News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk details orbital refueling plans for Starship Moon lander
After a much-anticipated GAO denial of Blue Origin and Dynetics protests over NASA’s decision to solely award SpaceX a contract to turn Starship into a crewed Moon lander, an in-depth (but heavily redacted) document explaining that decision was released on August 10th.
Aside from ruthlessly tearing both companies’ protests limb from limb, the US Government Accountability Office’s decision also offered a surprising amount of insight into SpaceX’s HLS Starship proposal. One of those details in particular seemed to strike an irrational nerve in the online spaceflight community. Specifically, in its decision, GAO happened to reveal that SpaceX had proposed a mission profile that would require as many as 16 launches to fully fuel a Starship Lander and stage the spacecraft in an unusual lunar orbit.
After around 24 hours of chaos, confusion, and misplaced panic, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk finally weighed in on the GAO document’s moderately surprising indication that each Starship Moon landing would require sixteen SpaceX launches.
Confirming many expectations, SpaceX’s solution to sending an entire single-stage Starship to the Moon, landing it on the lunar surface, and returning it to a lunar orbit (and maybe even Earth) goes as follows.
First, SpaceX will launch a custom variant of Starship that was redacted in the GAO decision document but confirmed by NASA to be a propellant storage (or depot) ship last year. Second, after the depot Starship is in a stable orbit, SpaceX’s NASA HLS proposal reportedly states that the company would begin a series of 14 tanker launches spread over almost six months – each of which would dock with the depot and gradually fill its tanks.
-->Third, once the depot ship is topped off, the actual Starship Moon lander would launch, dock with the depot, and be fully fueled. Finally, the fueled lander would fire up its Raptor engines and head to the Moon, where it would enter a near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO) – a weird high-altitude, elliptical orbit only necessary because NASA’s Orion spacecraft and SLS rocket are too underpowered to reach a more normal, functional orbit around the Moon.
After reaching NRHO, Starship would dock with Orion (or vice versa), receive its Artemis astronauts, land on the Moon for several days, and launch back to NRHO to return those astronauts to Orion. After its main mission is complete, it remains to be seen if Starship will have enough propellant left over to return to some kind of Earth orbit, where it could potentially be refueled and reused on future missions to the lunar surface.
In response to GAO revealing that SpaceX proposed as many as 16 launches – including 14 refuelings – spaced ~12 days apart for every Starship Moon lander mission, Musk says that a need for “16 flights is extremely unlikely.” Instead, assuming each Starship tanker is able to deliver a full 150 tons of payload (propellant) into orbit after a few years of design maturation, Musk believes that it’s unlikely to take more than eight tanker launches to refuel the depot ship – or a total of ten launches including the depot and lander.
But, as Musk notes, so long as Starship gets anywhere close to its design objectives, it would be a non-issue even if each Starship Moon lander mission somehow required 16 launches. A step further, assuming that SpaceX proposed 16 launches per mission out of an abundance of conservatism, it’s fair to assume that a 12-day gap between tanker launches is also an extremely conservative worst-case scenario. Per Musk and SpaceX, Starship’s design goals call for multiple reuses of ships and boosters per day. Even if SpaceX falls a full magnitude short of those ambitious goals, Starship tankers should feasibly be able to launch every few days or maybe every week.
But thanks to SpaceX’s relatively conservative proposal, the company now knows that NASA is more than happy with Starship even if it falls something like 50% short of its payload performance goals and two magnitudes short of its reusability goals.
-->
Tesla will expand its factory shuttle service in Germany beginning January 4, adding direct rail trips from Berlin Ostbahnhof to Giga Berlin-Brandenburg in Grünheide.
The upgraded link, which includes six daily services aligned with shift schedules, reduces travel time to roughly 35 minutes despite ongoing station construction. With this initiative, Tesla aims to boost the number of Gigafactory Berlin employees commuting by rail while keeping the shuttle free for all riders.
New shuttle route
As noted in a report from rbb24, the new service will run between the Berlin Ostbahnhof East Station and the Erkner Station at the Gigafactory. Tesla stated that the timetable mirrors shift changes for the facility’s employees, and similar to before, the service will be completely free. The train will offer six direct trips per day as well.
“The service includes six daily trips, which also cover our shift times,” Tesla stated. “The trains will run between Berlin Ostbahnhof (with a stop at Ostkreuz) and Erkner station to the Gigafactory.”
Even with construction continuing at Fangschleuse and Köpenick stations, the company said the route has been optimized to maintain a predictable 35-minute travel time. The upgrade follows earlier phases of Tesla’s self-funded shuttle program, which initially connected Erkner to the factory grounds before expanding to Berlin-Lichtenberg.
