News
SpaceX lobbies NASA to foster competitive deep space exploration
Tim Hughes, the senior VP of SpaceX’s global business and government affairs, testified earlier this morning before the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Technology and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology. He put forth a strong argument that it would be in the best interests of both NASA and the United States to encourage commercial competition in pursuit of the exploration of deep space, and that this could be done with concrete goals like improved interplanetary communications, vertically landing spacecraft on the Moon, and sending substantial amounts of cargo to Mars.
Before joining SpaceX, Hughes was the central actor responsible for drafting and supporting the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, which effectively paved the way for NASA’s first programs of commercial competition just two years later. He joined the company in 2005, and has defined SpaceX’s approach to legal and government affairs in the many years since.
Leveraging data related to the major successes and efficiency of NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transport Services (COTS) initiative, which began in earnest in 2006, Hughes demonstrated that by awarding SpaceX with funds from COTS, NASA ultimately found themselves with a highly-capable orbital launch vehicle after a relatively miniscule investment of $396 million into the venture. A study later conducted by NASA estimated that developing the same vehicle with a traditional NASA or commercial approach would have cost approximately $4 billion or $1.7 billion respectively, implying that the COTS approach was as much as ten times more efficient than NASA’s own traditional strategies of launch vehicle procurement.
SpaceX’s CRS-11 mission just over a month ago was the company’s 10th successful transport of cargo to the ISS. (SpaceX)
Of course, SpaceX themselves invested over $500 million initially following NASA’s COTS award, but NASA’s bode of confidence in the company likely made it possible in the first place for it to raise that level of funding. The point of this presented data, of course, is to segue into the argument that the introduction of commercial competition into the field of deep space exploration could also benefit NASA in the sense that it might be drastically more cost effective than current approaches. Hughes did not explicitly call out any current programs during his testimony, but the clear figureheads are the Space Launch System and Orion. Such a request from private industry also acts as a bit of a gentle suggestion to those in NASA, related Congressional and Senatorial committees. Subcommittees that past and current traditional strategies of hardware procurement for space exploration may be showing signs of age and obsolescence in the face of more efficient commercial ventures.
In fact, NASA’s Chief of Spaceflight, Bill Gerstenmaier, admitted earlier today in a very rare streak of candor that he “[couldn’t] put a date on humans on Mars” and that that was a result of a severe lack of budget to design and build the myriad technologies, hardware, and vehicles necessary to actually take advantage of a heavy launch vehicle like the Space Launch System. NASA is admittedly beginning to pursue and request industry information for what they are calling a Deep Space Gateway or NEXTSTEP, intended to be a small orbital base or space station located closer to the Moon than to Earth. A successfully-developed DSG would indeed become one completed facet of the architecture needed to bring humans to Mars, and can be compared in concept to SpaceX’s Big Falcon Spaceship in a limited fashion.
-
- Boeing (pictured here), SNC, and five other companies all produced concepts that are now being evaluated by NASA for the NEXTSTEP program. (Boeing)
-
- Sierra Nevada’s NEXTSTEP cislunar station concept. (SNC)
-
- SpaceX’s conceptual Interplanetary Transport System from 2016 was considerably larger and more structurally complex than 2017’s BFR. (SpaceX)
Given Gestenmaier’s frank admittance that NASA’s budget is not presently able to support even a fraction of what is necessary for their “Journey to Mars”, exploring alternative methods of more efficiently exploiting the money NASA could realistically make available for further deep space exploration is almost certainly a major priority, or it at least ought to be. Gertsenmaier’s unspoken need for more efficient methods of exploring Mars and deep space would perfectly mesh with the requested program SpaceX’s Tim Hughes also presented earlier today, and the potential benefits SpaceX might also reap from such an arrangement make it worth serious consideration.
The political and corporate mire that NASA is almost innately intertwined with is the primary and most obvious barrier to the existence of a deep space COTS-esque program, but it is possible that some amount of calculated politicking on behalf of SpaceX could result in the right Senators or Representatives getting behind SpaceX’s mission of cost-effective space exploration.
Elon Musk
Tesla showcases Optimus humanoid robot at AWE 2026 in Shanghai
Tesla’s humanoid robot was presented as part of the company’s exhibit at the Shanghai electronics show.
Tesla showcased its Optimus humanoid robot at the 2026 Appliance & Electronics World Expo (AWE 2026) in Shanghai. The event opened Thursday and featured several Tesla products, including the company’s humanoid robot and the Cybertruck.
The display was reported by CNEV Post, citing information from local media outlet Cailian and on-site staff at the exhibition.
Tesla’s humanoid robot was presented as part of the company’s exhibit at the Shanghai electronics show. On-site staff reportedly stated that mass production of the robot could begin by the end of 2026.
Tesla previously indicated that it plans to manufacture its humanoid robots at scale once production begins, with its initial production line in the Fremont Factory reaching up to 1 million units annually. An Optimus production line at Gigafactory Texas is expected to produce 10 million units per year.
Tesla China previously shared a teaser image on Weibo showing a pair of highly detailed robotic hands believed to belong to Optimus. The image suggests a design with finger proportions and structures that closely resemble those of a human hand.
Robotic hands are widely considered one of the most difficult engineering challenges in humanoid robotics. For a system like Optimus to perform complex real-world tasks, from factory work to household activities, the robot would require highly advanced dexterity.
Elon Musk has previously stated that Optimus has the capability to eventually become the first real-world example of a Von Neumann machine, a self-replicating system capable of building copies of itself, even on other planets. “Optimus will be the first Von Neumann machine, capable of building civilization by itself on any viable planet,” Musk wrote in a post on X.
