Connect with us

News

SpaceX, NASA celebrate Blue Origin’s lunar lander lawsuit loss and get back to work

Published

4 years ago

on

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).

Advertisement

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.

NASA’s first SLS core stage arrived in Florida almost seven months ago and is still at least 3-6 months away from launch. (Richard Angle)

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.

Advertisement
Related Topics:

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

News

SpaceX opens up free Starlink service for those impacted by Hurricane Melissa

Published

1 hour ago

on

October 28, 2025

By

(Credit: Starlink | X)

SpaceX is opening up its internet service, Starlink, to those impacted by Hurricane Melissa, as it made landfall in Jamaica and the Bahamas as a Category 5 storm.

Hurricane Melissa is expected to reach wind speeds of over 165 MPH over the next few days as it extends out into the Atlantic Ocean by Thursday and Friday.

Citizens in Jamaica and the Bahamas have been preparing for the storm for the past week, getting necessary goods together and preparing for the massive storm to arrive. It finally did yesterday, and the first images and video of the storm are showing that it could destroy many parts of both countries.

Starlink is now being opened up for free until the end of November for those impacted by the storm in Jamaica and the Bahamas, SpaceX announced today:

It is a move similar to the one the company made last year as Hurricane Helene made its way through the United States, destroying homes and property across the East Coast. SpaceX offered free service for those impacted by the destruction caused by the storm.

The free Starlink service was available until the end of 2024.

Elon Musk’s companies have also made similar moves to help out those who are impacted by natural disasters. Tesla has offered Free Supercharging in the past, most notably during the California wildfires.

Tesla and SpaceX’s LA fire relief efforts: Cybertrucks, free Starlink and more

One major advantage of Starlink is that it is available for use in situations like this one, where power might be required to operate things like a modem and router.

Internet access is a crucial part of survival in these situations, especially as it can be the last leg some stand on to get in touch with emergency services or loved ones.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla board chair reiterates widely unmentioned point of Musk comp plan

Published

2 hours ago

on

October 28, 2025

By

Credit: Tesla

Tesla Board Chair Robyn Denholm appeared on Bloomberg TV this morning to discuss the current status of CEO Elon Musk’s compensation plan, and used the opportunity to reiterate a widely unmentioned key point of the entire package.

Critics of the proposed pay package, which would pay Musk $1 trillion if he completes every tranche, routinely cite the sheer size of the payday.

Of course, many skeptics leave out the fact that he would only get that money if he were able to generate eight times the value the company currently has.

Tesla gains massive vote of confidence on compensation plan for Elon Musk

For Musk, it might have a little bit to do with money, but that is likely a very small percentage point of why the compensation package is being offered to him. He has reiterated that it is more about voting control and overall influence, especially as Tesla dives into robotics.

He said during the Q3 Earnings Call:

“My fundamental concern with regard to how much voting control I have at Tesla is if I go ahead and build this enormous robot army, can I just be ousted at some point in the future? That’s my biggest concern. That is really the only thing I’m trying to address with this. It’s called compensation, but it’s not like I’m going to go spend the money. It’s just, if we build this robot army, do I have at least a strong influence over that robot army, not current control, but a strong influence? That’s what it comes down to in a nutshell. I don’t feel comfortable wielding that robot army if I don’t have at least a strong influence.”

Tesla shares the idea that Musk is a crucial part of the company, and without him being awarded the voting control he feels he deserves, he could leave the company altogether.

The company is very obviously feeling the importance of the upcoming vote, as it has advertised and pushed heavily for the comp plan to be approved, mostly to retain Musk.

Tesla Board Chair Robyn Denholm said today to Bloomberg TV that it is crucial shareholders understand it is not about Musk’s potential wealth, but more about his influence on company decisions:

“So firstly, it is a performance package, so he gets nothing if he doesn’t perform against the pretty audacious milestones that are part of the performance criteria that’s been outlined by the board in the performance package. So, I think rather than compensation, it’s actually about the performance and the goals that we have for the company as we move forward. And so, for me, it really is about making sure that investors understand that they actually get paid if he hits the milestones before he will…Elon’s been very public, including on last week’s earnings call, about the fact that it’s around the voting influence that he could have in future shareholder meetings as opposed to the economic interests.”

