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.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk’s Boring Company selected for Universal Orlando tunnel project
The underground transport tunnel is designed to address the persistent gridlock surrounding International Drive.
Elon Musk’s The Boring Company has been selected for a proposed underground transit system connecting Universal Orlando Resort and the newly opened Universal Epic Universe.
The underground transport tunnel is designed to address the persistent gridlock surrounding International Drive.
As noted in a blooloop report, Universal’s Shingle Creek Transit and Utility Community Development District approved a resolution showing its intent to designate The Boring Company as the contractor for the project.
The agreement covers the full scope of the project, from the tunnel’s design, construction, and maintenance. The project has also been described in public documents as a “point-to-point innovative transportation” initiative with a 25-year agreement.
The proposed Boring Company tunnels would directly link Universal’s existing parks with Epic Universe, which sits roughly three miles away from Universal Orlando Resort. Today, buses are the only direct connection between the two destinations.
Project requirements were quite stringent. Bidders were required to demonstrate at least $75 million in bonding capacity, have a minimum of seven years of operational experience, and show prior delivery of a comparable project valued at $25 million or more within the past 15 years. The Boring Company, thanks in no small part to the Vegas Loop, meets these requirements.
The Orlando selection adds to The Boring Company’s growing portfolio of Loop-style systems. In Las Vegas, the Las Vegas Convention Center Loop has transported more than two million passengers in Tesla vehicles through underground tunnels since 2021. The greater Vegas Loop system is also under construction.
For now, residents in the area seem enthusiastic about the upcoming project. In a comment to Fox35, residents noted that the tunnels could improve traffic in the area.
“We are very congested at certain times and certain hours and that would certainly help with people not having to budget their time,” Mary Walters-Clark, a resident, stated. Another resident, Scott Heinz, echoed similar sentiments. “I think it would be a new opportunity to lessen traffic load and good for visitors as well,” he said.
The tunneling startup has started bringing its Loop projects to international locations. It recently signed a memorandum of understanding with Dubai’s Roads and Transport Authority to explore the development of a 17-kilometer underground Loop network beneath Dubai.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk tops Forbes’ list of America’s 250 greatest innovators
The ranking places Musk at the top of modern American innovation.
Elon Musk has been ranked No. 1 on Forbes’ inaugural list of America’s 250 Greatest Innovators. The ranking places Musk at the top of modern American innovation as the publication kicks off a series celebrating the nation’s 250th anniversary.
Forbes described innovation as “the grease in the economic engine” and the force that transforms industries and creates new ones. The publication highlighted that its honorees are not just inventors, but business leaders who successfully bring breakthroughs to market.
Musk, 54, was ranked No. 1 in this year’s list. Forbes noted that he is “the only person in history to have founded (or grown from nearly nothing) five companies, each with multibillion-dollar valuations, each in a different industry.” Those companies include Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, xAI, and The Boring Company.
Forbes’ methodology began with nearly 1,000 nominees submitted by its reporters. A panel of judges, including venture capitalist Jim Breyer, journalist Kara Swisher, and strategy expert Rita McGrath, ranked candidates based on creativity, breadth, engagement, disruption, and commercial impact. Artificial intelligence tools, including ChatGPT and Gemini, were also used to assess candidates before editors finalized the rankings.
The publication noted that more than one-third of the list consists of women and people of color, reflecting shifts in innovation and entrepreneurship over time. All individuals listed are also American citizens, though many were born abroad, including Musk himself. Musk was born in Pretoria, South Africa.
Ranked No. 2 is Jeff Bezos, 61, who Forbes credited with upending America’s $7.4 trillion retail industry through Amazon before pioneering cloud computing with Amazon Web Services. The publication highlighted that Bezos now focuses on space exploration through Blue Origin and artificial intelligence manufacturing systems at Prometheus.
At No. 3 is Bill Gates, 70, who helped launch the personal computing revolution and built Microsoft into the dominant force in workplace software. Forbes also highlighted Gates’ reinvention at age 50 as a data-driven philanthropist, including his role in helping eradicate polio from India.
Elon Musk
Tesla Model Y tops California vehicle sales despite Elon Musk backlash
Data from the California New Car Dealers Association (CNCDA) showed the Model Y outsold its nearest competitor by more than 50,000 units.
The Tesla Model Y was California’s best-selling new vehicle in 2025 for the fourth straight year, despite protests against CEO Elon Musk and a changeover to the Model Y’s updated variant that caused a pause in production and deliveries early in the year.
Data from the California New Car Dealers Association (CNCDA) showed the Model Y outsold its nearest competitor by more than 50,000 units, according to KRON4.
The Model Y recorded 110,120 registrations in California in 2025. The second-best-selling vehicle, the Toyota RAV4, posted 65,604 units, followed by the Toyota Camry at 62,324. The Tesla Model 3 ranked fourth with 53,989 sales, ahead of the Honda Civic at 53,085 units.
Despite leading the state, Model Y sales have trended downward year-over-year. Registrations fell from 132,636 in 2023 to 128,923 in 2024, and then to 110,120 in 2025. Overall Tesla sales in California also declined, dropping from 238,589 in 2023 to 202,865 in 2024 and 179,656 in 2025.
The slowdown comes as the federal $7,500 EV tax credit ended, removing a key incentive that had supported electric vehicle demand for years.
“Tesla has a few advantages. Tesla, as a brand, has a status, cache, so I think folks in certain parts of the Bay. Owning a Tesla is a thing. I think that’s breaking down over time, especially given the political controversies surrounding Mr. Musk,” CNCDA President Brian Maas said.
California saw multiple anti-Musk protests in 2025, along with notable reports of consumer-owned Teslas being vandalized and attacked by protesters and activists. The fact that the Model Y and Model 3 remained strong performers in California is then a testament to the quality and value of the two vehicles.
Tesla’s sales of the Model Y and Model 3 might see an increase this year, as the company has announced that it is sunsetting its two more expensive cars, the Model S and Model X. With the Model S and Model X retired, more consumers will likely go for the Model Y and Model 3.
“Maybe the Model S has outlived its usefulness in terms of attracting customers. It’s no surprise the ones they kept are the Model Y and Model 3,” Maas noted.