Elon Musk
Tesla Cybercab production line is targeting hundreds of vehicles weekly: report
According to the report, Tesla has been adding staff and installing new equipment at its Austin factory as it prepares to begin Cybercab production.
Tesla is reportedly designing its Cybercab production line to manufacture hundreds of the autonomous vehicles each week once mass production begins. The effort is underway at Gigafactory Texas in Austin as the company prepares to start building the Robotaxi at scale.
The details were reported by The Wall Street Journal, citing people reportedly familiar with the matter.
According to the report, Tesla has been adding staff and installing new equipment at its Austin factory as it prepares to begin Cybercab production.
People reportedly familiar with Tesla’s plans stated that the company has been growing its staff and bringing in new equipment to start the mass production of the Cybercab this April.
The Cybercab is Tesla’s upcoming fully autonomous two-seat vehicle designed without a steering wheel or pedals. The vehicle is intended to operate primarily as part of Tesla’s planned Robotaxi ride-hailing network.
“There’s no fallback mechanism here. Like this car either drives itself or it does not drive,” Musk stated during Tesla’s previous earnings call.
Tesla has indicated that Cybercab production could begin as soon as April, though Elon Musk has noted that early production will likely be slow before ramping over time. Musk has stated that the Cybercab’s slow ramp is due in no small part to the fact that it is a completely new vehicle platform.
Tesla’s Cybercab is designed to work with the company’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system and support its planned autonomous ride-hailing service. The company has suggested that the vehicle could cost under $30,000, making it one of Tesla’s most affordable models if produced at scale. Musk has confirmed in a previous X post that the vehicle will indeed be offered to regular consumers at a price below $30,000.
Musk has previously stated that Tesla could eventually produce millions of Cybercabs annually if demand and production capacity scale as planned.
News
Tesla VP explains latest updates in trade secret theft case
Tesla reportedly caught Matthews copying the tech into machines that were sold to competitors, claiming they lied about doing so for three years, and continued to ship it. That is when Tesla chose to sue Matthews in July 2024 in Federal court, demanding over $1 billion in damages due to trade secret theft.
Tesla Vice President Bonne Eggleston explained the latest updates in a trade secret theft case the company has against a former manufacturing equipment supplier, Matthews International.
Back in 2024, Tesla had filed a lawsuit against Matthews International, alleging that the firm stole trade secrets about battery manufacturing and shared those details with some of Tesla’s competitors.
Early last year, a U.S. District Court Judge denied Tesla’s request to block Matthews International from selling its dry battery electrode (DBE) technology across the world. The judge, Edward Davila, said that the patent for the tech was due to Matthews’ “extensive research and development.”
The two companies’ relationship began back in 2019, as Tesla hired Matthews to help build the equipment for its 4680 battery cell. Tesla shared confidential software, designs, and know-how under strict secrecy rules.
Fast forward a few years, and Tesla reportedly caught Matthews copying the tech into machines that were sold to competitors, claiming they lied about doing so for three years, and continued to ship it. That is when Tesla chose to sue Matthews in July 2024 in Federal court, demanding over $1 billion in damages due to trade secret theft.
Now, the latest twist, as this month, a Judge issued a permanent injunction—a court order banning Matthews from using certain stolen Tesla parts or designs in their machines. Matthews is also officially “liable” for damages. The exact amount would still to be calculated later.
Bonne Eggleston, a VP for Tesla, said on X today that Matthews is a supplier who “exploited customer IP through theft or deception,” and has no place in Tesla’s ecosystem:
Buyer beware: Matthews International stole Tesla’s DBE technology and is now subject to an injunction and liable for damages.
During our work with Matthews, we caught them red-handed copying our technology—including proprietary software and sensitive mechanical designs—into… https://t.co/Toc8ilakeM
— Bonne Eggleston (@BonneEggleston) March 10, 2026
Tesla calls this a big win and warns other companies: “Buyer beware—don’t buy from thieves.”
Matthews hit back with a press release claiming victory. They say an arbitrator ruled they can keep selling their own DBE equipment to anyone and rejected Tesla’s request for a total sales ban. They call Tesla’s claims “nonsense” and insist their 20-year-old tech is independent. Both sides are spinning the same narrow ruling: Matthews can sell their version, but they’re blocked from using Tesla’s specific secrets.
What are Tesla’s Current Legal Options
The case isn’t over—it’s moving to the damages phase. Tesla can:
- Push forward in court or arbitration to calculate and collect huge financial penalties (potentially $1 billion+ if willful theft is proven).
- Enforce the permanent injunction with contempt charges, fines, or even jail time if Matthews violates it.
- Challenge Matthews’ new patents that allegedly copy Tesla’s work, asking courts to invalidate them or add Tesla as co-inventor.
- Seek extra damages, lawyer fees, and possibly punitive awards under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and California law.
Tesla could also refer evidence to federal prosecutors for possible criminal trade-secret charges (rare but serious). Settlement is always possible, but Tesla’s fiery public response suggests they want full accountability.
This isn’t just corporate drama. It shows why trade secrets matter even when Tesla open-sources some patents, confidential know-how shared in trust must stay protected. For the EV industry, it’s a reminder: steal from your biggest customer, and you risk losing everything.
Tesla showcases Optimus humanoid robot at AWE 2026 in Shanghai
Tesla Cybercab production line is targeting hundreds of vehicles weekly: report
