Connect with us

News

SpaceX Dragon XL could double as a crew cabin for lunar space station

Published

4 years ago

on

A recent modification to SpaceX’s Dragon XL lunar cargo resupply contract with NASA suggests that the spacecraft could be used as an extra crew cabin and bathroom at a lunar space station known as Gateway.

The contract modification was made around April 1st of this year and provided SpaceX around $121,000 to complete the latest study on the potential utility of its expendable Dragon XL spacecraft beyond the primary goal of resupplying a space station orbiting the Moon. Designed to deliver at least five metric tons (~11,000 lb) of pressurized and unpressurized cargo to Gateway, Dragon XL will launch on SpaceX’s own Falcon Heavy rocket – currently the only super heavy-lift launch vehicle in operation – and meant to heavily borrow from hardware and systems already developed for Crew and Cargo Dragon.

NASA first announced its selection of SpaceX for the Gateway Logistics Services (GLS) contract back in March 2020. More than a year later, very little has been said (or visibly done) to progress from that announcement to a true contract – an unusually long period of inactivity for such a significant program.

Dragon XL contract supplemental agreement: crew compartment and waste management study
byu/cohberg inspacex

Of note, as recently as April 2021, NASA officials made it clear that they were still in the cryptic process of “reviewing” the Artemis program, leading to such a long delay between the GLS award announcement and finalization of an actual contract with SpaceX. Of note, back when it was announced, NASA’s nominal plan was to begin Dragon XL cargo deliveries as early as 2024 to support the Artemis Program’s first crewed Moon landing attempt.

Since then, however, other crucial aspects – namely the concept of operations and Human Lander System (HLS) meant to carry astronauts to and from the Moon – have evolved significantly. Weeks after NASA’s GLS announcement, the space agency awarded approximately $1 billion to three prospective HLS providers – SpaceX, Dynetics, and a team led by Blue Origin. A little over a year later, NASA announced a shocking decision to award that initial HLS Moon landing demonstration contract to SpaceX and SpaceX alone.

SpaceX’s Starship to return humanity to the Moon in stunning NASA decision

More or less simultaneously, NASA it made it clear that it was seriously studying the possibility of performing Artemis-3 – the first crewed Moon landing attempt in half a century – without Gateway. Along those lines, the SLS-launched Orion spacecraft and HLS lander (a custom variant of SpaceX’s Starship) would dock directly in lunar orbit instead of separately docking to Gateway to transfer crew. NASA’s decision to solely select Starship as its future Moon lander was so surprising in large part because of how starkly the vehicle’s potential capabilities contrast with the rest of the Artemis Program.

As many have already noted, the very existence of a Starship with capabilities close to what SpaceX is working towards – now a practical inevitability for the company to complete its HLS contract – brings into question the architecture NASA has proposed for Artemis. Currently, the nominal plan is to launch astronauts into an exotic high lunar orbit with NASA’s own SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft – an inconvenient orbit only needed to make up for said spacecraft’s shortcomings. Prior to recent developments, Orion would then dock with Gateway. The HLS vehicle would follow and crew would eventually transfer to the lander, which would then carry 2+ astronauts to and from the surface of the Moon and re-dock with Gateway, followed by Orion returning those astronauts to Earth.

Advertisement

Given that Starship offers enough pressurized volume to rival even the vast International Space Station (ISS) in a single launch, the entire concept of Gateway – an almost inhumanely tiny space station – becomes dubious. If Orion also doesn’t need Gateway to transfer its astronauts to the lander, which NASA has all but confirmed, it’s difficult to see what value Gateway could offer outside of a very expensive technology demonstration. Including a planned Falcon Heavy launch of the first two Gateway segments, station production, and the possible need for expensive Dragon XL cargo deliveries, Gateway could easily end up costing NASA $4-5 billion before it hosts a single astronaut.

