News
NASA contracts SpaceX for a second crewed Starship Moon landing
NASA says it exercised a contract option to purchase a second crewed Starship Moon landing from SpaceX.
Aside from its general existence, though, very little else is known about the new contract. NASA has yet to discuss when it will launch or which Artemis mission it will be attached to. A step further, it’s not actually clear why two crewed “demonstrations” are needed or what the difference between those two missions is. But more importantly, a broader Artemis Program manifest overview published days later revealed that NASA has plans for a truly unusual gap in crewed Moon landings in the mid-2020s.
Mere days after the announcement, an official NASA schedule showing the agency’s plans for the Moon and Mars over the next ten years explicitly contradicted it, showing only two Starship HLS demonstrations: one uncrewed and one crewed. Assuming that was simply a matter of poor coordination, the graphic reveals another bizarre reality: NASA appears to be explicitly planning for a three-year gap between SpaceX’s first crewed Starship landing in 2025 and the next crewed Moon landing, which the graphic suggested might occur in 2028.
Every single crewed Apollo Program mission to the Moon – including one aborted circumlunar mission, two missions to lunar orbit, and six successful landings – happened in less than four years. As published, NASA’s current Artemis plan would be akin to completing Apollo 11 – the first crewed Moon landing – in 1969 and then sitting around and waiting until 1972 for the next landing attempt. It’s difficult to properly convey just how bizarre such a huge gap would be.
There are only two obvious possible explanations. First, NASA might prefer a multi-year delay between crewed Moon landings to building and launching another SLS Block 1 rocket, in which case the three-year landing gap is explicitly the fault of years of SLS Block 1B delays – specifically NASA and Boeing’s work on the rocket’s larger Exploration Upper Stage (EUS). Second, it could be the case that NASA and/or SpaceX expects Starship’s first crewed landing to be delayed by one or several years. In 2018, SLS Block 1B was expected to debut as early as 2024. In 2022, NASA now says Block 1B will debut no earlier than 2027, while the last Block 1 launch is NET 2025.
The first explanation is arguably much likelier given that structuring schedules based on the assumption of delays would make very little logistical sense. If SpaceX were to be ready on or close to the original schedule, that would leave NASA’s Moon landing program sitting on its hands for a third of a decade. In an alternative scenario, if NASA was planning to take full advantage of every year it has and SpaceX’s Starship demonstration was still delayed, the space agency would simply end up with more SLS and Orion hardware on hand than it planned for – only a problem if the rocket is literally incapable of launching more than once every year or two. There are few conceivable scenarios where having a mission waiting on a rocket would be preferable to having a rocket waiting for a mission
In other words, NASA probably doesn’t want to plan for a three-year gap between crewed Moon landings. Rather, the anchor NASA has chained the Artemis Program to – SLS and Orion – is likely giving it no choice in the matter. Worse, if SLS Block 1B and EUS development are as poorly managed as SLS Block 1, it’s possible – if not likely – that Artemis IV and V will slip another year or two. As a result, even in the likely scenario that SpaceX’s crewed HLS demonstration runs into a year or so of delays, there could still be a three or even four-year gap between crewed NASA Moon landings right when the program should be getting up to speed.
SpaceX, meanwhile, is privately developing Starship with the ultimate intent of landing humans on Mars. Without NASA’s interest and support, the Moon is a distraction from SpaceX’s real goals. Additionally, through NASA’s Human Landing System (HLS) program, SpaceX will be providing Starship as a service, meaning that the company will retain full rights to and ownership of any system that results. Put simply, there’s a real possibility that NASA’s seemingly extraordinary lack of motivation will create a scenario in which SpaceX could outgrow the space agency’s usefulness in the mid-2020s.
If, for example, SpaceX privately human-rates Starship for launches and entry, descent, and landing; it could use the Starship HLS lander it’s developed with NASA to land its own astronauts on the Moon without the need for SLS, Orion, or NASA. Given that the full extent of NASA’s Artemis Program ambitions appears to be one Moon landing per year, there would be plenty of room for SpaceX to perform multiple additional landings independent of NASA while the space agency’s contractors struggle to build and launch a single SLS rocket in the same time-frame.
Given the political power behind the SLS/Orion programs, it’s not clear if NASA will ever be willing or able to publicly support or take advantage of that logical and likely inevitable maturation of SpaceX’s Starship HLS capabilities. A crewed Moon mission – and especially a crewed Starship landing – successfully completed without the need for SLS or Orion could put NASA’s unsustainable rocket and spacecraft in a very uncomfortable position. Already, the HLS program has relegated SLS/Orion to the role of an Earth-Moon taxi service that just so happens to cost more than $4 billion per launch.
