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 launches new Model Y interior option
Produced at Gigafactory Shanghai, the update applies to all five-seat Premium Model Y configurations and started being seen on customer deliveries this week. The move marks the first major interior refresh for the compact crossover since its global debut.
Tesla has rolled out a striking new interior choice for its best-selling Model Y in China, replacing the long-familiar white cabin with a fresh option: Zen Grey.
Produced at Gigafactory Shanghai, the update applies to all five-seat Premium Model Y configurations and started being seen on customer deliveries this week. The move marks the first major interior refresh for the compact crossover since its global debut.
The Zen Grey interior swaps the classic black-and-white contrast for a softer, more unified palette. Seats, door panels, and center console trim now feature a warm light-grey tone that covers far more surface area than before.
Previously, black accents on the console, door handles, and lower dashboard are now color-matched in the same pebbled vegan leather, creating a brighter, less clinical cabin.
Tesla describes the material as durable and easy to maintain while delivering a noticeably more premium feel. Early photos and videos from Chinese owners show the new shade reflecting natural light beautifully, giving the spacious Model Y an even airier, more inviting atmosphere without sacrificing the minimalist design customers expect:
🚨 First look at Tesla’s new Zen Grey interior, which differs slightly in tone and in placement compared to the now discontinued White Interior https://t.co/rRRuEOrbm4 pic.twitter.com/p7uyNfO3xY
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 13, 2026
The change is not an added-cost upgrade but a direct replacement for the discontinued white interior on Shanghai-built vehicles. Customers configuring a new Model Y in China, Hong Kong, or Macau now see Zen Grey as the default light-colored choice.
The update also flows to export markets supplied by Giga Shanghai, including Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines. Tesla has used its Chinese factory as an innovation hub before, and executives appear to be testing broader appeal with this subtler, warmer tone that avoids the high-maintenance reputation sometimes associated with bright white leather.
Beyond the interior, the refreshed Model Y from Shanghai includes minor exterior tweaks such as blacked-out badges on some trims and optional dark 20-inch wheels.
These changes arrive as Tesla faces stiff competition from domestic EV makers in its largest market. By refreshing the Model Y’s cabin without raising prices, the company is signaling continued commitment to value and constant improvement.
With over 1.2 million Model Y units already on Chinese roads, the Zen Grey launch gives existing owners a fresh talking point and new buyers another reason to choose Tesla. As deliveries ramp up this month, the updated interior is expected to become the dominant light-colored choice across the Asia-Pacific region.
Tesla has not yet confirmed whether the Zen Grey will reach Fremont, Austin, or Berlin-built Model Ys, but Shanghai’s track record suggests the option could spread quickly if customer feedback remains strong.
Elon Musk
Tesla launches 200mph Model S “Gold” Signature in invite-only purchase
Tesla’s final 350-unit Signature Edition closes the book on two cars that changed everything.
Tesla has announced a super limited Signature Edition run of 250 Model S Plaid and 100 Model X Plaid units as an invite only purchase in a bid to give its original flagship vehicles a proper send-off.
When the Model S first launched in 2012, the first 1,000 units sold were “Signature” editions that required a $40,000 deposit and cost nearly $100,000 each. Those early buyers were Tesla’s first real believers. This new Signature Edition deliberately echoes that moment, bookending a 14-year run with numbered collector hardware.
Both models are finished in an exclusive Garnet Red paint not available on any current Tesla production vehicle, with gold Tesla T badges up front, a gold Plaid badge and Signature badge at the rear, and a white Alcantara interior featuring gold Plaid seat badges, gold piping, Signature-marked door sills, and a numbered dash plate. The Model S adds carbon ceramic brakes with gold calipers. Every unit ships with Tesla’s Luxe Package, bundling Full Self-Driving (Supervised), four years of Premium Service, free lifetime Supercharging, and a Signature Edition key fob. Both are priced at $159,420, a roughly $35,000 premium over standard Plaid inventory.
The discontinuation is part of a broader strategic shift. At Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call, Musk described the decision as “slightly sad” but necessary, saying: “It’s time to basically bring the Model S and X programs to an end with an honorable discharge, because we’re really moving into a future that is based on autonomy.”
The Fremont factory floor that built these cars is being converted to manufacture Optimus humanoid robots, with a target of one million units annually.
Elon Musk
Tesla FSD in Europe vs. US: It’s not what you think
Tesla FSD is approved in the Netherlands, but the European version differs from what US drivers use.
On April 10, 2026, the Dutch vehicle authority RDW granted Tesla the first European type approval for Full Self-Driving Supervised, making the Netherlands the first country on the continent to authorize Tesla’s semi-autonomous system for customer use on public roads.
As Teslarati reported, the RDW approval followed 18 months of testing, more than 1.6 million kilometers driven on EU roads, 13,000 customer ride-alongs, and documentation covering over 400 compliance requirements. Tesla Europe had been running public demo drives through cities like Amsterdam and Eindhoven since early 2026, giving passengers their first experience of the system on European streets.
The European version of FSD is not the same software US drivers use. The RDW’s own statement is direct, noting that the software versions and functionalities in the US and Europe “are therefore not comparable one-to-one.” We’ve compile a table below that captures the most significant differences between US-based Tesla FSD vs. European Tesla FSD that’s based on what regulators and Tesla have publicly confirmed.
| Feature | FSD US | FSD Europe (Netherlands) |
| Regulatory framework | Self-certification, post-market oversight | Pre-market type approval required (UN R-171 + Article 39) |
| Hands requirement | Hands-off permitted on highway | Hands must be available to take over immediately |
| Auto turning from stop lights | Available — navigates intersections, turns, and traffic signals autonomously | Available in EU build — confirmed in Amsterdam demo footage handling unprotected turns and signalized intersections |
| Driving modes | Multiple profiles including a more aggressive “Mad Max” mode | EU build is more conservative by default and errs on the side of restraint when it cannot confirm the limit |
| Summon | Available — Smart Summon navigates parking lots to driver | Status unclear — not confirmed as part of the RDW-approved feature set; urban FSD approval targeted separately for 2027 |
| Driver monitoring | Camera-based eye tracking | Stricter continuous monitoring with more frequent intervention alerts |
| Software version | FSD v14.3 | EU-specific builds that must be separately validated by RDW |
| Geographic restriction | US, Canada, China, Mexico, Australia, NZ, South Korea | Netherlands only; EU-wide vote pending summer 2026 |
| Subscription price | $99/month | €99/month |
| Full urban FSD scope | Available | Partial — separate urban application planned for 2027 |
The approval comes as Tesla is under real pressure to grow FSD subscriptions globally. Musk’s 2025 CEO compensation package, approved by shareholders, includes a milestone requiring 10 million active FSD subscriptions as one condition for his stock awards to vest. Tesla hit one million subscriptions during its Q4 2025 earnings call, which is a meaningful start, but still a long way from the target. Opening Europe as a market for subscriptions, rather than just hardware sales, directly accelerates that number.
Tesla has said it anticipates EU-wide recognition of the Dutch approval during summer 2026, which would extend FSD access to Germany, France, and other major markets through a mutual recognition process without each country repeating the full 18-month review. That timeline is Tesla’s projection, not a confirmed regulatory outcome. As Musk acknowledged at Davos in January 2026, “We hope to get Supervised Full Self-Driving approval in Europe, hopefully next month.”
Tesla launches new Model Y interior option
Tesla launches 200mph Model S “Gold” Signature in invite-only purchase
