudges with on-site reminders.
This feature highlights Tesla’s unique advantages. Unlike traditional automakers, Tesla owns both the vehicle software and the charging infrastructure.
Engineers can detect the precise location via GPS, trigger context-aware prompts, and deploy changes fleet-wide in hours or days without recalls or dealer visits. No public release notes highlighted the change, suggesting it was a quiet, site-specific rollout designed to test effectiveness before potential expansion.
These are usually referred to as “Undocumented Changes.”
Beyond immediate noise reduction, the initiative underscores Tesla’s customer- and community-focused ethos. While EVs are inherently quieter than combustion-engine vehicles, auxiliary behaviors like loud infotainment can still create friction in dense cities. Tesla’s rapid response turns potential conflict into an opportunity to demonstrate thoughtful engineering.
As Tesla expands its Supercharger network, which is now open to other EVs in many places, features like location-based quiet modes could become standard tools for harmonious integration into neighborhoods.
Ferrari unveiled its Luce EV over the weekend, and so far, its reception has been an absolute disaster, gathering negative reactions from a wide variety of people, including former executives.
The stock even took a hit on its first day of trading following the unveiling, dropping over 7 percent at one point.
Ferrari moving to EVs from its traditional V12s and mid-engine sports cars is a massive move. It was designed by Sir Jony Ive and Marc Newsom’s LoveFrom studio, which is known for design work for tech giant Apple. “Luce” means “light” in Italian, so Ferrari drew inspiration for its name from its sleek design, characterized by a smooth, sculpted body with rounded edges.
But its reception has been far from what Ferrari expected. The overall design has drawn some harsh criticism since its reveal, and it is simply stunning that such a storied company, with a rich history of beautiful, powerful cars has revealed a design that many are not a fan of.
Ferrari unveiled its all-electric Luce over the weekend, and it has truly gotten some attention…not for the right reasons.
From an Italian legend that has built some beautiful cars in its history, this almost feels like a ploy to inevitably cancel its electric program. pic.twitter.com/rczSSb3pJx
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 26, 2026
Responses to the design were widely negative, with some saying, “Enzo is rolling in his grave,” and “This looks like a Nissan LEAF with a bad body kit.”
Former Ferrari Chairman Luca di Montezemolo said:
“If I said what I really think, I’d harm Ferrari. We’re risking the destruction of a myth, I’m very sorry about that. I hope they at least remove the Prancing Horse from that car.”
🚨 Luca di Montezemolo former Ferrari chairman reacts to the new electric Ferrari Luce:
“I’ve seen the project has already been delayed more than two years. I don’t like commenting from the stands—when I was in the game, it annoyed me when people did that. I think for now the… https://t.co/TzIDxFzHso
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 26, 2026
Ferrari has scaled back EV commitments in the past, primarily in response to weaker-than-expected demand for its electric powertrains.
Priced at roughly $640,000 in the U.S., it is tough to see how this car will ever truly live up to the massive expectations many had for it. It almost feels like, to a certain extent, Ferrari is looking for a way to get out of building EVs.
Tesla unveiled a juicy new detail on the Roadster, its long-delayed supercar project, and additionally hinted at a new unveiling timeline, as it appears yet another month will pass without seeing the capabilities of the vehicle.
Vice President of Vehicle Engineering at Tesla, Lars Moravy, revealed on the Ride the Lightning podcast that the Roadster will be built at Gigafactory Texas, adding that “you’ll start to see a lot of things unfold in the next months.”
While we get a good detail on the plant of manufacture, we also get another letdown, as it appears the unveiling event will not take place in May, as CEO Elon Musk hinted during the Earnings Call.
Franz von Holzhausen revealed in the Ride the Lightning podcast that the Tesla Roadster will be built at Gigafactory Texas https://t.co/t9Bu9k824Q pic.twitter.com/TT01IWJaFD
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 24, 2026
The Roadster was first unveiled back in 2017, alongside the Semi, which entered production earlier this year. It was Tesla’s attempt at a true supercar; it would be rare, expensive, and lightning quick, among other incredible capabilities, like potentially hovering for a short period thanks to a collaboration project with SpaceX.
However, the vehicle was set to be delivered in 2020. Parts and supply chain issues due to the COVID-19 pandemic started these delays, and since then, Tesla, and specifically Musk, have wanted to push the capabilities of the Roadster to somewhere the human mind may not be able to currently comprehend.
Both Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen and Moravy have said many things about the Roadster over the past few years, hinting that the car truly could be worth the wait. However, the continuous delays we’ve seen have undoubtedly been discouraging.
With that being said, it’s not like Tesla has been doing nothing. Instead, the company has been focusing on revamping current models, phasing out others, and working on developing the cars of the future, specifically, the Cybercab, which entered production at Giga Texas in April.
Despite the Roadster’s delays, there is still a ton of anticipation for the vehicle to be released. It will have a steering wheel, as Musk said it will be “the best of the last of the human-driven cars.”
Tesla ships new feature that silences neighborhood Supercharger complaints
Ferrari unveils its Luce EV, and its reception has been a disaster
