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).
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner in Los Angeles dominated the company’s global usage rankings after just one year, proving the concept is more than just a one-off novelty location that will fade away.
The performance could incite the company to build more locations, something that CEO Elon Musk has hinted at for some time.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner delivered 21.2 GWh of energy in its first year of operation, the company’s head of Charging, Max de Zegher, revealed on X. Of the top 10 most utilized Supercharger locations in Tesla’s global infrastructure, the Diner in Los Angeles was the most used by drivers, and it wasn’t particularly close:
Tesla Diner opened exactly 1 year ago. Inspiring that futuristic places like this exist.
It’s our highest usage Supercharger in the world: 21.2 GWh delivered in a year, 1.6k sessions/day.
Top 10 Superchargers by energy delivered: https://t.co/9YvJ8lw696 pic.twitter.com/koB3AUJHws
— Max (@MdeZegher) July 21, 2026
On its launch day one year ago, nobody was too sure what the Tesla Diner would be about. It seemed like an interesting concept, and considering it had been in the works for years, it was a highly anticipated launch that many were looking forward to.
Based on its success, we could see additional Diners with Superchargers built throughout the United States, and potentially beyond. Musk has said on several occasions that the company would be willing to bring the Diner idea to more markets.
Tesla makes major change at Supercharger Diner amid epic demand
Of the markets that Musk has mentioned, both Palo Alto and Austin have come to be perceived as ideal selections. However, there are no concrete plans as of now to build new Supercharger Diners anywhere; the location on Santa Monica Boulevard will remain the exclusive spot to pick up Tesla-inspired eats, at least for the time being.
Tesla short sellers won big following the company’s massive fall on Wall Street after it reported subpar Earnings on Wednesday.
Tesla short sellers collected about $4.12 billion in single-day profits on Thursday, according to Bloomberg. Shares fell as much as 15 percent during Thursday’s session. It closed as one of the worst days for Tesla on Wall Street in the past three years.
Investors sold off the stock after Tesla said it would aggressively direct its spending toward AI and its Optimus robot project. The company had record revenues, which were driven by one of the strongest quarters in terms of vehicle deliveries in company history.
However, it missed EPS estimates by reporting just $0.33, a far cry from the $0.53 analysts expected.
S3 Partners reported that about 3 percent of Tesla’s outstanding stock is sold short. Managing Director at S3, Ihor Dusaniwsky, provided the short seller’s potential profit, as well as another figure: shorts have likely had paper gains of $8.92 billion this year, as Tesla shares are down 30 percent in 2026.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla has burned short sellers many times in the past, but the company’s latest Earnings Call was a chance for those skeptics to taste some payback. Although the company gave some very transparent information regarding future projects, the rollout of Robotaxi, Optimus, and Semi, many investors took their profits on Thursday.
Notable short sellers like Michael Burry have been transparent about their skepticism around Tesla shares. Burry just revealed three weeks ago that he had opened up a new short on the stock, stating he shorted Tesla shares at $416.22. “Happy it jumped back to this level,” he said in a blog post.
At the time of publication, Tesla shares were down about 3 percent and the stock was trading at $309.92.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner probably just secured more locations
Tesla short sellers win big after shares fall after earnings