-->Tesla pushes for majority rail commuting
Tesla began production at Grünheide in March 2022, and the factory’s workforce has since grown to around 11,500 employees, with an estimated 60% commuting from Berlin. The facility produces the Model Y, Tesla’s best-selling vehicle, for both Germany and other territories.
The company has repeatedly emphasized its goal of having more than half its staff rely on public transportation rather than cars, positioning the shuttle as a key part of that initiative. In keeping with the factory’s sustainability focus, Tesla continues to allow non-employees to ride the shuttle free of charge, making it a broader mobility option for the region as the site’s output and workforce continue to scale.
News
Tesla Model 3 and Model Y dominate China’s real-world efficiency tests
The Tesla Model 3 posted 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y followed closely at 21.8 kWh/100 km.
Tesla’s Model 3 and Model Y once again led the field in a new real-world energy-consumption test conducted by China’s Autohome, outperforming numerous rival electric vehicles in controlled conditions.
The results, which placed both Teslas in the top two spots, prompted Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun to acknowledge Tesla’s efficiency advantage while noting that his company’s vehicles will continue refining its own models to close the gap.
Tesla secures top efficiency results
Autohome’s evaluation placed all vehicles under identical conditions, such as a full 375-kg load, cabin temperature fixed at 24°C on automatic climate control, and a steady cruising speed of 120 km/h. In this environment, the Tesla Model 3 posted 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y followed closely at 21.8 kWh/100 km, as noted in a Sina News report.
These figures positioned Tesla’s vehicles firmly at the top of the ranking and highlighted their continued leadership in long-range efficiency. The test also highlighted how drivetrain optimization, software management, and aerodynamic profiles remain key differentiators in high-speed, cold-weather scenarios where many electric cars struggle to maintain low consumption.
Xiaomi’s Lei Jun pledges to continue learning from Tesla
Following the results, Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun noted that the Xiaomi SU7 actually performed well overall but naturally consumed more energy due to its larger C-segment footprint and higher specification. He reiterated that factors such as size and weight contributed to the difference in real-world consumption compared to Tesla. Still, the executive noted that Xiaomi will continue to learn from the veteran EV maker.
“The Xiaomi SU7’s energy consumption performance is also very good; you can take a closer look. The fact that its test results are weaker than Tesla’s is partly due to objective reasons: the Xiaomi SU7 is a C-segment car, larger and with higher specifications, making it heavier and naturally increasing energy consumption. Of course, we will continue to learn from Tesla and further optimize its energy consumption performance!” Lei Jun wrote in a post on Weibo.
-->Lei Jun has repeatedly described Tesla as the global benchmark for EV efficiency, previously stating that Xiaomi may require three to five years to match its leadership. He has also been very supportive of FSD, even testing the system in the United States.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk reveals what will make Optimus’ ridiculous production targets feasible
Musk recent post suggests that Tesla has a plan to attain Optimus’ production goals.
Elon Musk subtly teased Tesla’s strategy to achieve Optimus’ insane production volume targets. The CEO has shared his predictions about Optimus’ volume, and they are so ambitious that one would mistake them for science fiction.
Musk’s recent post on X, however, suggests that Tesla has a plan to attain Optimus’ production goals.
The highest volume product
Elon Musk has been pretty clear about the idea of Optimus being Tesla’s highest-volume product. During the Tesla 2025 Annual Shareholder Meeting, Musk stated that the humanoid robot will see “the fastest production ramp of any product of any large complex manufactured product ever,” starting with a one-million-per-year line at the Fremont Factory.
Following this, Musk stated that Giga Texas will receive a 10 million-per-year unit Optimus line. But even at this level, the Optimus ramp is just beginning, as the production of the humanoid robot will only accelerate from there. At some point, the CEO stated that a Mars location could even have a 100 million-unit-per-year production line, resulting in up to a billion Optimus robots being produced per year.
Self-replication is key
During the weekend, Musk posted a short message that hinted at Tesla’s Optimus strategy. “Optimus will be the Von Neumann probe,” the CEO wrote in his post. This short comment suggests that Tesla will not be relying on traditional production systems to make Optimus. The company probably won’t even hire humans to produce the humanoid robot at one point. Instead, Optimus robots could simply produce other Optimus robots, allowing them to self-replicate.
-->The Von Neumann is a hypothetical self-replicating spacecraft proposed by the mathematician and physicist John von Neumann in the 1940s–1950s. The hypothetical machine in the concept would be able to travel to a new star system or location, land, mine, and extract raw materials from planets, asteroids, and moons as needed, use those materials to manufacture copies of itself, and launch the new copies toward other star systems.
If Optimus could pull off this ambitious target, the humanoid robot would indeed be the highest volume product ever created. It could, as Musk predicted, really change the world.
Tesla is improving Giga Berlin’s free train service for employees
Tesla Model 3 and Model Y dominate China’s real-world efficiency tests
