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 CEO Elon Musk outlines expectations for Cybercab production
“…initial production is always very slow and follows an S-curve. The speed of production ramp is inversely proportionate to how many new parts and steps there are. For Cybercab and Optimus, almost everything is new, so the early production rate will be agonizingly slow, but eventually end up being insanely fast.”
Tesla CEO Elon Musk outlined expectations for Cybercab production as the vehicle is officially set to start rolling off manufacturing lines at the company’s Giga Texas factory in less than 100 days.
Cybercab is specifically designed and catered to Tesla’s self-driving platform and Robotaxi ride-hailing service. The company has been pushing hard to meet its self-set expectations for rolling out an effective self-driving suite, and with the Cybercab coming in under 100 days, it now needs to push for Unsupervised Self-Driving in the same time frame.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk confirms Robotaxi is set to go unsupervised
This is especially pertinent because the Cybercab is expected to be built without a steering wheel or pedals, and although some executives have said they would build the car with those things if it were necessary.
However, Musk has maintained that the Cybercab will not have either of those things: it will have two seats and a screen, and that’s it.
With production scheduled for less than 100 days, Musk broke down what people should expect from the initial manufacturing phases, being cautiously optimistic about what the early stages will likely entail:
“…initial production is always very slow and follows an S-curve. The speed of production ramp is inversely proportionate to how many new parts and steps there are. For Cybercab and Optimus, almost everything is new, so the early production rate will be agonizingly slow, but eventually end up being insanely fast.”
Musk knows better than most about the challenges of ramping up production of vehicles. With the Model 3, Musk routinely refers to it as “production hell.” The Cybertruck, because of its polarizing design and stainless steel exterior, also presented challenges to Tesla.
With the important caveat that initial production is always very slow and follows an S-curve.
The speed of the production ramp is inversely proportionate to how many new parts and steps there are.
For Cybercab and Optimus, almost everything is new, so the early production…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 20, 2026
The Cybercab definitely presents an easier production process for Tesla, and the company plans to build millions of units per year.
Musk said back in October 2024:
“We’re aiming for at least 2 million units a year of Cybercab. That will be in more than one factory, but I think it’s at least 2 million units a year, maybe 4 million ultimately.”
When April comes, we will find out exactly how things will move forward with Cybercab production.
Tesla has revealed an awesome Model 3 and Model Y incentive to help consumers make the jump to one of its affordable mass-market vehicles, but it’s ending soon.
Tesla is offering one free upgrade on eligible inventory of the Model 3 and Model Y until February 2.
This would help buyers receive the most expensive paid option on the vehicle at no additional cost, meaning white interior or a more premium paint option will be free of charge if you take delivery on or before February 2.
Tesla states on its website for the offer:
“Only for limited inventory while supplies last. Price displayed on inventory listings already deducts the cost of the free option.”
Tesla says its one free upgrade offer on eligible U.S. inventory for the Model 3 and Model Y ends February 2.
With this incentive, buyers receive the most expensive paid option on the vehicle at no additional cost (up to $2k in savings). pic.twitter.com/IhoiURrsDI
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) January 21, 2026
This latest incentive is just another advantage Tesla has by selling its vehicles directly and not using some sort of dealership model that relies on approvals from higher-ups. It is important to note that these programs are offered to help stimulate demand and push vehicles into customers’ hands.
It is not the only incentive Tesla is currently offering, either. In fact, there is a much larger incentive program that Tesla is working on, and it has to do with Full Self-Driving transfers, which could result in even more sales for the company through Q1.
Tesla is ending its FSD Transfer program on March 31, as it plans to transition to a Subscription-only basis with the self-driving suite for anyone who has not already purchased it outright.
This could help drive some on-the-fence buyers to new vehicles, but it remains to be seen. Given the timing of the program’s demise, it appears Tesla is hoping to use it to add additional sales and bolster a strong Q1 2026.
Interior and exterior paint colors can add up to $2,000 if you choose the most premium Ultra Red body color, or an additional $1,000 for the Black and White interior option. The discount, while small, could help get someone their preferred design configuration, instead of settling for something that is not quite what they want.
Tesla Full Self-Driving is getting an outrageous insurance offer with insanely cheap rates that will slash the cost of coverage by 50 percent.
Lemonade, a digital insurance company, has launched its first-of-a-kind product known as Lemonade Autonomous Car Insurance, and it is starting with an exclusive offer to FSD. The new offer will cut rates for FSD-engaged driving by “approximately 50 percent,” highlighting the data that shows a significantly safer driving environment when the suite is activated and engaged.
The company also said it plans to introduce even cheaper rates as Tesla continues to release more advanced FSD versions through software updates. Tesla has been releasing new FSD versions every few weeks, highlighting vast improvements for those who have the latest AI4 chip.
The announcement comes just a few months afterLemonade Co-Founder and President Shai Wininger said that he wanted to insure FSD vehicles for “almost free.” He said that Tesla’s API complemented Lemonade’s AI-based platform because it provides “richer and more accurate driving behavior data than traditional UBI devices.”
Tesla Full Self-Driving gets an offer to be insured for ‘almost free’
In mid-December, Lemonade then offered Tesla owners in California, Oregon, and Arizona the opportunity to connect their vehicles directly to the company’s app, which would provide a direct connection and would require a separate telematics device, which is required with other insurance providers who offer rates based on driving behaviors.
This latest development between Lemonade and Tesla is something that Wininger believes will be different because of the advanced nature of FSD:
“Traditional insurers treat a Tesla like any other car, and AI like any other driver. But a car that sees 360 degrees, never gets drowsy, and reacts in milliseconds can’t be compared to a human.”
He went on to say that the existing pay-per-mile product has given the company something that no traditional insurer has been able to offer. This comes through Lemonade’s “unique tech stack designed to collect massive amounts of real driving data for precise, dynamic pricing.”
The reputation FSD has gathered over the past few years is really impressive. Wininger backed this with some more compliments:
“Teslas driven with FSD are involved in far fewer accidents. By connecting to the Tesla onboard computer, our models are able to ingest incredibly nuanced sensor data that lets us price our insurance with higher precision than ever before.”
The product will begin its official rollout in Arizona on January 26. Oregon will get it a month later.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk outlines expectations for Cybercab production
Tesla reveals awesome Model 3 and Model Y incentive, but it’s ending soon
