News
SpaceX, NASA celebrate Blue Origin’s lunar lander lawsuit loss and get back to work
In a November 9th press conference, NASA leaders have begun to publicly celebrate the end of seven months of Blue Origin litigation and disruption to its Human Landing System (HLS). A federal court’s dismissal of that lawsuit means that the space agency can finally get back to work with SpaceX on its Starship Moon lander.
Following the failure of that lawsuit, NASA administrator Bill Nelson says that it will take the space agency some time to fully determine what and how much damage Blue Origin has caused. In the briefing, Nelson and associate administrators Kathy Lueders and Jim Free confirmed that Dynetics’ protest and Blue Origin’s protest and lawsuit have delayed SpaceX’s first crewed Starship Moon landing to no earlier than (NET) 2025.
Painfully, though, the briefing primarily focused on NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft and the latest news about the system and the space agency’s attitude towards it are not encouraging.
Namely, exemplifying just how broken and deceptive NASA’s cost “transparency” is when it comes to SLS and Orion, the space agency used the briefing to announce its first updated Orion cost projections in more than half a decade. All the way back in September 2015, NASA announced major Orion delays and revealed that it had already spent $4.7B on the spacecraft and was committing another $6.7B through its first crewed launch – then scheduled no earlier than 2023.
That’s likely where NASA is getting its magically diminished Orion cost estimate. In reality, including Bush-era Constellation Program development that began in 2006, Orion will have cost NASA and the US taxpayer almost $22 billion by the end of 2021 and before a single full-up launch. Effectively doing the bare minimum to acknowledge a sanitized version of reality, NASA now says that Orion will cost at least $9.3 billion to its first crewed launch, which has been delayed to NET May 2024. It’s entirely unclear how NASA is calculating that deflated figure but in the six years since the space agency’s 2015 announcement that it would spend another $6.7B before Orion’s first crewed launch, it’s actually spent at least $8.4B and will have blown past the latest $9.3B target by mid-2022. Barring drastic funding cuts, Orion development will actually cost the US about $12.6B from 2016 to Artemis II and ~$25.8B since 2006 (not including inflation).
In an even starker demonstration of cognitive dissonance, when a New York Times reporter asked a hard question about the possibility of sidestepping Orion and SLS to get astronauts onto SpaceX’s Starship lunar lander, Administrator Nelson – having just repeatedly discussed Starship – fell back on an old boilerplate statement that “there’s only one rocket capable of doing this” – “this” being launching humans to the Moon and returning them to Earth and that “one rocket” being SLS. Association admin Jim Free also exhibited similar confusion, stating that “the architecture…just wouldn’t work.”
In reality, as currently contracted with NASA, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander is a highly capable crewed spacecraft that will be refueled in Earth orbit before propelling itself to lunar orbit, where an SLS-launched Orion spacecraft would join it and transfer over three astronauts. Starship would then use its own propulsion to change orbits, land on the Moon, and eventually boost back into lunar orbit to transfer that crew back to Orion for the return to Earth. Nothing short of sheer ignorance – willful or not – could prevent competent spaceflight engineers or managers from understanding the possibilities such an architecture raises.
If NASA is already committed to human-rating Starship’s propulsion systems, which it is, it doesn’t take a grand leap of imagination to consider the possibility of adding a few more burns to Starship’s extremely complex concept of operations. If, for example, Starship has enough performance to return to Earth orbit from the lunar surface, it’s not hard to imagine NASA’s Artemis astronauts boarding Starship in Earth orbit after a far cheaper commercial launch and then returning to Earth orbit to debark Starship and return to that crew-rated reentry vehicle. As it turns out, NASA already has a highly successful crew-rated commercial rocket and spacecraft that’s already operational and likely more than 10 times cheaper than SLS/Orion.
While there are obvious challenges and uncertainties with such an option, the point is more that failing to even acknowledge the possibility of alternatives is a brutal appraisal of several of NASA’s most senior leaders and confirms that the politics of a jobs program like SLS/Orion is actively disrupting their ability to engage with reality and properly manage complex, risky programs.
Ultimately, it’s great news that SpaceX and NASA can finally get back to work on their Starship Moon lander plans. However, it’s also clearer than ever that SLS and Orion will remain a noose precariously balanced around the agency’s neck, forever threatening the Artemis Program and stifling NASA’s ability to seriously plan for – let alone publicly entertain or even acknowledge – contingencies or fresh ideas.
A California radiologist who drove his Tesla Model Y off a 250-foot cliff in an attempt to kill his family has had his charges dismissed after doctors say he is “doing well” in a mental health program.
Dharmesh Patel was charged with three counts of attempted murder in connection with a January 2023 crash where he drove his Tesla off a cliff, injuring his wife and two children, aged 7 and 4 at the time.
Patel drove the Tesla off Devil’s Slide in California, an area that is extremely rough to the point that investigators and rescuers expected the worst when arriving at the scene for the first time. Patel supposedly had schizoaffective disorder, according to Deputy District Attorney Dominique Davis.
Shockingly, Patel’s wife, who was in the vehicle, testified that she did not want her husband to be prosecuted, noting that their children missed their father and they wanted him to come back home. Patel’s attorney argued, “not everyone who commits a crime is a criminal.”
Doctor who took Tesla off cliff gets support from unlikely person
A three-day trial in Mental Health Diversion Court ruled in Patel’s favor, which kept him out of jail and instead on house arrest. He was admitted to a Mental Health Diversion Program, which he successfully completed, the Associated Press reported. San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said the judge was “required by law” to dismiss the charges:
“If the person who’s given mental health diversion follows the treatment plan, there’s nothing that can be done, and at the end of the two years he gets it wiped out of his record.”
