News
Blue Origin lawsuit forces SpaceX, NASA to stop joint work on Starship Moon lander
Days after Jeff Bezos space startup Blue Origin sued NASA over its decision to solely award SpaceX a contract to turn Starship into a Moon lander, it’s become clear that the space agency will again have to freeze work on the program.
Earlier this week, it was reported that Blue Origin had made good on a veiled threat to sue NASA over disagreements over the space agency’s latest Human Landing System (HLS) procurement decisions. Namely, NASA decided not to proceed with Blue Origin’s National Team Moon lander proposal, which was twice as expensive as SpaceX’s Starship proposal, less technically sound, and promised significantly less cost-sharing.
SpaceX, on the other hand, proposed to turn Starship into a safe, crew-rated, reusable Moon lander for about the same cost as Blue Origin’s proposal price: $6 billion, give or take. However, NASA says that the company offered to pay for more than half of the Starship Moon lander’s development, lowering NASA’s actual cost to just $2.9 billion. Coincidentally or not, $2.9 billion – with some minor concessions on when that funding would be dispersed to the HLS winner – would end up being almost exactly what NASA could afford over the program’s four to five-year lifespan.
As previously discussed on Teslarati, NASA repeatedly and explicitly warned all three HLS Option A competitors (SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Dynetics) that it withheld the ability to award as many or as few contracts as it wanted – including none at all. Ultimately, exactly as it had cautioned, NASA weighed the three proposals it received against its existing budget (a middling $850M of $3.4B requested in FY21) and selected just one – a proposal from SpaceX that was conveniently both the cheapest and most technically sound.
“The fixed-price [Starship] contract will cost NASA $2.9B over four or so years – narrowly within the space agency’s reach if Congress continues to appropriate around $850M annually ($3.4B over four years). The numbers are very simple. As GAO notes [in its protest denial], the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) tool NASA used for its HLS Option A acquisition also explicitly allowed the agency to select as many or as few proposals as it wants, including none at all. In the lead-up to proposal submission, official NASA documents repeatedly cautioned as much, warning that the agency might not even award one contract depending on funding or the quality of proposals it received.
For Blue Origin’s lawsuit to succeed, the increasingly desperate company will have to convince a federal judge that basic realities and longstanding precedents of federal procurement – not just NASA’s HLS award to SpaceX – are flawed and need to be changed. The odds of success are thus spectacularly low. However, if the presiding judge allows the case to proceed and awards Blue Origin an injunction against NASA, it could force the space agency to cease work on SpaceX’s HLS contract for months and potentially freeze SpaceX’s access to the $300M NASA recently disbursed.”
Teslarati.com — August 16th, 2021
Unfortunately, just as speculated, Blue Origin’s lawsuit appears to have found just enough footing to disrupt the HLS program yet again. Thanks to the first protests of Blue Origin and Dynetics, NASA and SpaceX were forced to stop cooperative work on the Starship Moon lander for more than three months. Now, on August 19th, NASA reportedly “voluntarily paused” work on SpaceX’s HLS Moon lander contract and will continue to do so until November 1st – potentially adding another ~74 days to the 95-day delay Blue Origin’s meddling has already partially caused.
Schedule submitted jointly by all the parties today, and the judge’s order granting the schedule. pic.twitter.com/gyHS4R4j50— Joey Roulette (@joroulette) August 19, 2021
On its own, the announcement is already fairly bizarre. For unknown reasons, Blue Origin apparently agreed to “an expedited litigation schedule” in return for NASA voluntarily pausing work on SpaceX’s HLS contract. It’s unclear why any plaintiff that believes it has a strong case would allow an artificial limit to be placed on the amount of time available for litigation, but that’s exactly what Blue Origin has agreed to.
Per that “expedited schedule,” NASA’s voluntary work halt will end on November 1st after several scheduled rounds of motions and cross-motions from Blue Origin, SpaceX, and the space agency. It’s unclear when a ruling might be expected but the schedule published seems to imply that it would come sometime before NASA and SpaceX resume work.
It’s now increasingly likely that being forced to spend more than five months without the ability to seriously work or collaborate with SpaceX on its HLS contract will significantly delay NASA’s necessary contributions and thus humanity’s return to the Moon. Thankfully, as was the case with the initial 95-day delay caused by contract protests, no part of Blue Origin’s lawsuit will prevent SpaceX itself from continuing to develop Starship, though it almost certainly hampers the company’s ability to mature its Starship Moon lander design.
In the meantime, while Blue Origin busies itself with a general determination to disrupt NASA’s return to the Moon until it receives a slice of the pie its executives and owner feel entitled to, SpaceX will simply continue a full-court press towards Starship’s orbital launch debut and focus on building, testing, flying, and rebuilding the hardware that will return humanity to the Moon and, just maybe, revolutionize spaceflight as we know it.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
