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.
News
Swedish unions consider police report over Tesla Megapack Supercharger
The Tesla Megapack Supercharger opened shortly before Christmas in Arlandastad, outside Stockholm.
Swedish labor unions are considering whether to file a police report related to a newly opened Tesla Megapack Supercharger near Stockholm, citing questions about how electricity is supplied to the site. The matter has also been referred to Sweden’s energy regulator.
Tesla Megapack Supercharger
The Tesla Megapack Supercharger opened shortly before Christmas in Arlandastad, outside Stockholm. Unlike traditional charging stations, the site is powered by an on-site Megapack battery rather than a direct grid connection. Typical grid connections for Tesla charging sites in Sweden have seen challenges for nearly two years due to union blockades.
Swedish labor union IF Metall has submitted a report to the Energy Market Inspectorate, asking the authority to assess whether electricity supplied to the battery system meets regulatory requirements, as noted in a report from Dagens Arbete (DA). The Tesla Megapack on the site is charged using electricity supplied by a local company, though the specific provider has not been publicly identified.
Peter Lydell, an ombudsman at IF Metall, issued a comment about the Tesla Megapack Supercharger. “The legislation states that only companies that engage in electricity trading may supply electricity to other parties. You may not supply electricity without a permit, then you are engaging in illegal electricity trading. That is why we have reported this… This is about a company that helps Tesla circumvent the conflict measures that exist. It is clear that it is troublesome and it can also have consequences,” Lydell said.
Police report under consideration
The Swedish Electricians’ Association has also examined the Tesla Megapack Supercharger and documented its power setup. As per materials submitted to the Energy Market Inspectorate, electrical cables were reportedly routed from a property located approximately 500 meters from the charging site.
Tomas Jansson, ombudsman and deputy head of negotiations at the Swedish Electricians’ Association, stated that the union was assessing whether to file a police report related to the Tesla Megapack Supercharger. He also confirmed that the electricians’ union was coordinating with IF Metall about the matter. “We have a close collaboration with IF Metall, and we are currently investigating this. We support IF Metall in their fight for fair conditions at Tesla,” Jansson said.
News
Tesla HW4.5 spotted in new Model Y, triggers speculation
Owners taking delivery of recent Model Y builds have identified components labeled “AP45.”
Tesla’s Hardware 4.5 computer appears to have surfaced in newly delivered Model Y vehicles, prompting fresh speculation about an interim upgrade ahead of the company’s upcoming AI5 chip.
Owners taking delivery of recent Model Y builds have identified components labeled “AP45,” suggesting Tesla may have quietly started rolling out revised autonomy hardware.
Hardware 4.5 appears in new Model Y units
The potential Hardware 4.5 sighting was first reported by Model Y owner @Eric5un, who shared details of a Fremont-built 2026 Model Y AWD Premium delivered this January. As per the Model Y owner, the vehicle includes a new front camera housing and a 16-inch center display, along with an Autopilot computer labeled “AP45” and part number 2261336-02-A.
The Tesla owner later explained that he confirmed the part number by briefly pulling down the upper carpet liner below the Model Y’s glovebox. Other owners soon reported similar findings. One Model Y Performance owner noted that their December build also appeared to include Hardware 4.5, while another owner of an Austin-built Model Y Performance reported spotting the same “AP45” hardware.
These sightings suggest that Tesla may already be installing revised FSD computers in its new Model Y batches, despite the company not yet making any formal announcements about Hardware 4.5.
What Hardware 4.5 could represent
Clues about Hardware 4.5 have surfaced previously in Tesla’s Electronic Parts Catalog. As reported by NotATeslaApp, the catalog has listed a component described as “CAR COMPUTER – LEFT HAND DRIVE – PROVISIONED – HARDWARE 4.5.” The component, which features the part number 2261336-S2-A, is priced at $2,300.00.
Longtime Tesla hacker @greentheonly has noted that Tesla software has contained references to a possible three-SoC architecture for some time. Previous generations of Tesla’s FSD computer, including Hardware 3 and Hardware 4, use a dual-SoC design for redundancy. A three-SoC layout could allow for higher inference throughput and improved fault tolerance.
Such an architecture could also serve as a bridge to AI5, Tesla’s next-generation autonomy chip expected to enter production later in 2026. As Tesla’s neural networks grow larger and more computationally demanding, Hardware 4.5 may provide additional headroom for vehicles built before AI5 becomes widely available.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk’s Grokipedia is getting cited by OpenAI’s ChatGPT
Some responses generated by OpenAI’s ChatGPT have recently referenced information from Grokipedia.
Some responses generated by OpenAI’s ChatGPT have recently referenced information from Grokipedia, an AI-generated encyclopedia developed by rival xAI, which was founded by Elon Musk. The citations appeared across a limited set of queries.
Reports about the matter were initially reported by The Guardian.
Grokipedia references in ChatGPT
Grokipedia launched in October as part of xAI’s effort to build an alternative to Wikipedia, which has become less centrist over the years. Unlike Wikipedia, which is moderated and edited by humans, Grokipedia is purely AI-powered, allowing it to approach topics with as little bias as possible, at least in theory. This model has also allowed Grokipedia to grow its article base quickly, with recent reports indicating that it has created over 6 million articles, more than 80% of English Wikipedia.
The Guardian reported that ChatGPT cited Grokipedia nine times across responses to more than a dozen user questions during its tests. As per the publication, the Grokipedia citations did not appear when ChatGPT was asked about high-profile or widely documented topics. Instead, Grokipedia was referenced in responses to more obscure historical or biographical claims. The pattern suggested selective use rather than broad reliance on the source, at least for now.
Broader Grokipedia use
The Guardian also noted that Grokipedia citations were not exclusive to ChatGPT. Anthropic’s AI assistant Claude reportedly showed similar references to Grokipedia in some responses, highlighting a broader issue around how large language models identify and weigh publicly available information.
In a statement to The Guardian, an OpenAI spokesperson stated that ChatGPT “aims to draw from a broad range of publicly available sources and viewpoints.” “We apply safety filters to reduce the risk of surfacing links associated with high-severity harms, and ChatGPT clearly shows which sources informed a response through citations,” the spokesperson stated.
Anthropic, for its part, did not respond to a request for comment on the matter. As for xAI, the artificial intelligence startup simply responded with a short comment that stated, “Legacy media lies.”
Swedish unions consider police report over Tesla Megapack Supercharger
Tesla HW4.5 spotted in new Model Y, triggers speculation