Above all else, uncertainty continues to reign over NASA’s longer-term human spaceflight plans – helped in no small part by the space agency’s lack of any obvious overarching strategy. NASA officials may religiously repeat phrases about how the Artemis Program aims to “sustainably” return humans to the Moon and pave the way to landing astronauts on Mars, but that doesn’t change the fact that the agency’s tangible, funded plans show virtually no evidence of serious preparations for either goal. Only time will tell where that rudderless ship ends up.
News
Tesla Semi gets strange-but-understandable comparison from Jay Leno
In a recent interview with MotorTrend, legendary comedian and automotive enthusiast Jay Leno shared his impressions after driving Tesla’s long-range Semi truck, offering one of the most vivid descriptions to date:
The Tesla Semi recently received a strange-but-understandable comparison from automotive enthusiast and former long-time late-night television show host Jay Leno.
In a recent interview with MotorTrend, legendary comedian and automotive enthusiast Jay Leno shared his impressions after driving Tesla’s long-range Semi truck, offering one of the most vivid descriptions to date:
“It’s like driving an office building.”
The comparison may seem quirky—office buildings evoke images of immobility rather than motion—but it aptly conveys the experience of commanding a massive 23,000-pound Class 8 electric truck that delivers sports-car acceleration.
Lenotested the production-spec Long Range model, which is rated for up to 500 miles of range. He was visibly impressed by its performance, noting how the enormous vehicle moves with surprising urgency.
“It’s as fast as a Tesla, but it’s like driving an office building,” he remarked. “It’s this huge thing that moves like right now. You go 500 miles. You get 60% charge in 30 minutes. You’re saving on fuel costs. It seems quite good.”
Jay Leno in new interview on what it’s like to drive the @Tesla Semi:
“I was quite impressed with that. It’s a fast as a Tesla, but it’s like driving an office building. It’s this huge thing that moves like right now. You go 500 miles. You get 60% charge in 30 mins. You’re… pic.twitter.com/YU7tk6a6pV
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 8, 2026
The reaction highlights the cognitive dissonance at the core of the Tesla Semi. Traditional diesel semi-trucks are slow, noisy, and expensive to run. The Semi rewrites the rules with instant torque from its tri-motor electric powertrain, producing up to 800 kW.
Despite its size, the truck feels agile thanks to full electric steering assist, upgraded actuators borrowed from the Cybertruck, and a 48-volt electrical architecture that improves responsiveness and efficiency.
Tesla reports real-world energy consumption below 1.7 kWh per mile for the Long Range version. Megacharger stations can deliver a 60% charge in roughly 30 minutes, making the truck suitable for long-haul operations.
Additional features include an electric Power Take-Off (ePTO) capable of 25 kW for trailer refrigeration or other equipment, and a driver-focused cab with a central seating position for optimal visibility and a quiet, high-tech interior.
Fleet operators stand to benefit significantly from the economics. Diesel trucks often cost nearly one dollar per mile when including fuel, maintenance, and downtime.
Tesla projects the Semi can reduce operating costs to as low as 15 cents per mile through cheaper electricity, regenerative braking that minimizes brake wear, and reduced service requirements. While early deployments, like Pepsi’s, focused on shorter routes, the 500-mile variant targets cross-country applications.
Obstacles remain. A fully loaded tractor-trailer can reach 80,000 pounds, which reduces real-world range compared to the unloaded test conditions. Building out a nationwide Megacharger network will be essential for broader adoption. The Semi also carries a higher upfront price than conventional diesels, though total cost of ownership and available incentives frequently tip the scales in its favor over time.
Tesla Semi hauls fresh Cybercab batch as Robotaxi era takes hold
Leno’s “office building” description resonates because it captures the unexpected thrill of piloting something so large yet so capable. As the trucking industry faces pressure to cut emissions and control rising fuel expenses, the Semi offers a compelling alternative that excels in performance, comfort, and efficiency.
Coming from a man who has driven everything from vintage classics to modern hypercars, Leno’s genuine enthusiasm adds weight to the verdict.
The Tesla Semi is emerging as more than an experimental EV—it represents a practical vision for the future of heavy-duty transport where massive rigs accelerate instantly, and the numbers finally make sense. If fleet results continue to validate the claims, the era of diesel dominance could be drawing to a close.
News
Tesla expands its mass-market color palette in the U.S.
Delivering a fresh splash of color to its lineup, Tesla is giving U.S. buyers two stunning new blue options that are already turning heads.
Tesla has expanded the color palette it offers on its mass market vehicles in the United States, giving buyers of the Model 3 and Model Y a few additional options than before.
Delivering a fresh splash of color to its lineup, Tesla is giving U.S. buyers two stunning new blue options that are already turning heads. Starting on May 8, the automaker updated its North American configurator to introduce Marine Blue on Model Y Premium trims and Frost Blue exclusively on the Model 3 Performance.
