News
SpaceX’s NASA Starship contract safe for now as Blue Origin looks to Congress
Fresh off of a major contract loss during a competition to build NASA’s next crewed Moon lander, Blue Origin has begun aggressively lobbying Congress for the contract NASA didn’t give it.
Thankfully, albeit not at first, a modification has been made to an amendment first proposed by a Senator that has long pursued favorable treatment of Blue Origin that will prevent that legislation – if it passes – from unfairly interrupting the $2.9 billion contract NASA already awarded SpaceX. Announced on April 16th, that award came as a shock, effectively cementing SpaceX’s lunar Starship as both the cheapest and most technically sound proposal to return humanity to the Moon.
As such, although NASA made it clear that it would have selected two of the three competing proposals in a perfect scenario, Congress allocated just a quarter of the Human Landing System (HLS) funding NASA requested, forcing the agency between a rock and a hard place.
NASA repeatedly stated as much both before and after the decision was announced, effectively implying that the agency had learned its lesson with the Commercial Crew Program, in which it had selected two redundant providers – Boeing and SpaceX – only for Congress to systematically underfund the program for years. As a direct result of years of underfunding during an early and formative period, both providers suffered at least 2-3 years of delays, followed by another few years of more organic delays as development matured and new challenges were unsurprisingly uncovered.
Politically, NASA could never say that – effectively biting the hand that (under)feeds – out loud, but it was strongly implied in an official HLS source selection statement released to partially explain why it had chosen SpaceX and SpaceX alone. Almost instantly, both losing competitors – Blue Origin and Dynetics – filed protests with the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) filled with far more bizarre, rambling tangents than coherent legal arguments.
Unless GAO operates on a different standard than the court of law or uncovers something nefarious behind closed doors, a close reading of both partially redacted protests does not bode well for either document’s ability to sway the office’s opinion. Almost as if Blue Origin itself is aware of just how frivolous its protest really is, the company – seemingly backed by partners Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Leidos – wasted no time lobbying Senator Maria Cantwell for an alternate avenue to get what it wants and the government money founder Jeff Bezos feels entitled to.
Cantwell represents Washington State, where both Amazon and Blue Origin are headquartered, and has frequently spoken out in support of – or personally introduced – legislation that would specifically favor Bezos’ space company. On May 12th, Cantwell introduced an amendment that would purportedly “maintain competitiveness” by forcing NASA to select a second HLS winner in addition to SpaceX. Without irony, the authorization bill also demanded that NASA make that decision within a mere 30 days.
Under those conditions, Congress would authorize $10 billion for NASA to develop and demonstrate two landers with an uncrewed and crewed Moon landing each – the original plan. Insultingly, Cantwell tacked that amendment onto an authorization bill, meaning that even if Congress were to pass the bill and the President were to sign it into law, Congress would still have to actually allocate that $10 billion in the form of a more than 10% boost to NASA’s annual budget. Historically, even if Congress were to defy all recent precedent and significantly boost NASA’s 2022 budget, there is no guarantee that that raise would be upheld for four or more years, which it would need to be for the authorization bill to be anything more than a hollow promise.
More recently, a clause was thankfully added clarifying that NASA is not allowed to “modify, terminate, or rescind” SpaceX’s HLS contract to comply with the amendment. Additionally, while still amounting to a legal gun to NASA’s head to force it to into a contract it knows it cant afford, the modification gives NASA 60 days to award a second lander contract. Based on the agency’s own selection statement, Blue Origin’s National Team would almost certainly be the recipient in the event that the bill becomes law, forcing NASA to commit more than $9 billion – instead of $2.9 billion – to the next stage of HLS development with no guarantee that its budget will be raised accordingly.
In the meantime, GAO still has to complete its reviews of Blue Origin and Dynetic’s protests and the White House has to submit its FY2022 budget request and consider adding NASA funding to its proposed jobs and infrastructure package.
Ferrari CEO Benedetto Vigna revealed that the Italian automaker’s future will not involve self-driving, a point that echoes that of Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s — sort of.
You might be thinking, “Are you insane? Musk has been so incredibly hellbent on delivering self-driving vehicles to the public, so much so that he has even hinted that Tesla won’t need the ever-popular and widely-requested Model Y L in the U.S.”
However, when it comes to electric supercars with high-performance specs and lofty price tags, Vigna’s stance is exactly what Musk wants for Tesla’s own hypercar project, the Tesla Roadster.
🚨 Tesla Roadster vs. Ferrari Luce
Price – $250,000 vs. $640,000
Horsepower – 1,000+ vs. 1,035
0-60 MPH – 1.1s OR 1.9s vs. 2.4s
Top Speed – 250+ MPH vs. 194 MPH
Range – 620 miles vs. 280 miles https://t.co/uEgswwVLeD pic.twitter.com/XcP58ZRO6Z— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
In a new interview with Australian media outlet Drive, Vigna made it clear that Ferrari’s ambitions for the future do not involve autonomy, simply because the company’s cars are not designed for anything but manual, spirited driving.
He said:
“We will not make fully autonomous cars — loud and clear. We want the people to have fun, not the [computer] chips. We want to have a steering wheel and a man or a woman behind the steering wheel. Otherwise, why do you buy a Ferrari?”
This seems to be a reasonable assertion. Ferraris are not made for daily commutes, cross-country road trips, or bumper-to-bumper traffic. They’re made for fast, spirited driving, and many of their buyers will only put a few thousand miles on them throughout their lifetime. True, exciting, fun driving is meant to be done manually.
