News
SpaceX and NASA defeat Blue Origin’s Starship Moon lander lawsuit
While specific details of the decision are likely a few weeks away, the US Court of Federal Claims has denied an infamous Blue Origin lawsuit, upholding NASA’s decision to award SpaceX a contract to create a Starship-derived Moon lander.
The ruling ends almost seven months of delays explicitly caused by protests and lawsuits filed by competitors Dynetics and Blue Origin. Protests were first filed with the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) about a week after NASA announced in April 2021 that SpaceX would build the Human Landing System. Both protests were denied in July but Blue Origin ultimately chose to double down and filed a lawsuit against NASA and SpaceX in August, kicking off a process guaranteed to cause several more months of delays.
NASA’s decision to contract with SpaceX alone defied most expectations, especially when the space agency ultimately explained that SpaceX’s Starship proposal was half the price of the next best option while simultaneously offering better management and more convincing technical expertise. More importantly, rather than attempting to deliver the bare minimum specifications NASA requested from HLS bidders, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander went above and beyond, enabling potentially revolutionary performance magnitudes better than Blue Origin or Dynetics’ offerings.
Based on their redacted GAO protests, both of which contained a litany of frivolous arguments and dubiously relevant and self-unaware jabs at SpaceX, Blue Origin and Dynetics were furious about their losses. Aside from one minor nitpick, GAO wholly denied both protests, at which point Blue Origin took the matter to federal court rather than slink home, tail between its legs. In the interim between protest filing and GAO’s decision, Blue Origin also repeatedly tried to go behind NASA’s back by having sympathetic members of Congress tack on amendments to unrelated bills that would have forced the space agency to select a second HLS lander without guaranteeing the additional funding needed to pay for it.
Blue Origin owner and former Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos even sent an unsolicited letter and proposal to NASA offering to pony up $2B of the ~$6B it requested to develop a NASA Moon lander. SpaceX, on the other hand, did what NASA’s HLS request for proposal (RFP) explicitly asked of bidders and proposed to pay half of its Starship lander development costs in its original proposal, while Blue Origin instead attempted to milk as much money from NASA as possible under the delusional premise that NASA would then negotiate for a cheaper deal (illegal under basic contracting rules).
Later on, weeks into the lawsuit, redacted court filings revealed that Blue Origin had abandoned most of the arguments it put forth in its GAO protest and was instead leading with the claim that a few minor (but potentially valid) violations of contracting rules made by NASA and SpaceX in their limited post-award negotiations. It’s now clear that the presiding judge was far from convinced by that argument, instead ruling entirely in SpaceX and NASA’s favor and upholding the space agency’s HLS procurement process.
It remains to be seen if the judge was at all swayed by any of the several arguments Blue Origin threw at the wall, something that the court’s final redacted decision will hopefully clarify when it’s released around November 18th. In the meantime, it’s unclear when exactly NASA and SpaceX will be able to finally get back to work on HLS. Prior to the court’s decision, NASA’s voluntary stay of performance – preventing collaboration with SpaceX on its HLS contract – was scheduled to expire on November 8th.
The brief decisions can be read here (PDF) and here (PDF).
News
Tesla Insurance officially expands to new U.S. state
Tesla’s in-house Insurance program first launched back in late 2019, offering a new way to insure the vehicles that was potentially less expensive and could alleviate a lot of the issues people had with claims, as the company could assess and repair the damage itself.
Tesla Insurance has officially expanded to a new U.S. state, its thirteenth since its launch in 2019.
Tesla has confirmed that its in-house Insurance program has officially made its way to Florida, just two months after the company filed to update its Private Passenger Auto program in the state. It had tried to offer its insurance program to drivers in the state back in 2022, but its launch did not happen.
Instead, Tesla refiled the paperwork back in mid-October, which essentially was the move toward initiating the offering this month.
BREAKING: Tesla Insurance has just officially launched in Florida.
This is the first new state to receive @Tesla Insurance in more than 3 years. In total, Tesla insurance is now available in 13 U.S. states (map in thread below of all the states).
Tesla Insurance in Florida uses… pic.twitter.com/bDwh1IV6gD
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) December 17, 2025
Tesla’s in-house Insurance program first launched back in late 2019, offering a new way to insure the vehicles that was potentially less expensive and could alleviate a lot of the issues people had with claims, as the company could assess and repair the damage itself.
It has expanded to new states since 2019, but Florida presents a particularly interesting challenge for Tesla, as the company’s entry into the state is particularly noteworthy given its unique insurance landscape, characterized by high premiums due to frequent natural disasters, dense traffic, and a no-fault system.
Annual average premiums for Florida drivers hover around $4,000 per year, well above the national average. Tesla’s insurance program could disrupt this, especially for EV enthusiasts. The state’s growing EV adoption, fueled by incentives and infrastructure development, aligns perfectly with Tesla’s ecosystem.
