News
SpaceX competitor Blue Origin targets first Moon landing for 2023
Prospective SpaceX competitor and reusable rocket developer Blue Origin detailed its plans earlier this month to enable significant human presence on the Moon and announced a tentative schedule that could see the company begin experimental lunar landing tests of a multi-ton spacecraft just a few years from today – NET 2023.
Funded entirely with stock sales courtesy of founder Jeff Bezos’ lucrative position at the helm of Amazon (not to mention his status as the wealthiest human alive), Blue Origin receives roughly $1 billion annually to develop its space tourism-oriented New Shepard rocket and capsule (suborbital), the magnitudes-larger orbital New Glenn launch vehicle, and a number of other longer-term projects like human colonies in Earth orbit (including the Moon).
In answer to my question, @ac_charania said would evolve to reusable Blue Moon lander. Also under consideration is reusable New Glenn upper stage & faring. https://t.co/Dg3UTN9HU5
— Charles A. Lurio (@TheLurioReport) July 4, 2018
Think SpaceX in terms of ambition (and, perhaps, quality of workforce) but with essentially no existential motivation to field products quickly – framed a bit less flatteringly, Blue Origin moves very slowly when compared with SpaceX. The company was born a full two years before SpaceX and has been working on reusable rockets for at least as long, yet has less than ten launches of a genuinely reusable rocket to claim its own. That rocket, New Shepard, is a purely suborbital, single-stage vehicle intended to enable zero-gee tourism, and is downright minuscule when examined alongside Falcon 9 and Heavy.
-
- Blue Origin’s BE-4 engine, the propulsion for New Glenn, seen conducting hot-fire tests in Texas. The engine’s nozzles is a full 6 feet (~1.8m) in diameter. (Blue Origin)
-
- New Shepard ahead of Blue Origin’s most recent suborbital launch, the eighth completed so far. April 2018. (Blue Origin)
New Glenn, however, would truly catapult Blue Origin into a competitive position in the orbital launch business, placing them alongside companies like SpaceX, ULA, and Arianespace. Further, Blue appears to believe that it can design and produce New Glenn boosters capable of as many as 25 flights from the get-go, versus the three years SpaceX spent iteratively design and upgrading its Falcon 9 before arriving at a booster potentially capable of 10-100 reuses. New Glenn’s inaugural launch is currently scheduled for late 2020, and the impressive BE-4 methalox rocket engine powering its first stage is well into serious hot-fire testing, while the engine that will power New Glenn’s upper stage is already successfully flying (albeit as a sea-level variant) on New Shepard.
In a glance, Blue Origin undoubtedly has a lot going for it, although its confidence quite plainly outstrips its the achievements it can actually lay claim to at present. Nevertheless, the company’s Blue Moon project is clearly serious and will build heavily on the (hoped for) successes of New Shepard and New Glenn, integrating the hands-on experience and technologies developed over the course of building and launching both rockets. Presumably depending on New Glenn as the launch vehicle, Blue Origin stated on July 3 that its lunar lander – designed to deliver multiple tons of cargo to the Moon’s surface – could begin experimental Moon missions by 2023 and potentially even sooner if work proceeds exceptionally smoothly.
-
- Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket. (Blue Origin)
-
- SpaceX’s BFR. (Gravitation Innovation/David Romax)
-
- Credit: NASA-MSFC
-
- Arianespace’s next-generation Ariane 6. (Arianespace)
-
- ULA’s upcoming Vulcan rocket. (ULA)
Whether or not Blue Origin manages to make that extraordinarily aggressive scheduled and jumps from suborbital missions to giant orbital reusable rocket launches to multi-ton Moon landings in barely five years, the 2020s are lining up to be an extraordinarily exciting time for spaceflight. With any luck, a veritable fleet of next-generation rockets from Blue Origin, SpaceX, Arianespace, ULA, NASA, Japan, and five or more smaller commercial companies will complete their first launches over the next three years.
Meanwhile, heavyweights SpaceX and Blue Origin may find themselves in a whole different arena, racing to land payloads on the Moon (or perhaps on the Moon and Mars).
The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP) stands to reap one of the most extraordinary returns in pension fund history thanks to a bold 2019 investment in SpaceX.