Wagstaffe said he has argued, along with other DAs in California, to have attempted murder removed from the list of charges eligible to be dismissed due to mental health diversion programs.
Patel had the charges officially dismissed on Monday; his wife waited for him as he left court and they departed the building together, according to Mercury News. Patel surrendered his California medical license in December.
The crash has been one of the best examples of Tesla’s incredible engineering, which has saved four lives in this particular instance. The car was totalled but kept the four human beings alive and safe, which is something that many referred to as “an absolute miracle.”
A common misconception of anti-EV proponents is that the batteries used in the vehicles are detrimental to the environment and that they cause more waste than they are worth. But a look at Tesla’s battery recycling efforts last year shows the company is doing more than ever to recover materials and give portions of the cells a second life.
Tesla reported a significant milestone in its sustainability efforts last year, with battery recycling volumes rising 20% compared to 2024. According to the company’s 2025 Impact Report, Tesla recycled over 14,000 metric tons of battery material through a combination of in-house processing at its Gigafactories and collaborations with third-party recycling partners.
Tesla: “In 2025, we recycled over 14,000 metric tons of battery material through a combination of in-house processing and through our network of recycling partners.”
That’s equivalent to 46,000 long-range battery packs, a +20% increase from 2024. pic.twitter.com/TC3Nz7Kaqf
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) July 7, 2026
This amount of recovered material is equivalent to the resources needed to produce approximately 46,000 long-range battery packs. The increase reflects growing operational scale as Tesla’s global vehicle fleet expands and more batteries reach end-of-life or manufacturing scrap becomes available for processing.
Tesla and Battery Recycling
Battery recycling forms a core part of Tesla’s circular economy strategy. The company designs its batteries for longevity, often exceeding 200,000 miles of driving, and prioritizes repairs, remanufacturing, and second-life applications before full recycling.
Once packs are decommissioned, Tesla ensures 100% are recycled with no materials sent to landfills. This approach recovers critical metals including lithium, nickel, cobalt, and copper, which can be refined and reused in new battery production.
Tesla has advanced hydrometallurgical recycling processes capable of achieving recovery rates up to 98% for key battery metals. These methods are more efficient and environmentally friendly than traditional pyrometallurgical techniques, reducing energy use and enabling higher-purity materials suitable for direct reintegration into battery manufacturing.
Tesla co-founder JB Straubel confirms Redwood’s battery recycling operations are already profitable
In-house capabilities are supplemented by a network of specialized partners, creating a robust system that handles both production scrap and end-of-life packs.
The environmental and economic benefits are substantial. Recycling reduces reliance on virgin mining, lowers the carbon footprint associated with raw material extraction and processing, and helps stabilize supply chains for critical minerals amid rising global EV demand. As millions of Tesla vehicles age, the volume of recyclable material is expected to grow significantly in the coming years.
This 20% year-over-year growth demonstrates the effectiveness of Tesla’s investments in recycling infrastructure and technology. It positions the company as a leader in addressing one of the automotive industry’s major sustainability challenges. Continued innovation in battery design for easier disassembly and higher recyclability will further enhance these efforts.
Overall, Tesla’s progress in 2025 highlights how scaling recycling operations supports both environmental goals and long-term business resilience in the transition to electric mobility. As the EV market matures, such closed-loop systems will become increasingly vital for sustainable growth.
Tesla has spent years trying to engineer its way out of the automotive paint shop, one of the most expensive, space-consuming, and environmentally costly steps in vehicle manufacturing. With the Cybercab, Tesla confirmed on X this week that a new reaction injection molding process will embed color directly into the panel itself during production.
“Our new reaction injection molding (RIM) process shrinks Cybercab paint cycles from hours to minutes. This cuts those parts’ manufacturing and supply chain emissions by 35% and eliminating 100% of paint volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted in traditional paint methods.” noted Tesla.
While the RIM process isn’t necessarily new and has existed since the 1960s, what makes Tesla’s application notable is how it is being used specifically for exterior body panels that traditionally required a separate paint process after forming.
Tesla’s RIM approach integrates the color directly into the panel material during the molding process itself. The pigment is part of the polymer mix injected into the mold, meaning the panel comes out of the mold already colored, with no separate paint application required. The clear coat or protective layer can be applied at the mold stage or through a much faster post-process than traditional multi-stage painting. Tesla claims this compresses what was a multi-hour paint cycle into minutes per panel.
Tesla’s obsession with killing the paint shop is one of the most consistent threads running through the company’s manufacturing philosophy going back years. As far back as 2018, Musk was trimming paint color options to simplify production, tweeting at the time: “Moving 2 of 7 Tesla colors off menu on Wednesday to simplify manufacturing.” Two years later, in a 2020 Automotive News interview, Musk laid out his broader vision, saying he believed Tesla factories could one day be 1,000 times more efficient than conventional plants, and pointing to the paint shop as one of the biggest sources of waste, cost, and complexity. The Cybertruck was the most extreme expression of that thinking. Tesla chose an unpainted stainless steel exterior partly because it would eliminate the need for a $200 million paint facility at Gigafactory Texas. The stainless approach proved harder and more expensive than anticipated, but the underlying ambition never changed. The Cybercab is what happens when that same ambition meets a manufacturing process that delivers on it.
Radiologist who drove Tesla off cliff has attempted murder charges dismissed
Tesla battery recycling efforts increased 20 percent last year
