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.
News
Tesla has passed a critical self-driving milestone Elon Musk listed in Master Plan Part Deux
Tesla China announced that the company’s Autopilot system has accumulated 10 billion kilometers of driving experience.
Tesla has passed a key milestone, and it was one that CEO Elon Musk initially mentioned more than nine years ago when he published Master Plan, Part Deux.
As per Tesla China in a post on its official Weibo account, the company’s Autopilot system has accumulated over 10 billion kilometers of real-world driving experience.
Tesla China’s subtle, but huge announcement
In its Weibo post, Tesla China announced that the company’s Autopilot system has accumulated 10 billion kilometers of driving experience. “In this respect, Tesla vehicles equipped with Autopilot technology can be considered to have the world’s most experienced and seasoned driver.”
Tesla AI’s handle on Weibo also highlighted a key advantage of the company’s self-driving system. “It will never drive under the influence of alcohol, be distracted, or be fatigued,” the team wrote. “We believe that advancements in Autopilot technology will save more lives.”
Tesla China did not clarify exactly what it meant by “Autopilot” in its Weibo post, though the company’s intense focus on FSD over the past years suggests that the term includes miles that were driven by FSD (Beta) and Full Self-Driving (Supervised). Either way, 10 billion cumulative miles of real-world data is something that few, if any, competitors could compete with.
Elon Musk’s 10-billion-km estimate, way back in 2016
When Elon Musk published Master Plan Part Deux, he outlined his vision for the company’s autonomous driving system. At the time, Autopilot was still very new, though Musk was already envisioning how the system could get regulatory approval worldwide. He estimated that worldwide regulatory approval will probably require around 10 billion miles of real-world driving data, which was an impossible-sounding amount at the time.
“Even once the software is highly refined and far better than the average human driver, there will still be a significant time gap, varying widely by jurisdiction, before true self-driving is approved by regulators. We expect that worldwide regulatory approval will require something on the order of 6 billion miles (10 billion km). Current fleet learning is happening at just over 3 million miles (5 million km) per day,” Musk wrote.
It’s quite interesting but Tesla is indeed getting regulatory approval for FSD (Supervised) at a steady pace today, at a time when 10 billion miles of data has been achieved. The system has been active in the United States and has since been rolled out to other countries such as Australia, New Zealand, China, and, more recently, South Korea. Expectations are high that Tesla could secure FSD approval in Europe sometime next year as well.
Elon Musk
SpaceX maintains unbelievable Starship target despite Booster 18 incident
It appears that it will take more than an anomaly to stop SpaceX’s march towards Starship V3’s refinement.
SpaceX recently shared an incredibly ambitious and bold update about Starship V3’s 12th test flight.
Despite the anomaly that damaged Booster 18, SpaceX maintained that it was still following its plans for the upgraded spacecraft and booster for the coming months. Needless to say, it appears that it will take more than an anomaly to stop SpaceX’s march towards Starship V3’s refinement.
Starship V3 is still on a rapid development path
SpaceX’s update was posted through the private space company’s official account on social media platform X. As per the company, “the Starbase team plans to have the next Super Heavy booster stacked in December, which puts it on pace with the test schedule planned for the first Starship V3 vehicle and associated ground systems.”
SpaceX then announced that Starship V3’s maiden flight is still expected to happen early next year. “Starship’s twelfth flight test remains targeted for the first quarter of 2026,” the company wrote in its post on X.
Elon Musk mentioned a similar timeline on X earlier this year. In the lead up to Starshp Flight 11, which proved flawless, Musk stated that “Starship V3 is a massive upgrade from the current V2 and should be through production and testing by end of year, with heavy flight activity next year.” Musk has also mentioned that Starship V3 should be good enough to use for initial Mars missions.
Booster 18 failure not slowing Starship V3’s schedule
SpaceX’s bold update came after Booster 18 experienced a major anomaly during gas system pressure testing at SpaceX’s Massey facility in Starbase, Texas. SpaceX confirmed in a post on X that no propellant was loaded, no engines were installed, and personnel were positioned at a safe distance when the booster’s lower section crumpled, resulting in no injuries.
Still, livestream footage showed significant damage around the liquid oxygen tank area of Booster 18, leading observers to speculate that the booster was a total loss. Booster 18 was among the earliest vehicles in the Starship V3 series, making the failure notable. Despite the setback, Starship V3’s development plans appear unchanged, with SpaceX pushing ahead of its Q1 2026 test flight target.
News
Tesla Sweden faces fresh union blockade at key Gothenburg paint shop
Allround Lack works with painting and damage repair of passenger cars, including Teslas.
Tesla’s ongoing labor conflict in Sweden escalated again as the trade union IF Metall issued a new blockade halting all Tesla paintwork at Allround Lack in Gothenburg.
Allround Lack works with painting and damage repair of passenger cars, including Teslas. It currently employs about 20 employees.
Yet another blockade against Tesla Sweden
IF Metall’s latest notice ordered a full work stoppage for all Tesla-related activity at Allround Lack. With the blockade in place, paint jobs on Tesla-owned vehicles, factory-warranty repairs, and transport-damage fixes, will be effectively frozen, as noted in a report from Dagens Arbete. While Allround Lack is a small paint shop, its work with Tesla means that the blockade would add challenges to the company’s operations in Sweden, at least to some degree.
Paint shop blockades have been a recurring tool in the longstanding conflict. The first appeared in late 2023, when repair shops were barred from servicing Tesla vehicles. Days later, the Painters’ Union implemented a nationwide halt on Tesla paint work across more than 100 shops. Since then, a steady stream of workshops has been pulled into the conflict.
Earlier blockades faced backlash from consumers
The sweeping effects of the early blockades drew criticism from industry groups and consumers. Employers and industry organization Transportföretagen stated that the strikes harmed numerous workshops across Sweden, with about 10 of its members losing about 50% of their revenue.
Private owners also expressed their objections. Tibor Blomhäll, chairman of Tesla Club Sweden, told DA in a previous statement that the blockades from IF Metall gave the impression that the union was specifically attacking consumers. “If I get parking damage to my car, I pay for the paint myself. The company Tesla is not involved in that deal at all. So many people felt singled out, almost stigmatized. What have I done as a private individual to get a union against me?” Blomhäll stated.
In response to these complaints, IF Metall introduced exemptions, allowing severely damaged vehicles to be repaired. The union later reopened access for private owners at workshops with collective agreements. The blockades at the workshops were also reformulated to only apply to work that is “ordered by Tesla on Tesla’s own cars, as well as work covered by factory warranties and transport damage on Tesla cars.”
Tesla has passed a critical self-driving milestone Elon Musk listed in Master Plan Part Deux
SpaceX maintains unbelievable Starship target despite Booster 18 incident
