Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s NASA Starship contract prevails over frivolous Blue Origin, Dynetics protests

A render of SpaceX's proposed Starship Moon lander besides SN15, the first full-scale Starship to successfully land. (SpaceX)

Published

on

The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has thrown out frivolous protests filed by Blue Origin and Dynetics after NASA awarded SpaceX a $2.9B contract to develop a crewed Starship Moon lander.

In mid-April, NASA announced that it had chosen SpaceX and SpaceX alone to develop a Starship-derived lander capable of returning humanity to the Moon more than half a century after astronauts last stepped foot on Earth’s neighbor. Ultimately, in the context of dismal Congressional support, NASA analyzed proposals submitted by SpaceX, Dynetics, and a Blue Origin-led team and concluded that Congress had only provided enough funding for the space agency to pick a single provider.

By awarding more than one contract, NASA could feasibly ensure – like it did with its Commercial Crew and Cargo programs – that a delay or failure of one vehicle wouldn’t guarantee a program-wide delay. However, thanks to Congress appropriating a pathetic $850M (1/4th) of the $3.4B NASA requested for Human Landing System (HLS) development, awarding two contracts would guarantee that HLS would be delayed years beyond its 2024 target for a crewed Moon landing. Ultimately, though NASA had demonstrated a desire to proceed with more than one HLS provider, the agency unsurprisingly concluded that it would have to pick only the best of the three competitors.

In a wholly unexpected twist, NASA ultimately determined that SpaceX’s Starship proposal was simultaneously the cheapest and the most competent of the three, rating above or equal to Blue Origin and Dynetics in two main categories. Unsurprisingly, NASA thus chose to award an HLS “Option A” contract to SpaceX alone, citing the agency’s own repeated qualifications that its desire to make multiple awards was “dependent upon funding availability.”

Advertisement

It eventually became clear that Blue Origin’s proposal – the second cheapest, according to NASA – had requested more than $6 billion, making it more than twice as expensive as SpaceX’s offering. In her selection statement, NASA Associate Administrator Kathy Lueders (former head of the extraordinarily successful Commercial Crew Program) noted that the funding left after SpaceX’s $2.94B award was “so insubstantial” that it would have been insulting and a waste of time to even attempt to negotiate Blue Origin’s $6B request down to a feasible number

As would soon become clear, both Blue Origin and Dynetics were apparently furious with NASA’s reasonable, consistent, and well-explained decision and immediately filed protests with GAO, effectively preventing NASA from working on HLS in any consequential fashion. Available for anyone to read, both protests were so frivolous and petty that it was hard to believe any serious, professional company would willingly attach their name to either.

Thankfully, although GAO took 95 of the 100 days it was allowed for the decision, the federal watchdog ultimately agreed that both Blue Origin’s and Dynetics’ protests were almost entirely meritless, save for one minute, unspecified waiver NASA allowed SpaceX. As NASA noted in an official response to GAO’s decision, the demise of both protests means that the space agency can finally get back to work with SpaceX, begin dispersing funds the company fairly won, and establish a timeline and provide updates on plans to land humans on the Moon for the first time in half a century.

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

Cybertruck

Tesla’s new Cybertruck has delivery date pushed back once again

According to Tesla’s Online Design Studio, the new All-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck will now be delivered in April 2027. Earlier orders are still slated for early this Summer, but orders from here on forward are now officially pushed into next year:

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

Tesla’s new Cybertruck offering has had its delivery date pushed back once again. This is now the second time, and deliveries for the newest orders are now pushed well into 2027.

According to Tesla’s Online Design Studio, the new All-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck will now be delivered in April 2027. Earlier orders are still slated for early this Summer, but orders from here on forward are now officially pushed into next year:

Just three days ago, the initial delivery date of June 2026 was pushed back to early Fall, and now, that date has officially moved to April 2027.

The fact that Tesla has had to push back deliveries once again proves one of two things: either Tesla has slow production plans for the new Cybertruck trim, or demand is off the charts.

Judging by how Tesla is already planning to raise the price based on demand in just a few days, it seems like the company knows it is giving a tremendous deal on this spec of Cybertruck, and units are moving quickly.

That points more toward demand and not necessarily to slower production plans, but it is not confirmed.

