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 is not sparing any expense in ensuring the Cybercab is safe
Images shared by the longtime watcher showed 16 Cybercab prototypes parked near Giga Texas’ dedicated crash test facility.
The Tesla Cybercab could very well be the safest taxi on the road when it is released and deployed for public use. This was, at least, hinted at by the intensive safety tests that Tesla seems to be putting the autonomous two-seater through at its Giga Texas crash test facility.
Intensive crash tests
As per recent images from longtime Giga Texas watcher and drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer, Tesla seems to be very busy crash testing Cybercab units. Images shared by the longtime watcher showed 16 Cybercab prototypes parked near Giga Texas’ dedicated crash test facility just before the holidays.
Tegtmeyer’s aerial photos showed the prototypes clustered outside the factory’s testing building. Some uncovered Cybercabs showed notable damage and one even had its airbags engaged. With Cybercab production expected to start in about 130 days, it appears that Tesla is very busy ensuring that its autonomous two-seater ends up becoming the safest taxi on public roads.
Prioritizing safety
With no human driver controls, the Cybercab demands exceptional active and passive safety systems to protect occupants in any scenario. Considering Tesla’s reputation, it is then understandable that the company seems to be sparing no expense in ensuring that the Cybercab is as safe as possible.
Tesla’s focus on safety was recently highlighted when the Cybertruck achieved a Top Safety Pick+ rating from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). This was a notable victory for the Cybertruck as critics have long claimed that the vehicle will be one of, if not the, most unsafe truck on the road due to its appearance. The vehicle’s Top Safety Pick+ rating, if any, simply proved that Tesla never neglects to make its cars as safe as possible, and that definitely includes the Cybercab.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s Elon Musk gives timeframe for FSD’s release in UAE
Provided that Musk’s timeframe proves accurate, FSD would be able to start saturating the Middle East, starting with the UAE, next year.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk stated on Monday that Full Self-Driving (Supervised) could launch in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as soon as January 2026.
Provided that Musk’s timeframe proves accurate, FSD would be able to start saturating the Middle East, starting with the UAE, next year.
Musk’s estimate
In a post on X, UAE-based political analyst Ahmed Sharif Al Amiri asked Musk when FSD would arrive in the country, quoting an earlier post where the CEO encouraged users to try out FSD for themselves. Musk responded directly to the analyst’s inquiry.
“Hopefully, next month,” Musk wrote. The exchange attracted a lot of attention, with numerous X users sharing their excitement at the idea of FSD being brought to a new country. FSD (Supervised), after all, would likely allow hands-off highway driving, urban navigation, and parking under driver oversight in traffic-heavy cities such as Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
Musk’s comments about FSD’s arrival in the UAE were posted following his visit to the Middle Eastern country. Over the weekend, images were shared online of Musk meeting with UAE Defense Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and Dubai Crown Prince HH Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed. Musk also posted a supportive message about the country, posting “UAE rocks!” on X.
FSD recognition
FSD has been getting quite a lot of support from foreign media outlets. FSD (Supervised) earned high marks from Germany’s largest car magazine, Auto Bild, during a test in Berlin’s challenging urban environment. The demonstration highlighted the system’s ability to handle dense traffic, construction sites, pedestrian crossings, and narrow streets with smooth, confident decision-making.
Journalist Robin Hornig was particularly struck by FSD’s superior perception and tireless attention, stating: “Tesla FSD Supervised sees more than I do. It doesn’t get distracted and never gets tired. I like to think I’m a good driver, but I can’t match this system’s all-around vision. It’s at its best when both work together: my experience and the Tesla’s constant attention.” Only one intervention was needed when the system misread a route, showcasing its maturity while relying on vision-only sensors and over-the-air learning.
News
Tesla quietly flexes FSD’s reliability amid Waymo blackout in San Francisco
“Tesla Robotaxis were unaffected by the SF power outage,” Musk wrote in his post.
Tesla highlighted its Full Self-Driving (Supervised) system’s robustness this week by sharing dashcam footage of a vehicle in FSD navigating pitch-black San Francisco streets during the city’s widespread power outage.
While Waymo’s robotaxis stalled and caused traffic jams, Tesla’s vision-only approach kept operating seamlessly without remote intervention. Elon Musk amplified the clip, highlighting the contrast between the two systems.
Tesla FSD handles total darkness
The @Tesla_AI account posted a video from a Model Y operating on FSD during San Francisco’s blackout. As could be seen in the video, streetlights, traffic signals, and surrounding illumination were completely out, but the vehicle drove confidently and cautiously, just like a proficient human driver.
Musk reposted the clip, adding context to reports of Waymo vehicles struggling in the same conditions. “Tesla Robotaxis were unaffected by the SF power outage,” Musk wrote in his post.
Musk and the Tesla AI team’s posts highlight the idea that FSD operates a lot like any experienced human driver. Since the system does not rely on a variety of sensors and a complicated symphony of factors, vehicles could technically navigate challenging circumstances as they emerge. This definitely seemed to be the case in San Francisco.
Waymo’s blackout struggles
Waymo faced scrutiny after multiple self-driving Jaguar I-PACE taxis stopped functioning during the blackout, blocking lanes, causing traffic jams, and requiring manual retrieval. Videos shared during the power outage showed fleets of Waymo vehicles just stopping in the middle of the road, seemingly confused about what to do when the lights go out.
In a comment, Waymo stated that its vehicles treat nonfunctional signals as four-way stops, but “the sheer scale of the outage led to instances where vehicles remained stationary longer than usual to confirm the state of the affected intersections. This contributed to traffic friction during the height of the congestion.”
A company spokesperson also shared some thoughts about the incidents. “Yesterday’s power outage was a widespread event that caused gridlock across San Francisco, with non-functioning traffic signals and transit disruptions. While the failure of the utility infrastructure was significant, we are committed to ensuring our technology adjusts to traffic flow during such events,” the Waymo spokesperson stated, adding that it is “focused on rapidly integrating the lessons learned from this event, and are committed to earning and maintaining the trust of the communities we serve every day.”
Tesla is not sparing any expense in ensuring the Cybercab is safe
Tesla’s Elon Musk gives timeframe for FSD’s release in UAE
