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).
Tesla short sellers won big following the company’s massive fall on Wall Street after it reported subpar Earnings on Wednesday.
Tesla short sellers collected about $4.12 billion in single-day profits on Thursday, according to Bloomberg. Shares fell as much as 15 percent during Thursday’s session. It closed as one of the worst days for Tesla on Wall Street in the past three years.
Investors sold off the stock after Tesla said it would aggressively direct its spending toward AI and its Optimus robot project. The company had record revenues, which were driven by one of the strongest quarters in terms of vehicle deliveries in company history.
However, it missed EPS estimates by reporting just $0.33, a far cry from the $0.53 analysts expected.
S3 Partners reported that about 3 percent of Tesla’s outstanding stock is sold short. Managing Director at S3, Ihor Dusaniwsky, provided the short seller’s potential profit, as well as another figure: shorts have likely had paper gains of $8.92 billion this year, as Tesla shares are down 30 percent in 2026.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla has burned short sellers many times in the past, but the company’s latest Earnings Call was a chance for those skeptics to taste some payback. Although the company gave some very transparent information regarding future projects, the rollout of Robotaxi, Optimus, and Semi, many investors took their profits on Thursday.
Notable short sellers like Michael Burry have been transparent about their skepticism around Tesla shares. Burry just revealed three weeks ago that he had opened up a new short on the stock, stating he shorted Tesla shares at $416.22. “Happy it jumped back to this level,” he said in a blog post.
At the time of publication, Tesla shares were down about 3 percent and the stock was trading at $309.92.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla short sellers win big after shares fall after earnings
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