NASA is already deeply concerned about the apparent likelihood of Congress systematically underfunding the HLS and Artemis programs outside of SLS and Orion, going as far as selecting just a single HLS provider after clearly indicating a desire for redundancy given enough funding. NASA’s HLS contract with SpaceX is expected to cost around $2.9 billion. The next cheapest option – Blue Origin’s proposal – would reportedly cost around $6 billion. In other words, if NASA were able to stop work and Gateway and redirect that funding elsewhere, it could almost already afford two HLS providers without a larger budget.

Given that NASA has selected SpaceX for HLS and GLS, it’s not impossible to imagine that the space agency is growing increasingly aware that Gateway and Dragon XL look more than a little redundant beside the Starship vehicle NASA itself is now funding SpaceX to realize. For now, though, work on all three programs continue. Most recently, NASA and SpaceX are studying the possibility of adding a toilet and using Dragon XL as an extra crew cabin and bathroom to augment the tiny habitable volume of Gateway’s lone habitat. Only time will tell where the cards ultimately fall.

Related Topics:

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Tesla kicks Robotaxi geofence expansion into high gear in Austin

Tesla has nearly doubled its Robotaxi geofence in Austin for the second time less than two months after it initially launched.

Published

8 hours ago

on

August 3, 2025

By

Credit: @AdanGuajardo/X

Tesla has kicked the expansion of its Robotaxi geofence in Austin, Texas, into high gear, as it grew the service area once again early Sunday morning.

Tesla launched its Robotaxi platform in Austin on June 22, and less than a month later, it was able to expand it. After its first expansion, Tesla had a larger geofence than Waymo, which launched its driverless ride-hailing service to the public in Austin in March. Waymo expanded the week after Tesla’s first augmentation.

Waymo responds to Tesla’s Robotaxi expansion in Austin with bold statement

Now, Tesla has answered Waymo once again by developing its service area in Austin to an even larger size. We expected it, as just two weeks ago, CEO Elon Musk said that the company would be growing the Austin geofence, but did not give an indication by how much.

The first geofence in Austin was roughly 20 square miles. On July 14, when the first expansion took place, Tesla Robotaxi riders had roughly 42 square miles of downtown Austin available for travel.

On the morning of August 3, Tesla nearly doubled the geofence by growing it to roughly 80 square miles, according to Grok. For reference, Waymo’s current service area in Austin is about 90 square miles:

The expansion further extends the Southern portion of the geofence, going into suburban zones such as Barton Creek.

The continuous growth shows Tesla is prepared to extend its geofence in basically any direction. Now that it is going into suburban areas, we may get to see more Austin residents experience Robotaxi for an entire evening of activities, including pickup and dropoff at home.

The only question that remains is how much Tesla can expand at one time. The company seems to have the ability to push the geofence to a majority of Austin, but it maintains that safety is its biggest priority.

The company was spotted testing vehicles in the West Austin suburbs in areas like Marble Falls recently, indicating that Tesla could be expanding its service area to hundreds of square miles in the coming months.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla to appeal jury verdict that held it partially liable for fatal crash

Tesla will appeal the decision from the eight-person jury.

Published

1 day ago

on

August 2, 2025

By

tesla showroom
(Credit: Tesla)

Tesla will appeal a recent jury verdict that held it partially liable for a fatal crash that occurred in Key Largo, Florida, in 2019.

An eight-person jury ruled that Tesla’s driver assistance technology was at least partially to blame for a crash when a vehicle driven by George McGee went off the road and hit a couple, killing a 22-year-old and injuring the other.

The jury found that Tesla’s tech was found to enable McGee to take his eyes off the road, despite the company warning drivers and vehicle operators that its systems are not a replacement for a human driver.

The company states on its website and Owner’s Manual that Autopilot and Full Self-Driving are not fully autonomous, and that drivers must be ready to take over in case of an emergency. Its website says:

“Autopilot is a driver assistance system that is intended to be used only with a fully attentive driver. It does not turn a Tesla into a fully autonomous vehicle.

Before enabling Autopilot, you must agree to ‘keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times’ and to always ‘maintain control and responsibility for your vehicle.’ Once engaged, Autopilot will also deliver an escalating series of visual and audio warnings, reminding you to place your hands on the wheel if insufficient torque is applied or your vehicle otherwise detects you may not be attentive enough to the road ahead. If you repeatedly ignore these warnings, you will be locked out from using Autopilot during that trip.