Moreover, there are more ways to have cars repaired, and features like comprehensive coverage for battery damage and roadside assistance tailored to EVs address those common painpoints that owners have.
However, there are some challenges that still remain. Florida’s susceptibility to hurricanes raises questions about how Tesla will handle claims during disasters.
Looking ahead, Tesla’s expansion of its insurance program signals the company’s ambition to continue vertically integrating its services, including coverage of its vehicles. Reducing dependency on third-party insurers only makes things simpler for the company’s automotive division, as well as for its customers.
News
Tesla Full Self-Driving gets sparkling review from South Korean politician
“Having already ridden in an unmanned robotaxi, the novelty wasn’t as strong for me, but it drives just as well as most people do. It already feels like a completed technology, which gives me a lot to think about.”
Tesla Full Self-Driving got its first sparkling review from South Korean politician Lee So-young, a member of the country’s National Assembly, earlier this week.
Lee is a member of the Strategy and Finance Committee in South Korea and is a proponent of sustainable technologies and their applications in both residential and commercial settings. For the first time, Lee was able to utilize Tesla’s Full Self-Driving technology as it launched in the country in late November.
Her thoughts on the suite were complimentary to the suite, stating that “it drives just as well as most people do,” and that “it already feels like a completed technology.”
드디어 오늘, 서울에서 테슬라 FSD 체험 했습니다.
JiDal Papa님의 모델S 협찬에 힘입어^^ 파파님 정말 감사합니다.
국회 -> 망원시장 -> 홍익대 -> 국회 복귀 코스였고요.
이미 무인 로보택시를 타봐서 그런지 신기함은
덜했지만, 웬만한 사람만큼 운전을 잘하네요.이미 완성된 기술이라고… pic.twitter.com/8pAidHBpRG
— 이소영 국회의원 (Soyoung Lee) (@im_soyounglee) December 17, 2025
Her translated post says:
“Finally, today I got to experience Tesla FSD in Seoul. Thanks to the Model S sponsored by JiDal Papa^^, I’m truly grateful to Papa. The route was from the National Assembly -> Mangwon Market -> Hongik University -> back to the National Assembly. Having already ridden in an unmanned robotaxi, the novelty wasn’t as strong for me, but it drives just as well as most people do. It already feels like a completed technology, which gives me a lot to think about. Once it actually spreads into widespread use, I feel like our daily lives are going to change a lot. Even I, with my license gathering dust in a drawer, don’t see much reason to learn to drive a manual anymore.”
Tesla Full Self-Driving officially landed in South Korea in late November, with the initial launch being one of Tesla’s most recent, v14.1.4.
It marked the seventh country in which Tesla was able to enable the driver assistance suite, following the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada, China, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand.
It is important to see politicians and figures in power try new technologies, especially ones that are widely popular in other regions of the world and could potentially revolutionize how people travel globally.
News
Tesla dispels reports of ‘sales suspension’ in California
“This was a “consumer protection” order about the use of the term “Autopilot” in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.
Sales in California will continue uninterrupted.”
Tesla has dispelled reports that it is facing a thirty-day sales suspension in California after the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued a penalty to the company after a judge ruled it “misled consumers about its driver-assistance technology.”
On Tuesday, Bloomberg reported that the California DMV was planning to adopt the penalty but decided to put it on ice for ninety days, giving Tesla an opportunity to “come into compliance.”
Tesla enters interesting situation with Full Self-Driving in California
Tesla responded to the report on Tuesday evening, after it came out, stating that this was a “consumer protection” order that was brought up over its use of the term “Autopilot.”
The company said “not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem,” yet a judge and the DMV determined it was, so they want to apply the penalty if Tesla doesn’t oblige.
However, Tesla said that its sales operations in California “will continue uninterrupted.”
It confirmed this in an X post on Tuesday night:
This was a “consumer protection” order about the use of the term “Autopilot” in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.
Sales in California will continue uninterrupted.
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) December 17, 2025
The report and the decision by the DMV and Judge involved sparked outrage from the Tesla community, who stated that it should do its best to get out of California.
One X post said California “didn’t deserve” what Tesla had done for it in terms of employment, engineering, and innovation.
Tesla has used Autopilot and Full Self-Driving for years, but it did add the term “(Supervised)” to the end of the FSD suite earlier this year, potentially aiming to protect itself from instances like this one.
This is the first primary dispute over the terminology of Full Self-Driving, but it has undergone some scrutiny at the federal level, as some government officials have claimed the suite has “deceptive” naming. Previous Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was vocally critical of the use of the name “Full Self-Driving,” as well as “Autopilot.”
Tesla Insurance officially expands to new U.S. state
Tesla Full Self-Driving gets sparkling review from South Korean politician