That is not to say Full Self-Driving or other semi-autonomous suites are not “fun,” but they are meant to take the stress out of driving. They are made for the daily commutes, the rush hour traffic, and the parking lots and garages. It’s made to take the stress out of driving.
Tesla Full Self-Driving attempts 150-mile stress test: the good and the bad
Musk had stated in an interview in early 2026 that the Roadster would also be geared toward fun, manually-controlled driving. On the Moonshots podcast with Peter Diamandis, Musk said about the Roadster:
“This is not a…safety is not the main goal. If you buy a Ferrari, safety is not the number one goal. I say, if safety is your number one goal, do not buy the Roadster…We’ll aspire not to kill anyone in this car. It’ll be the best of the last of the human-driven cars. The best of the last.”
There are cars out there that simply are meant to be driven by humans, and Ferraris and Roadsters are a few of them. Ferrari has no true advantage in developing self-driving; their cars sell at low volumes with high price tags, and their performance specs and engineering are all geared toward spirited driving.
Tesla has upgraded the Model Y’s two most affordable trims, the Rear-Wheel-Drive and All-Wheel-Drive, with two new interior features that bring them level with their “Premium” siblings.
The Rear-Wheel-Drive (RWD) and All-Wheel-Drive (AWD) trims, formerly known as the “Standard” offerings of Tesla’s most popular vehicle, are now fitted with the all-black headliner and a higher-quality 16-inch center screen, two features that were added to the Premium trims earlier this year.
Here’s what the new Black Headliner looks like compared to the old design in the Model Y RWD and AWD: https://t.co/vaMUZz30UC pic.twitter.com/i1yXjJNu7L
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
The RWD and AWD trims of the Model Y now have a more premium interior feel with these upgrades, and it also appears to be a move by Tesla to streamline manufacturing by eliminating variance across configuration levels.
It makes production less complicated when the interior colors are all identical. Additionally, all Model Y builds now have the larger and higher-resolution screen than previous model years.
Priced at $39,990 and $41,990, respectively, the Model Y RWD and AWD are quite different from the Premium trims. Tesla aimed to make an affordable version of what has been the best-selling car in the world on several occasions, enabling more accessibility.
The differences from an interior standpoint are noticeable, as there is significantly less storage, a lack of A/C seats, and no glass roof. However, the car is still a great option and features a good powertrain, strong range ratings of 321 miles for the RWD and 294 miles for the AWD, and a great ride quality.
Tesla Model Y Standard Full Review: Is it worth the lower price?
Other shortcomings are the lack of acoustic-lined windows, which are featured in the Premium trims to help with excess cabin noise. In our testing of the Model Y Standard back in late 2025, this was perhaps the most noticeable difference between it and the Premium trim. The stereo was also a huge difference:
This now includes the Model Y RWD and AWD, the two trims that were formerly know as “Standard”
You can see what the big differences are between the RWD/AWD and the Premium below:
https://t.co/ptLnm95KjX https://t.co/vaMUZz30UC pic.twitter.com/scuRNErXoC
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
The RWD and AWD trims of the Model Y are still a great vehicle at an affordable price, and you can experience them for yourself at your local Tesla showroom. Test drives are always available, and it’s a great way to experience an EV for yourself, especially if you have no knowledge about them.
Tesla has its answer to grow its automotive sales over the next few years, TD Cowen analyst Itay Michaeli says, but it just has to bring it to the U.S.
On Thursday, Michaeli reiterated his $490 price target and the ‘Buy’ rating he already held on Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA). However, its automotive division has struggled to show sequential growth over the past few years, mostly due to its focus on AI and Full Self-Driving. Tesla already axed two of its lower-volume vehicles with the Model S and Model X earlier this year.
However, Tesla does not need to engineer an entire new vehicle to trigger an upward tick in sales; it just has to bring it from China to the U.S., Michaeli said.
He is talking about the Model Y L, a slightly larger version of the all-electric crossover that is already available in China. U.S. customers have been pleading with CEO Elon Musk to bring it to the country since its launch in Asia last year, but he’s not convinced of it because of the advent of self-driving and its importance in this particular market.
The problem is that Tesla owners have been requesting something larger that could fit a typical American family. The Model Y L is slightly larger than the standard Model Y, but some are concerned that it could still be too small to fit what most people might need.
Instead, they have asked for a full-size SUV from Tesla.
Tesla gives big hint that it will build Cyber SUV, smaller Cybertruck
Nevertheless, the Model Y L still presents a great opportunity for Tesla in the U.S., and Michaeli says that there is an additional sales opportunity of about 100,000 units, with demand potential falling somewhere between 60,000 and 135,000 units.
TD Cowen’s note to investors also analyzed that Tesla’s growth could come from a stock perspective as well, positively impacting the stock price, as it has been widely reliant on vehicle sales, even though Tesla has truly phased itself away from that being an important metric.
Tesla stands to gain greatly from the introduction of the Model Y L in the U.S., but only if Elon Musk sees it as a viable fit for the market. Families may need to see Tesla bring something larger to the U.S., or they might be forced to buy from another automaker that offers something that fits is needs for more interior space to haul around the kids.
Ferrari CEO’s self-driving stance echoes Elon Musk’s — sort of
Tesla upgrades Model Y’s affordable trims with new interior features