According to a recent report from The Globe and Mail, the Toronto-based fund invested roughly $300 million CAD (~$220 million USD at the time) in Elon Musk’s space company as its inaugural deal through the Teachers’ Innovation Platform.
At SpaceX’s anticipated $1.75 trillion IPO valuation, set for a mid-June debut on Nasdaq under ticker $SPCX, that stake could now be worth up to $11.6 billion USD. This would represent a roughly 50x return and easily become OTPP’s most successful single investment ever.
The fund manages $279 billion in assets for approximately 346,000 working and retired teachers in Ontario, potentially delivering an average boost of around $33,500 per member if fully realized.
SpaceX has filed its S-1 and plans to price shares at $135 each, aiming to raise a record $75 billion in what would be the largest IPO in history, surpassing Saudi Aramco. The company reported $18.67 billion in revenue for 2025, driven primarily by Starlink satellite internet growth and NASA contracts, though it continues to post significant losses tied to ambitious R&D in Starship and AI initiatives.
Important pieces moving forward include:
- Starlink Expansion: The satellite broadband service is scaling rapidly, targeting global connectivity, especially in underserved rural and remote areas. This segment offers massive recurring revenue potential as numbers climb.
- Starship and Reusability Leadership: SpaceX’s fully reusable Starship aims to slash launch costs dramatically, enabling frequent missions, Mars ambitions, and lucrative government/defense contracts. Success here could unlock exponential growth.
- AI and Diversification: Recent moves, including ties to xAI, position SpaceX in high-growth AI infrastructure, broadening beyond traditional aerospace.
- Validation Scrutiny: While the $1.75 trillion target excites investors, analysts like Morningstar value the company closer to $780 billion, citing high multiples (around 90x trailing revenue) and execution risks. A 180-day lockup period will prevent early investors like OTPP from selling immediately post-IPO.
The irony has not been lost on observers. Ontario’s government previously canceled a Starlink rural internet contract amid political tensions involving Musk, yet the pension fund’s savvy investment, made when SpaceX was valued around $33-36 billion, and Starlink was nascent, delivers outsized gains independent of politics.
For OTPP, this windfall strengthens its already solid 111 percent funding ratio and underscores the value of patient, innovation-focused capital allocation.
For SpaceX, the IPO marks a new chapter: greater transparency, access to public markets for talent retention and growth capital, and heightened pressure to deliver on its multi-planetary vision.
All eyes are fixed on whether SpaceX can justify its lofty valuation through sustained execution. For Ontario teachers, the returns are already stellar, but SpaceX, like other Musk companies in the past, has plenty of things to prove. Perhaps the most ideal person for the job is at the helm, hoping to bring the company to a massive valuation.
In a notable shift for electric vehicle perceptions, Tesla has emerged as a standout performer in the latest iSeeCars longevity study, which analyzed over 174 million used vehicles.
The data reveals that Tesla models have a 4.6 percent chance of reaching 250,000 miles, matching the industry average of 4.8 percent and tying for sixth place among 32 brands. This positions Tesla ahead of many established names, including Subaru (2.3 percent, roughly half of Tesla’s rate), Nissan (2.4 percent), Mazda, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Porsche.
Toyota leads with an impressive 17.8 percent likelihood, followed by Lexus (12.8 percent), Honda, and Acura. Yet Tesla’s result stands out for a relatively young EV brand. Experts attribute this to the inherent simplicity of electric powertrains: fewer moving parts mean no oil changes, timing belts, or complex engine components that typically fail in internal combustion vehicles.
Fewer things to maintain means fewer things to break, and ultimately, fewer things to go wrong.
A Tesla is twice as likely to reach 250,000 miles as a Subaru⁰⁰“No engine, no oil changes, no timing chains, no fuel injectors, and far fewer moving parts overall”⁰⁰https://t.co/k8iJwbzrrp
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) June 8, 2026
This design advantage helps Teslas defy unfounded skepticism about battery longevity and overall durability, two things that have plagued the company from outsider perspectives without much proof.
The iSeeCars reliability ratings further bolster Tesla’s case. The Tesla Model S earns a strong 7.9/10 reliability score, ranking No. 1 out of 35 most reliable electric cars. It boasts a predicted average lifespan of about 154,419 miles (around 16.9 years) and a 21.9 percent chance of hitting 200,000 miles.
