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.
Ferrari CEO Benedetto Vigna revealed that the Italian automaker’s future will not involve self-driving, a point that echoes that of Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s — sort of.
You might be thinking, “Are you insane? Musk has been so incredibly hellbent on delivering self-driving vehicles to the public, so much so that he has even hinted that Tesla won’t need the ever-popular and widely-requested Model Y L in the U.S.”
However, when it comes to electric supercars with high-performance specs and lofty price tags, Vigna’s stance is exactly what Musk wants for Tesla’s own hypercar project, the Tesla Roadster.
🚨 Tesla Roadster vs. Ferrari Luce
Price – $250,000 vs. $640,000
Horsepower – 1,000+ vs. 1,035
0-60 MPH – 1.1s OR 1.9s vs. 2.4s
Top Speed – 250+ MPH vs. 194 MPH
Range – 620 miles vs. 280 miles https://t.co/uEgswwVLeD pic.twitter.com/XcP58ZRO6Z— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
In a new interview with Australian media outlet Drive, Vigna made it clear that Ferrari’s ambitions for the future do not involve autonomy, simply because the company’s cars are not designed for anything but manual, spirited driving.
He said:
“We will not make fully autonomous cars — loud and clear. We want the people to have fun, not the [computer] chips. We want to have a steering wheel and a man or a woman behind the steering wheel. Otherwise, why do you buy a Ferrari?”
This seems to be a reasonable assertion. Ferraris are not made for daily commutes, cross-country road trips, or bumper-to-bumper traffic. They’re made for fast, spirited driving, and many of their buyers will only put a few thousand miles on them throughout their lifetime. True, exciting, fun driving is meant to be done manually.
That is not to say Full Self-Driving or other semi-autonomous suites are not “fun,” but they are meant to take the stress out of driving. They are made for the daily commutes, the rush hour traffic, and the parking lots and garages. It’s made to take the stress out of driving.
Tesla Full Self-Driving attempts 150-mile stress test: the good and the bad
Musk had stated in an interview in early 2026 that the Roadster would also be geared toward fun, manually-controlled driving. On the Moonshots podcast with Peter Diamandis, Musk said about the Roadster:
“This is not a…safety is not the main goal. If you buy a Ferrari, safety is not the number one goal. I say, if safety is your number one goal, do not buy the Roadster…We’ll aspire not to kill anyone in this car. It’ll be the best of the last of the human-driven cars. The best of the last.”
There are cars out there that simply are meant to be driven by humans, and Ferraris and Roadsters are a few of them. Ferrari has no true advantage in developing self-driving; their cars sell at low volumes with high price tags, and their performance specs and engineering are all geared toward spirited driving.
Tesla has upgraded the Model Y’s two most affordable trims, the Rear-Wheel-Drive and All-Wheel-Drive, with two new interior features that bring them level with their “Premium” siblings.
The Rear-Wheel-Drive (RWD) and All-Wheel-Drive (AWD) trims, formerly known as the “Standard” offerings of Tesla’s most popular vehicle, are now fitted with the all-black headliner and a higher-quality 16-inch center screen, two features that were added to the Premium trims earlier this year.
Here’s what the new Black Headliner looks like compared to the old design in the Model Y RWD and AWD: https://t.co/vaMUZz30UC pic.twitter.com/i1yXjJNu7L
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
The RWD and AWD trims of the Model Y now have a more premium interior feel with these upgrades, and it also appears to be a move by Tesla to streamline manufacturing by eliminating variance across configuration levels.
It makes production less complicated when the interior colors are all identical. Additionally, all Model Y builds now have the larger and higher-resolution screen than previous model years.
Priced at $39,990 and $41,990, respectively, the Model Y RWD and AWD are quite different from the Premium trims. Tesla aimed to make an affordable version of what has been the best-selling car in the world on several occasions, enabling more accessibility.
The differences from an interior standpoint are noticeable, as there is significantly less storage, a lack of A/C seats, and no glass roof. However, the car is still a great option and features a good powertrain, strong range ratings of 321 miles for the RWD and 294 miles for the AWD, and a great ride quality.
Tesla Model Y Standard Full Review: Is it worth the lower price?
Other shortcomings are the lack of acoustic-lined windows, which are featured in the Premium trims to help with excess cabin noise. In our testing of the Model Y Standard back in late 2025, this was perhaps the most noticeable difference between it and the Premium trim. The stereo was also a huge difference:
This now includes the Model Y RWD and AWD, the two trims that were formerly know as “Standard”
You can see what the big differences are between the RWD/AWD and the Premium below:
https://t.co/ptLnm95KjX https://t.co/vaMUZz30UC pic.twitter.com/scuRNErXoC
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
The RWD and AWD trims of the Model Y are still a great vehicle at an affordable price, and you can experience them for yourself at your local Tesla showroom. Test drives are always available, and it’s a great way to experience an EV for yourself, especially if you have no knowledge about them.
Tesla has its answer to grow its automotive sales over the next few years, TD Cowen analyst Itay Michaeli says, but it just has to bring it to the U.S.
On Thursday, Michaeli reiterated his $490 price target and the ‘Buy’ rating he already held on Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA). However, its automotive division has struggled to show sequential growth over the past few years, mostly due to its focus on AI and Full Self-Driving. Tesla already axed two of its lower-volume vehicles with the Model S and Model X earlier this year.
However, Tesla does not need to engineer an entire new vehicle to trigger an upward tick in sales; it just has to bring it from China to the U.S., Michaeli said.
He is talking about the Model Y L, a slightly larger version of the all-electric crossover that is already available in China. U.S. customers have been pleading with CEO Elon Musk to bring it to the country since its launch in Asia last year, but he’s not convinced of it because of the advent of self-driving and its importance in this particular market.
The problem is that Tesla owners have been requesting something larger that could fit a typical American family. The Model Y L is slightly larger than the standard Model Y, but some are concerned that it could still be too small to fit what most people might need.
Instead, they have asked for a full-size SUV from Tesla.
Tesla gives big hint that it will build Cyber SUV, smaller Cybertruck
Nevertheless, the Model Y L still presents a great opportunity for Tesla in the U.S., and Michaeli says that there is an additional sales opportunity of about 100,000 units, with demand potential falling somewhere between 60,000 and 135,000 units.
TD Cowen’s note to investors also analyzed that Tesla’s growth could come from a stock perspective as well, positively impacting the stock price, as it has been widely reliant on vehicle sales, even though Tesla has truly phased itself away from that being an important metric.
Tesla stands to gain greatly from the introduction of the Model Y L in the U.S., but only if Elon Musk sees it as a viable fit for the market. Families may need to see Tesla bring something larger to the U.S., or they might be forced to buy from another automaker that offers something that fits is needs for more interior space to haul around the kids.
Ferrari CEO’s self-driving stance echoes Elon Musk’s — sort of
Tesla upgrades Model Y’s affordable trims with new interior features
