News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains why Blue Origin’s Starship lawsuit makes no sense
For the first time since SpaceX competitor Blue Origin took NASA to federal court after losing a Moon lander contract to Starship and a protest over that loss, unsealed documents have finally revealed the argument Jeff Bezos’ space startup is focusing on in court.
After the details broke in new court documents filed on Wednesday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk weighed in on Twitter to offer his take on why the arguments Blue Origin has hinged its lawsuit on make very little sense.
While one seemingly significant portion of the main complaint claiming to reveal “additional substantial errors” in SpaceX’s Starship HLS proposal was almost fully redacted, most of the opening argument is legible. In short, Blue Origin appears to have abandoned the vast majority of arguments it threw about prior to suing NASA and the US government and is now almost exclusively hinging its case on the claim that SpaceX violated NASA’s procurement process by failing to account for a specific kind of prelaunch review before every HLS-related Starship launch.
For NASA’s HLS competition, SpaceX proposed to create a custom variant of Starship capable of serving as a single-stage-to-orbit crewed Moon lander with the help of the rest of the Starship fleet – including Super Heavy boosters, cargo/tanker Starships, and a depot or storage ship. SpaceX would begin a Moon landing campaign by launching a (likely heavily modified) depot Starship into a stable Earth orbit. Anywhere from 8 to 14 Starship tanker missions – each carrying around 100-150 tons of propellant – would then gradually fill that depot ship over the course of no more than six or so months. Once filled, an HLS lander would launch to orbit, refill its tanks from the depot ship, and make its way to an eccentric lunar orbit to rendezvous with NASA’s Orion spacecraft and three Artemis astronauts.
As Blue Origin has exhaustively reminded anyone within earshot for the last five months, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander proposal is extremely complex and NASA is taking an undeniable risk (of delays, not for astronauts) by choosing SpaceX. Nevertheless, NASA’s Kathy Lueders and a source evaluation panel made it abundantly clear in public selection statement that SpaceX’s proposal was by far the most competent, offering far a far superior management approach and technical risk no worse than Blue Origin’s far smaller, drastically less capable lander.
The bulk of Blue Origin’s argument appears to be that its National Team Lander proposal was drastically disadvantaged by the fact that SpaceX may or may not have incorrectly planned for just three ‘flight readiness reviews’ (FRRs) for each 16-launch HLS Starship mission. While heavily redacted, Blue Origin wants a judge to believe that contrary to the US Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) fair assessment that such a small issue is incredibly unlikely to have changed the competition’s outcome, it would have “been able to propose a substantially lower price” for its lander. To be clear, a flight readiness review is an admittedly important part of NASA’s safety culture, but it ultimately amounts to paperwork and doublechecks over the course of a day or two of meetings.
All else equal, the need to complete an FRR before a launch is incredibly unlikely to cause more than a few days of delays in a worst-case scenario and would have next to no cost impact. There is no reasonable way to argue that being allowed to complete some launches without an FRR would have singlehandedly allowed Blue Origin to “[engineer] and [propose] an entirely different architecture.” Nevertheless, that’s exactly what the company attempts to argue – that it would have radically and completely changed the design it spent more than half a billion dollars sketching out if it had only been able to skip a few reviews.
Curiously, Blue Origin nevertheless does make a few coherent and seemingly fact-based arguments in the document. Perhaps most notably, it claims that when NASA ultimately concluded that it didn’t have funds for even a single award (a known fact) and asked SpaceX – its first choice – to make slight contract modifications to make the financial side of things work, NASA consciously chose to waive the need for an FRR before every HLS Starship launch. Only via purported cost savings from those waived reviews, Blue Origin claims, was NASA able to afford SpaceX’s proposal – which, it’s worth noting, was more than twice as cheap as the next cheapest option (Blue Origin).
Ultimately, it thus appears that Blue Origin may have a case to make that NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Option A contract despite a handful of errors that violated contracting rules and the HLS solicitation. Relative to just about any other possible issue, though, it’s hard not to perceive the problems Blue Origin may or may have correctly pointed out as anything more than marginal and extraordinarily unlikely to have changed the outcome in Blue’s favor had they been rectified before the award. Most importantly, even if Blue Origin’s argument is somehow received favorably and a judge orders NASA to overturn its SpaceX HLS award and reconsider all three proposals, it’s virtually inconceivable that even that best-case outcome would result in Blue Origin receiving a contract of any kind.
Tesla has lost its Model Y Program Manager, he announced on LinkedIn, marking the second major departure from the company today.
Emmanuel Lamacchia has been in the role for 4 years and 7 months, responsible for the rollout of the all-electric crossover in several markets.
The Model Y became the best-selling vehicle in the world for two years under Lamacchia’s watch, making this a huge loss for the company. However, it seems the decision was made under Lamacchia’s own initiative.
He confirmed his decision on LinkedIn:
“After 8 incredible years, I’m moving on from Tesla.
What a journey it’s been… from leading NPI for Model 3 and Model Y variants to becoming the Vehicle Program Manager for Model Y, the best-selling car in the world!
Leading the All-New Model Y launch was the highlight: converting all 4 factories across 3 continents in just 2 weeks. Something that had never been done before in the auto industry.
To the teams who made this possible: you should be incredibly proud. This achievement belongs to you: the engineers, designers, buyers, and associates in Fremont, Shanghai, Berlin, and Austin who turned an impossible timeline into reality.
Grateful to the leaders who trusted me with programs that stretched my capabilities and to the cross-functional partners who showed me that great solutions come from collaboration, not hierarchy.
Tesla taught me how to move fast without breaking things and how to scale from prototypes to millions of units.
Excited for what’s next. More to share soon.”