Tesla Cybertruck’s newest trim will undergo massive change in ten days, Musk says

Tesla is set to hike the price on March 1, so tomorrow will be the final day to grab the new Cybertruck trim for just $59,990.

It features:

  • Dual Motor AWD w/ est. 325 mi of range
  • Powered tonneau cover
  • Bed outlets (2x 120V + 1x 240V) & Powershare capability
  • Coil springs w/ adaptive damping
  • Heated first-row seats w/ textile material that is easy to clean
  • Steer-by-wire & Four Wheel Steering
  • 6’ x 4’ composite bed
  • Towing capacity of up to 7,500 lbs
  • Powered frunk

Interestingly, the price offering is fairly close to what Tesla unveiled back in late 2019.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk outlines plan for first Starship tower catch attempt

Musk confirmed that Starship V3 Ship 1 (SN1) is headed for ground tests and expressed strong confidence in the updated vehicle design.

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX/X

Elon Musk has clarified when SpaceX will first attempt to catch Starship’s upper stage with its launch tower. The CEO’s update provides the clearest teaser yet for the spacecraft’s recovery roadmap.

Musk shared the details in recent posts on X. In his initial post, Musk confirmed that Starship V3 Ship 1 (SN1) is headed for ground tests and expressed strong confidence in the updated vehicle design.

“Starship V3 SN1 headed for ground tests. I am highly confident that the V3 design will achieve full reusability,” Musk wrote.

In a follow-up post, Musk addressed when SpaceX would attempt to catch the upper stage using the launch tower’s robotic arms. 

Advertisement

“Should note that SpaceX will only try to catch the ship with the tower after two perfect soft landings in the ocean. The risk of the ship breaking up over land needs to be very low,” Musk clarified. 

His remarks suggest that SpaceX is deliberately reducing risk before attempting a tower catch of Starship’s upper stage. Such a milestone would mark a major step towards the full reuse of the Starship system.

SpaceX is currently targeting the first Starship V3 flight of 2026 this coming March. The spacecraft’s V3 iteration is widely viewed as a key milestone in SpaceX’s long-term strategy to make Starship fully reusable. 

Starship V3 features a number of key upgrades over its previous iterations. The vehicle is equipped with SpaceX’s Raptor V3 engines, which are designed to deliver significantly higher thrust than earlier versions while reducing cost and weight. 

Advertisement

The V3 design is also expected to be optimized for manufacturability, a critical step if SpaceX intends to scale the spacecraft’s production toward frequent launches for Starlink, lunar missions, and eventually Mars. 

Continue Reading

News

Tesla FSD (Supervised) could be approved in the Netherlands next month: Musk

Musk shared the update during a recent interview at Giga Berlin.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla CEO Elon Musk shared that Full Self-Driving (FSD) could receive regulatory approval in the Netherlands as soon as March 20, potentially marking a major step forward for Tesla’s advanced driver-assistance rollout in Europe.

Musk shared the update during a recent interview at Giga Berlin, noting that the date was provided by local authorities.

“Tesla has the most advanced real-world AI, and hopefully, it will be approved soon in Europe. We’re told by the authorities that March 20th, it’ll be approved in the Netherlands,’ what I was told,” Musk stated. 

“Hopefully, that date remains the same. But I think people in Europe are going to be pretty blown away by how good the Tesla car AI is in being able to drive.”

Advertisement

Tesla’s FSD system relies on vision-based neural networks trained on real-world driving data, allowing vehicles to navigate using cameras and AI rather than traditional sensor-heavy solutions. 

The performance of FSD Supervised has so far been impressive. As per Tesla’s safety report, Full Self-Driving Supervised has already traveled 8.3 billion miles. So far, vehicles operating with FSD Supervised engaged recorded one major collision every 5,300,676 miles. 

In comparison, Teslas driven manually with Active Safety systems recorded one major collision every 2,175,763 miles, while Teslas driven manually without Active Safety recorded one major collision every 855,132 miles. The U.S. average during the same period was one major collision every 660,164 miles.

If approval is granted on March 20, the Netherlands could become the first European market to greenlight Tesla’s latest supervised FSD (Supervised) software under updated regulatory frameworks. Tesla has been working to secure expanded FSD access across Europe, where regulatory standards differ significantly from those in the United States. Approval in the Netherlands would likely serve as a foundation for broader EU adoption, though additional country-level clearances may still be required.

Advertisement
Continue Reading