SpaceX
SpaceX to submit Moon lander proposal for latest NASA spaceflight competition
SpaceX reportedly plans to submit its own human-rated Moon lander design for NASA’s latest major request for proposal (RFP), part of the agency’s rough plan to return humans to the Moon no earlier than 2028.
Meant to begin delivering NASA astronauts to the surface of the Moon as early as 2028, the agency hopes to base those lander operations on a thus far unbuilt space station orbiting the Moon with the support of its SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft.
This is actually a pretty big deal. https://t.co/P6LXAMXVJI
— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) February 11, 2019
SpaceX will submit a lunar lander design.
— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) February 11, 2019
Meant to build directly off of SLS/Orion, a NASA-designed rocket and spacecraft beset with at least three years of delays and billions of dollars in cost overruns, it’s unclear where SpaceX might fit into NASA’s latest modernized attempt at an Apollo Program 2.0. Alongside the 2017 cancellation of Crew Dragon’s propulsive landing program due in part to the likely cost of the certification burden NASA would have placed on the technology before allowing it to land astronauts, SpaceX also canceled Red Dragon (and thus Grey Dragon), a proposal to use a minimally modified version of Crew Dragon as an ad-hoc Mars lander and R&D testbed.
Aside from the likely cost of certifying propulsive Crew Dragon to NASA specifications, CEO Elon Musk also explained the program’s cancellation as a consequence of SpaceX’s far greater interest in what he described as “vastly bigger ship[s]” in July 2017. This translated into a presentation at IAC 2017 a few months later, where Musk revealed SpaceX’s updated design for a giant, fully-reusable launch vehicle meant to enable sustainable Mars colonization, known then as BFR. BFR has since been reconceptualized at least two more times, settling (at present) on a radical new approach said to rely heavily on stainless steel as a replacement for advanced carbon composites.
Initially making one 200 metric ton thrust engine common across ship & booster to reach the moon as fast as possible. Next versions will split to vacuum-optimized (380+ sec Isp) & sea-level thrust optimized (~250 ton).
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 1, 2019
In the second half of 2018 and the first few months of 2019, the SpaceX CEO’s BFR (now Starship/Super Heavy) narrative has noticeably diverged from a largely exclusive focus on Mars to include a new interest (be it genuine or out of convenience) in the Moon. Most notably, Musk stated in January and February 2019 that SpaceX’s single-minded goal for BFR was now “to reach the moon as fast as possible”. In response to a question about SpaceX’s intentions for the first few orbital BFR (Starship) launches, Musk also replied, “Moon first, Mars as soon as the planets align”.
This is likely explicitly connected to Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa’s decision to purchase the first operational Starship (BFR) launch in support of his philanthropic #DearMoon project, meant to send 8-10 artists from across Earth on the first commercial voyage around the Moon as early as 2023. While no specific value was given, the implication of CEO Elon Musk’s emotional response when discussing the financial support pegged the number in the hundreds of millions of dollars, likely on the order of $250M to $500M. However, any astute bureaucrat or aerospace executive would also be (and have been) distinctly aware of a new political undercurrent pushing for the US and NASA to return humans to the Moon, circulating for the last few years before breaking through to the surface in the last six or so months.
-
- SpaceX’s updated BFR spaceship seen cresting over the Moon’s limb. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX’s 2017 BFS (now Starship) delivers cargo to a large lunar base. (SpaceX)
Orion/SLS versus Starship/Super Heavy?
Per Musk’s frequent and insistent comments on just how hard he expects it to be for SpaceX to fully fund the development of BFR, it would come as no surprise to learn that SpaceX had set its eyes on potential sources of major BFR development funds. Where exactly NASA will find the multibillion-dollar sum likely required to develop even a commercial human-rated Moon lander is entirely unclear, but alas. Although NASA’s new Moon mission seems like an apt fit for SpaceX, funding aside, the problem remains that SpaceX’s next-generation Starship/Super Heavy (formerly BFR) launch vehicle poses a direct, existential threat to NASA’s SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft, an almost entirely expendable system likely to cost no less than $1B per launch and unlikely to launch for the first time until 2021.