It marks the second major program loss for Tesla today, as it also bid farewell to Cybertruck and Model 3 Program Manager Siddhant Awasthi, who said he left voluntarily in “one of the hardest decisions of his life.”
Lamacchia was at Tesla for just a shade under eight years, and previously worked for Rolls-Royce for roughly the same amount of time.
After the loss of both Lamacchia and Awasthi today, Tesla has lost a handful of key executives in 2025, including:
- David Imai, Director of Design
- David Lau, VP of Software Engineering
- Mark Westfall, Head of Mechanical Engineering
- Prashant Menon, Regional Director in India
- Vineet Mehta, Head of Battery Architecture
- Omead Afshar, VP/Head of Sales and Manufacturing in North America
- Milan Kovac, Head of Optimus Team
- Jenna Ferrua, Director of HR
- Troy Jones, VP of Sales, Service, and Delivery
- Pete Bannon, VP of Hardware Engineering
- Piero Landolfi, Director of Service
News
Tesla prepares to expand Giga Texas with new Optimus production plant
Drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer recognized Tesla construction crews performing ground leveling and clearing efforts at the plant earlier today.
Tesla is preparing to expand Gigafactory Texas once again with a brand new facility that will house the eventual manufacturing efforts for Optimus, its humanoid robot.
It is already building some units on a Pilot line at the Fremont Factory in Northern California, but Tesla is planning to build the vast majority of its Optimus project at Gigafactory Texas.
Tesla Optimus gets its latest job, and it’s not in the company’s factories
It will build one million units per year in Fremont, but CEO Elon Musk said the company would build 10 million units every year in Texas at a new building at Giga Texas.
Musk said:
“I think there could be tens of billions of Optimus robots out there. Um, now obviously it’s very important we pay close attention to safety here. Then a 10 million unit uh per year production line here the I don’t know where we’re going to put the 100 million unit production line. on Mars. Maybe on Mars, I don’t know.”
Evidently, Tesla is ready to begin thinking about the production efforts of Optimus beyond a theoretical standpoint and is starting to prepare for the construction of the manufacturing plant on Giga Texas property.
Drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer recognized Tesla construction crews performing ground leveling and clearing efforts at the plant earlier today:
Giga Texas News!
A brand-new, stand-alone factory is starting construction! This follows the Shareholders meeting & info that a 10-million-per-year @Tesla_Optimus production facility “on the Giga Texas campus” will be built & enter into production in 2027!
Here are some… pic.twitter.com/7ig5DohfOt
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) November 10, 2025
Production is still slated for 2027, at least at Gigafactory Texas. As previously mentioned, the company is building some units in Fremont for the time being, at least until subsequent versions of the Optimus project advance.
Tesla has done a great job of advancing Optimus forward, but it also has truly grand expectations for the project.
Musk said it could potentially be the biggest product in the history of the planet, as it will revolutionize the way humans perform tasks, probably eliminating monotonous tasks from everyday life.
Tesla revealed its first customer for the all-electric Semi truck after it launches next year. Who it truly is should not be a surprise.
The Semi is going to finally start deliveries to new companies outside of Tesla’s pilot program starting in 2026. The company has been building a dedicated production facility in Reno, Nevada, that has finally taken shape, but Tesla was evidently not finished with the Semi’s development.
Last week at the Annual Shareholder Meeting, Tesla said it had implemented some new designs into the Semi, helping with efficiency, updating its design, and making it a more suitable vehicle for hauling loads, as the changes also helped increase payload.
Tesla has obtained a lengthy list of companies that have committed to implementing the Semi in their own fleets, hoping to bring their logistics lineups up to date with electric powertrains and autonomous technologies.
While it is already operating a pilot program with PepsiCo. and Frito-Lay, Tesla will expand to other businesses, primarily using it internally after its launch.
Head of the Semi program at Tesla, Dan Priestley, said the company would be the first user of the vehicle after its launch next year. It has been using it to a certain extent, but the company has not been able to completely abandon gas haulers.
Instead, it will implement the Semi into its fleet for more sustainable vehicle logistics starting next year:
Tesla will be the first customer as we electrify our supply chain. This includes Texas operations.
— Dan Priestley (@danWpriestley) November 7, 2025
Tesla has already received orders for the Semi from a variety of large companies, including Walmart, Sysco, Anheuser-Busch, UPS, DHL, J.B. Hunt, among others.
Many analysts see the Tesla Semi as a major contributor to future growth and increasing value within the company, especially from a Wall Street perspective. Some firms say the Semi is one of several near and medium-term contributors to the company increasing its market cap.
Cantor Fitzgerald is just one of those firms, as last week it explicitly listed the Semi as a catalyst.
Analyst Andres Sheppard said, “Overall, we remain bullish on TSLA over the medium to long term. We continue to see meaningful future upside from Energy Storage & Deployment, FSD, Robotaxis/Cybercab, Semis, and Optimus Bots.”
Tesla loses Model Y program manager in second blow in single day
Tesla prepares to expand Giga Texas with new Optimus production plant
Tesla reveals its first Semi customer after launch
-
News3 days agoTesla shares rare peek at Semi factory’s interior
-
Elon Musk4 days agoTesla says texting and driving capability is coming ‘in a month or two’
-
News3 days agoTesla makes online ordering even easier
-
News3 days agoTesla Model Y Performance set for new market entrance in Q1
-
News4 days agoTesla Cybercab production starts Q2 2026, Elon Musk confirms
-
News4 days agoTesla China expecting full FSD approval in Q1 2026: Elon Musk
-
News5 days agoTesla Model Y Performance is rapidly moving toward customer deliveries
-
News2 days agoTesla is launching a crazy new Rental program with cheap daily rates