Musk is not an incredibly flashy person. He does not have crazy cars or a massive house to go back to. He spends a lot of his time working and sometimes even sleeps at his office inside the factory.

He recently said he “only has what is needed” because “material possessions were making him weak.”

Continue Reading

News

The truth about Tesla ‘Mad Max’ mode from an actual user

Some people might see “Mad Max” as an extension of their daily driving.

For me, I did not see it that way. I saw it as a useful tool for certain situations, but it was certainly not something I could compare to my personal driving style.

But that does not mean that it’s wrong.

Published

3 hours ago

on

October 28, 2025

By

Credit: Teslarati

There have been many headlines about Tesla’s new “Mad Max” mode, but many of those writing about the “dangerous” and “controversial” mode have probably never used it.

As a writer, I write about topics I do not have firsthand experience with, but the job requires me to take a fair stance and report what is known. The problem is the nature of driving and driving modes, specifically, is subjective.

Some people might see “Mad Max” as an extension of their daily driving.

For me, I did not see it that way. I saw it as a useful tool for certain situations, but it was certainly not something I could compare to my personal driving style.

But that does not mean that it’s wrong.

NHTSA Probes Tesla Over “Mad Max”

Last week, the NHTSA launched a bit of a probe into Mad Max mode, requesting additional information on the Speed Profile and reiterating that the driver of the car is still required to be in ultimate control.

Tesla ‘Mad Max’ gets its first bit of regulatory attention

It’s important to keep the latter portion of that sentence in mind for the true thesis of this piece.

Now, it is no surprise to me that Mad Max garnered attention from regulatory agencies, as it is definitely a more spirited driving profile than the others.

Is Mad Max That Big of a Deal?

Regulatory agencies are responsible for keeping people safe, and it is important to note that their control is somewhat necessary. However, this type of drive mode is optional, requires the driver’s attention, and should be used responsibly for safe travel.

Playing Devil’s Advocate, how is Mad Max any different than the performance modes that some sports cars have? Because they require the driver to operate fully, and they are not semi-autonomous like Tesla can offer with Mad Max in Full Self-Driving (Supervised), are they safer?

The argument here really comes down to whether FSD is being used responsibly and correctly; any accelerated drive mode becomes more of a risk if the vehicle operator is not paying attention. This applies to any car company or drive mode they choose to use on their cars.

My Personal Experience with Mad Max

I have used Mad Max probably ten times since it rolled out to Early Access Program (EAP) members a few weeks ago.

I’ll admit: it did a lot of things I would never do driving a car manually. It passed people on the right. It was the fastest vehicle on the interstate, at least until I crossed into Maryland. Then, it seemed to be just another car on the road.

It drove quickly, and not so fast that I felt concerned for my safety, which I never feared for, but fast enough that, at certain points, I was concerned that a cop would pull me over. I never encountered that scenario, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it resulted in some tickets.

With that being said, I don’t particularly think I’d use Mad Max in more than a handful of applications: driving the Baltimore Beltway would be one instance, navigating traffic in Baltimore, Philadelphia, or Pittsburgh during heavy traffic, or cruising on I-95, where cars routinely are going 100 MPH, much faster than Mad Max would ever travel.

Is it too quick for me in residential settings? For me, yes. Is it faster than every human driving on those roads? Absolutely not. In my experience, it is quicker than some, slower than others, just like any other Speed Mode Tesla offers, even Sloth, which refuses to go over the posted speed limit.

I think it’s wrong to sit here and act as if Mad Max is some incredibly dangerous and life-threatening hazard. If a driver is uncomfortable with the maneuvers or speed, they do not have to use it. However, it is no different from how many other cars travel on the road; it is far from an anomaly.

Tesla FSD’s new Mad Max mode is getting rave reviews from users

With that being said, it will be interesting to see if the NHTSA does anything about Mad Max, whether it will require Tesla to “nerf” the Speed Profile, or remove it altogether. It’s also important to note that this is my personal experience with Mad Max, and what I’ve experienced might differ from others’.

I would love to hear your thoughts on how Mad Max has driven for you, or your impressions of it.

Continue Reading

Trending