Tesla Model Y and Model 3 Premium get Marine Blue for $1000 in the U.S.!
What do you think? pic.twitter.com/3FqMXcnmru
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 8, 2026
The move replaces the long-running Deep Blue Metallic, a staple for over eight years, and brings previously exclusive shades stateside.
Marine Blue, a deep, rich oceanic hue formerly limited to Europe and Asia-Pacific markets, is now available on Model 3 and Model Y RWD and Long Range AWD Premium variants. Priced at a $1,000 upgrade—standard for Tesla’s premium paints—it delivers a sophisticated, metallic finish that shifts beautifully under light.
Tesla Model Y and Model 3 Premium get Marine Blue for $1000 in the U.S.!
What do you think? pic.twitter.com/3FqMXcnmru
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 8, 2026
Tesla North America highlighted the change directly in an official post, confirming Marine Blue as the new flagship blue for non-Performance models.
Frost Blue, on the other hand, is the real crowd-pleaser for enthusiasts. Previously reserved for the flagship Model S and Model X, this lighter, icy metallic shade is now offered at no extra cost on Model 3 Performance and Model Y Performance trims.
Frost Blue now available on Tesla Model 3 Performance 😤 pic.twitter.com/rLOEh4pTkp
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 8, 2026
Performance buyers effectively get a premium color included in the base price, a smart perk that Tesla has extended to higher-end variants across the board. Early in-person sightings and configurator renders show Frost Blue’s cool, modern vibe popping against the cars’ sleek lines, especially with black wheels and red brake calipers.
The timing couldn’t be better. With Tesla pushing refreshed Model 3 and Model Y refreshes amid growing competition, these updates add visual excitement without major redesigns.
Deep Blue Metallic orders are being transitioned to the new shades, according to customer reports and Tesla communications. In the U.S., Puerto Rico, and Mexico, the options are live now; Canada sees limited Frost Blue availability on the Model 3 Performance.
Tesla’s color strategy continues to evolve, borrowing from higher-end models to refresh mass-market EVs. Now that we bid farewell to the Model S and Model X, some of their colors might be available on the more widely available Model 3 and Model Y.
Elon Musk
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
A California regulatory filing just confirmed the exact battery size inside each Tesla Semi variant.
A regulatory filing published by the California Air Resources Board in April 2026 has put official numbers on what Tesla Semi owners and fleet buyers have long wanted confirmed: the exact battery capacities of both the Long Range and Standard Range Semi truck variants. CARB is California’s independent air quality regulator, and it certifies zero-emission powertrains before they can be sold or operated in the state. When a manufacturer submits a vehicle for certification, the resulting executive order becomes a public document, making it one of the most reliable sources for confirmed production specs on any EV.
The document lists two certified powertrain configurations. The Long Range Semi carries a usable battery capacity of 822 kWh, while the Standard Range version comes in at 548 kWh. Both use lithium-ion NCMA chemistry and share the same peak and steady-state motor output ratings of 800 kW and 525 kW respectively. Cross-referencing Tesla’s published efficiency figure of approximately 1.7 kWh per mile under full load, the 822 kWh pack supports roughly 480 miles of real-world range, which aligns closely with Tesla’s advertised 500-mile figure for the Long Range trim. The 548 kWh Standard Range pack works out to approximately 320 miles, again consistent with Tesla’s stated 325-mile target.
Here is a direct comparison of the two versions based on the CARB filing and published specs:
| Tesla Semi Spec | Long Range | Standard Range |
| Battery Capacity | 822 kWh | 548 kWh |
| Battery Chemistry | NCMA Li-Ion | NCMA Li-Ion |
| Peak Motor Power | 800 kW | 525 kW |
| Estimated Range | ~500 miles | ~325 miles |
| Efficiency | ~1.7 kWh/mile | ~1.7 kWh/mile |
| Est. Price | ~$290,000 | ~$260,000 |
| GVW Rating | 82,000 lbs | 82,000 lbs |
The timing of this certification is not incidental. On April 29, 2026, Semi Programme Director Dan Priestley confirmed on X that high-volume production is now ramping at Tesla’s dedicated 1.7-million-square-foot facility in Sparks, Nevada. A key advantage of the Nevada location is vertical integration: the 4680 battery cells powering the Semi are manufactured in the same complex, eliminating the supply chain bottleneck that had delayed the program for years.
Tesla’s long-term goal is to reach a production capacity of 50,000 trucks annually at the Nevada factory, which would represent roughly 20 percent of the entire North American Class 8 market. With CARB certification now in hand and the production line running, the regulatory and manufacturing groundwork for that target is in place.
Tesla Semi gets strange-but-understandable comparison from Jay Leno
Tesla expands its mass-market color palette in the U.S.