NASA’s human return to the Moon is meant to directly complement SLS/Orion thanks to the intention of using a theoretical Moon-based space station (known as Gateway) in a bizarre lunar orbit (known as a “Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit” or NRHO) as the base of lunar-landing operations. The decision to place said Gateway in a lunar halo orbit derives almost exclusively derives (PDF) from a separate decision to design NASA’s future exploration plans around SLS and Orion, particularly Orion in the context of the Moon. Put simply, Orion is relatively mass-inefficient and has a fairly limited amount of delta V (shorthand for the capacity to change one’s velocity), preventing far more useful orbits (i.e. actual lunar orbits). The fragile web of Gateway, SLS, Orion, and any potential crewed Moon landers is intentionally designed to be interdependent, meaning that each piece on its own makes little objective sense and has no obvious functional benefit relative to a bevy of alternatives.
-
- SLS Block 1. (NASA)
-
- NASA’s proposed Moon-based space station, known as Gateway. (NASA)
-
- BFR’s spaceship and booster (now Starship and Super Heavy) separate in a mid-2018 render of the vehicle. (SpaceX)
-
- A BFS attempts a Mars landing in this official updated render. (SpaceX)
As designed, SpaceX’s Starship/Super Heavy combo would be a nearly redundant and radically simpler solution to the mishmash of Gateway, SLS, Orion, and others. A return to using propulsive Crew Dragon landings as a method of significant payload delivery to the lunar surface is immensely unlikely. The value of an entirely new SpaceX-built craft is equally unclear, given Musk and SpaceX’s general stance on putting development funds towards things that bring the company closer to achieving its ultimate goal of sustainable interplanetary colonization. Regardless, it will undoubtedly be exciting to see what happens and whether SpaceX actually chooses to submit a proposal for one or all aspects of NASA’s baselined lunar lander.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes!
Elon Musk
Musk company boycott proposal at City Council meeting gets weird and ironic
The City of Davis in California held a weekly city council meeting on Tuesday, where it voted on a proposal to ban Musk-operated companies. It got weird and ironic.
A city council meeting in California that proposed banning the entry of new contracts with companies controlled by Elon Musk got weird and ironic on Tuesday night after councilmembers were forced to admit some of the entities would benefit the community.
The City of Davis in California held a weekly city council meeting on Tuesday, where it voted on a proposal called “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies.”
The proposal claimed that Musk ” has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”
We reported on it on Tuesday before the meeting:
California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX
However, the meeting is now published online, and it truly got strange.
While it was supported by various members of the community, you could truly tell who was completely misinformed about the influence of Musk’s companies, their current status from an economic and competitive standpoint, and how much some of Musk’s companies’ projects benefit the community.
City Council Member Admits Starlink is Helpful
One City Council member was forced to admit that Starlink, the satellite internet project established by Musk’s SpaceX, was beneficial to the community because the emergency response system utilized it for EMS, Fire, and Police communications in the event of a power outage.
After public comments were heard, councilmembers amended some of the language in the proposal to not include Starlink because of its benefits to public safety.
One community member even said, “There should be exceptions to the rule.”
🚨 After the City of Davis, California, held its City Council meeting on Tuesday and voted on a resolution called “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” it was forced to admit that it needs… pic.twitter.com/hQiCIX3yll
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 19, 2026
Community Members Report Out of Touch Mainstream Media Narratives
Many community members very obviously read big bold headlines about how horribly Tesla is performing in terms of electric vehicles. Many pointed to “labor intimidation” tactics being used at the company’s Fremont Factory, racial discrimination lawsuits, and Musk’s political involvement as clear-cut reasons why Davis should not consider his companies for future contracts.
However, it was interesting to hear some of them speak, very obviously out of touch with reality.
Musk has encouraged unions to propose organizing at the Fremont Factory, stating that many employees would not be on board because they are already treated very well. In 2022, he invited Union leaders to come to Fremont “at their convenience.”
The UAW never took the opportunity.
Some have argued that Tesla prevented pro-union clothing at Fremont, which it did for safety reasons. An appeals court sided with Tesla, stating that the company had a right to enforce work uniforms to ensure employee safety.
Another community member said that Tesla was losing market share in the U.S. due to growing competition from legacy automakers.