You can override any of Autopilot’s features at any time by steering or applying the accelerator at any time.”
Despite this, and the fact that McGee admitted to “fishing for his phone” after it fell, Tesla was ordered to pay hundreds of millions in damages.

Tesla attorney Joel Smith said in court (via Washington Post):

“He said he was fishing for his phone. It’s a fact. That happens in any car. That isolates the cause. The cause is he dropped his cell phone.”
In total, Tesla is responsible for $324 million in payouts: $200 million in punitive damages, $35 million to the deceased’s mother, $24 million to their father, and $70 million to their boyfriend, who was also struck but was injured and not killed.

The family of the deceased, Naibel Benavides Leon, also sued the driver and reached a settlement out of court. The family opened the federal suit against Tesla in 2024, alleging that Tesla was to blame because it operated its technology on a road “it was not designed for,” the report states.

Despite the disclosures and warnings Tesla lists in numerous places to its drivers and users of both Autopilot and Full Self-Driving, as well as all of its active safety features, the operator remains responsible for paying attention.

CEO Elon Musk confirmed it would appeal the jury’s decision:

The driver being distracted is a big part of this case that seemed to be forgotten as the jury came to its decision. Tesla’s disclosures and warnings, as well as McGee’s admission of being distracted, seem to be enough to take any responsibility off the company.

The appeal process will potentially shed more light on this, especially as this will be a main point of emphasis for Tesla’s defense team.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk echoes worries over Tesla control against activist shareholders

Elon Musk has spoken on several occasions of the “activist shareholders” who threaten his role at Tesla.

Published

2 days ago

on

August 1, 2025

By

Credit: xAI | X

Elon Musk continues to raise concerns over his control of Tesla as its CEO and one of its founders, as activist shareholders seem to be a viable threat to the company in his eyes.

Musk has voiced concerns over voting control of Tesla and the possibility of him being ousted by shareholders who do not necessarily have the company’s future in mind. Instead, they could be looking to oust Musk because of his political beliefs or because of his vast wealth.

We saw an example of that as shareholders voted on two separate occasions to award Musk a 2018 compensation package that was earned as Tesla met various growth goals through the CEO’s leadership.

Despite shareholders voting to award Musk with the compensation package on two separate occasions, once in 2018 and again in 2024, Delaware Chancery Court Judge Kathaleen McCormick denied the CEO the money both times. At one time, she called it an “unfathomable sum.”

Musk’s current stake in Tesla stands at 12.8 percent, but he has an option to purchase 304 million shares, which, if exercised, after taxes, he says, would bump his voting control up about 4 percent.

However, this is not enough of a stake in the company, as he believes a roughly 25 percent ownership stake would be enough “to be influential, but not so much that I can’t be overturned,” he said in January 2024.

Musk’s concerns were echoed in another X post from Thursday, where he confirmed he has no current personal loans against Tesla stock, and he reiterated his concerns of being ousted from the company by those he has referred to in the past as “activist shareholders.”

Elon Musk explains why he wants 25% voting share at Tesla: “I just want to be an effective steward of very powerful technology”

The CEO said during the company’s earnings call in late July:

“That is a major concern for me, as I’ve mentioned in the past. I hope that is addressed at the upcoming shareholders’ meeting. But, yeah, it is a big deal. I want to find that I’ve got so little control that I can easily be ousted by activist shareholders after having built this army of humanoid robots. I think my control over Tesla, Inc. should be enough to ensure that it goes in a good direction, but not so much control that I can’t be thrown out if I go crazy.”

The X post from Thursday said:

There is a concern that Musk could eventually put his money where his mouth is, and if politicians and judges are able to limit his ownership stake as they’ve been able to do with his pay package, he could eventually leave the company.

The company’s shareholders voted overwhelmingly to approve Musk’s pay package. A vast majority of those who voted to get Musk paid still want him to be running Tesla’s day-to-day operations. Without his guidance, the company could face a major restructuring and would have a vastly new look and thesis.

Continue Reading

Trending