Tesla, as an electric car brand, also scores 7.9/10 overall, securing the top spot among electric vehicle manufacturers in several luxury and segment categories.
Real-world examples reinforce the data. High-mileage Teslas, including Model S vehicles exceeding one million miles, demonstrate that EVs can endure when properly maintained. Owners report minimal mechanical issues beyond typical wear items like tires and brakes, which regenerative braking often extends.
Tesla Model 3 hits quarter million miles with original battery and motor
This performance challenges narratives around EV reliability, especially amid mixed reports from other sources like Consumer Reports or regional inspections. iSeeCars‘ massive dataset emphasizes long-term durability over short-term defect rates, painting Tesla as a leader in sustainable, high-mileage ownership.
For buyers prioritizing longevity and low maintenance, Tesla’s results signal strong value. While no brand is flawless, factors like driving habits, climate, and software updates matter—the numbers suggest Tesla belongs among the elite for those seeking vehicles built to last.
As EV adoption grows, this iSeeCars data underscores Tesla’s engineering edge in creating enduring, future-proof automobiles.
Tesla owners have long griped about the wireless phone charger in the Model Y and other vehicles. It often turns smartphones into miniature ovens rather than reliably topping them up.
Software engineer and Model Y owner Michał Gapiński tackled this issue head-on with a clever DIY upgrade, swapping the cooled wireless charger pad from the China-made Model YL in for the one that came standard in his vehicle.
There are several key differences between the U.S.-built Model Y’s wireless charging pad and the one that Tesla has been installing in the Model YL. The one installed in U.S.-built vehicles lacks active cooling and relies on basic heat dissipation, leading to rapid temperature buildup during charging. In contrast, the Model YL integrates a small fan for active cooling.
Will it fit? Fingers crossed, I want a first YL charger deployed in the regular juniper pic.twitter.com/wWDqSNFVkW
— Michał Gapiński (@mikegapinski) June 2, 2026
This design maintains lower temperatures even in warm ambient conditions, though it does not support faster Qi2 charging on iPhones. The connector matches exactly, making physical swaps feasible on compatible consoles, but coding is required to enable full functionality.
Owners in the U.S. have complained about the wireless charging pad, with many reporting that overheating is fairly common. Within 20 or 30 minutes of placing a phone on the wireless charging pad, many have reported overheating messages on their phones, which halt charging and essentially turn the pad into a fancy place to rest your phone.
Many owners have opted to simply plug their phones into a charging cord. Tesla has acknowledged the problem by releasing several solutions for owners, including a relatively new feature that allows you to simply turn off the charging and simply act as a holder for your phone while driving.
Gapiński said that he sourced the cooled pad affordably from China, and it cost under $200 for the part.
He removed the existing console charger, swapped in the new unit, confirming a perfect connector fit, and handled the trim differences. Since the parameter isn’t fully secured, he enabled it through custom coding outside official Toolbox.
Connector is identical, she fits, now time to code it. https://t.co/Y9idgDrpCq pic.twitter.com/uwwgq6blg7
— Michał Gapiński (@mikegapinski) June 2, 2026
The fan activates quietly, blending with AC and seat cooling. He reported the installation was effective and the wireless charging pad worked perfectly; it even kept the phone cool as it stayed at just 86 degrees Fahrenheit. Many times, the wireless charging pad will bring the phone’s temperature well above 100 degrees, sometimes even being relatively hot to the touch.
The retrofit worked, no issues. First Model Y with a cooled wireless charger! No QI2/faster charging on the iPhone but it does not boil the phone even when it is 30 degrees outside.
The fan kicks in, it is not audible especially with the air conditioning and seat cooling. The… https://t.co/JOyR8Tb1Yo pic.twitter.com/kJcYhQIlYq
— Michał Gapiński (@mikegapinski) June 2, 2026
This retrofit highlighted an elegant, owner-driven solution to a factory shortcoming. It is expected that Tesla will begin installing the cooled charging pads into new cars in the U.S. soon, and hopefully, it will offer some sort of retrofit service or kit to owners here who want to use the charging pad effectively.
For those who love to tinker, it’s an accessible upgrade, proving that innovation thrives beyond the production line.
SpaceX IPO set to provide massive $11.6B windfall for teacher pension plan
Tesla skeptics will hate what this new reliability study says
