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
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