“Plus, these existing auto companies have learned a lot from what Tesla has done,” she said. Interestingly, Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis have all pulled back from their EV ambitions significantly. All three took billions in financial hits.
One Resident Crosses a Line
One resident’s time at the podium included this:
Another member of the community did this…a member of the City Council admonished him and it came to a verbal spat https://t.co/zWvKCiCkie pic.twitter.com/1L334qq9av
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 19, 2026
He was admonished by City Council member Bapu Vaitla, who said his actions were offensive. The two sparred verbally for a few seconds before their argument ended.
City Council Vote Result
Ultimately, the City of Davis chose to pass the motion, but they also amended it to exclude Starlink because of its emergency system benefits.
Elon Musk
California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX
A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”
A California City Council is planning to weigh whether it would adopt a resolution that would place a ban on its engagement with Elon Musk companies, like Tesla and SpaceX.
The City of Davis, California, will have its City Council weigh a new proposal that would adopt a resolution “to divest from companies owned and/or controlled by Elon Musk.”
This would include a divestment proposal to encourage CalPERS, the California Public Employees Retirement System, to divest from stock in any Musk company.
A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”
It claims that Musk “has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”
If adopted, Davis would bar the city from entering into any new contracts or purchasing agreements with any company owned or controlled by Elon Musk. It also says it will not consider utilizing Tesla Robotaxis.
Hotel owner tears down Tesla chargers in frustration over Musk’s politics
A staff report on the proposal claims there is “no immediate budgetary impact.” However, a move like this would only impact its residents, especially with Tesla, as the Supercharger Network is open to all electric vehicle manufacturers. It is also extremely reliable and widespread.
Regarding the divestment request to CalPERS, it would not be surprising to see the firm make the move. Although it voted against Musk’s compensation package last year, the firm has no issue continuing to make money off of Tesla’s performance on Wall Street.
The decision to avoid Musk companies will be considered this evening at the City Council meeting.
The report comes from Davis Vanguard.
It is no secret that Musk’s political involvement, especially during the most recent Presidential Election, ruffled some feathers. Other cities considered similar options, like the City of Baltimore, which “decided to go in another direction” after awarding Tesla a $5 million contract for a fleet of EVs for city employees.
Elon Musk
Starlink restrictions are hitting Russian battlefield comms: report
The restrictions have reportedly disrupted Moscow’s drone coordination and frontline communications.
SpaceX’s decision to disable unauthorized Starlink terminals in Ukraine is now being felt on the battlefield, with Ukrainian commanders reporting that Russian troops have struggled to maintain assault operations without access to the satellite network.
The restrictions have reportedly disrupted Moscow’s drone coordination and frontline communications.
Lt. Denis Yaroslavsky, who commands a special reconnaissance unit, stated that Russian assault activity noticeably declined for several days after the shutdown. “For three to four days after the shutdown, they really reduced the assault operations,” Yaroslavsky said.
Russian units had allegedly obtained Starlink terminals through black market channels and mounted them on drones and weapons systems, despite service terms prohibiting offensive military use. Once those terminals were blocked, commanders on the Ukrainian side reported improved battlefield ratios, as noted in a New York Post report.
A Ukrainian unit commander stated that casualty imbalances widened after the cutoff. “On any given day, depending on your scale of analysis, my sector was already achieving 20:1 (casuality rate) before the shutdown, and we are an elite unit. Regular units have no problem going 5:1 or 8:1. With Starlink down, 13:1 (casualty rate) for a regular unit is easy,” the unit commander said.
The restrictions come as Russia faces heavy challenges across multiple fronts. A late January report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that more than 1.2 million Russian troops have been killed, wounded, or gone missing since February 2022.
The Washington-based Institute for the Study of War also noted that activity from Russia’s Rubikon drone unit declined after Feb. 1, suggesting communications constraints from Starlink’s restrictions may be limiting operations. “I’m sure the Russians have (alternative options), but it takes time to maximize their implementation and this (would take) at least four to six months,” Yaroslavsky noted.
Tesla Full Self-Driving set to get an awesome new feature, Elon Musk says
Elon Musk clarifies Tesla Cybertruck ’10 day’ comment, fans respond
