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.
Cybertruck
Tesla launches new Cybertruck trim with more features than ever for a low price
This is a considerable upgrade to the Cybertruck Rear-Wheel-Drive that Tesla offered last year. It was discontinued after just a few months, but we still have yet to see anyone share pictures of it online.
Tesla has officially launched a new trim of its all-electric Cybertruck, which has more features than previous offerings at this price point, which is an incredibly good value.
Tesla is now offering the Cybertruck All-Wheel-Drive, and starting at $59,990, it appears to be a lot of truck for the money.
Along with the sub-$60,000 starting price, Tesla gives the Cybertruck AWD a 325-mile range rating, a powered tonneau cover that houses three bed outlets. It also has Powershare capability, coil springs with adaptive damping for a refined suspension feel, Steer-by-wire and four-wheel-steering, a 6′ x 4′ composite bed, a towing capacity of 7,500 pounds, and a powered frunk.
This is a considerable upgrade to the Cybertruck Rear-Wheel-Drive that Tesla offered last year. It was discontinued after just a few months, but we still have yet to see anyone share pictures of it online.
Tesla has launched a new Cybertruck trim: the Cybertruck AWD
– Starts at $59,990
– Dual Motor AWD w/ est. 325 mi of range
– Powered tonneau cover
– Bed outlets (2x 120V + 1x 240V) & Powershare capability
– Coil springs w/ adaptive damping
– Heated first-row seats w/ textile… pic.twitter.com/erZBtlq3Bs— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 20, 2026
That truck did not have a power tonneau, did not have adaptive suspension, leather seats, or nearly any of the premium features in the upper-level trims. It was not a great deal, either. It was only a $10,000 discount from the next Cybertruck trim, which meant losing a motor and a lot of premium features for not that much of a savings.
This is a much better offering from Tesla and could help the company see a bit of a resurgence from a sales perspective. Although the Cybertruck is a popular vehicle from a fan perspective, it is not a great seller, and Tesla knows it.
Tesla Cybertruck undergoes interior mod that many owners wanted
Despite it being a crowd favorite, it was simply priced out of people’s budgets, so this All-Wheel-Drive configuration should be easier to handle financially for many of those who wanted the Cybertruck but not the price tag that came with it.
It is not a far cry from what Tesla priced back in 2019, as it unveiled three trim levels back in November, nearly seven years ago: a Single Motor for $39,990, a Dual Motor for $49,990, and a Tri-Motor for $69,990.
This new AWD trim is just $10,000 off from that price tag, and accounting for inflation, Tesla is pretty close.
Deliveries are expected to begin in June 2026.
News
Tesla dominates JD Power EV Satisfaction ranking, grabbing top two spots
The Model 3 was the highest ranking EV considered, with a score of 804, followed by the Model Y at 797, the BMW i4 at 795, and the BMW iX at 794.
Tesla dominated JD Power’s EV Owner Satisfaction ranking for 2026, grabbing the top two spots in the survey with the Model 3 and Model Y.
The two Tesla models grabbed the first and second spots, respectively, with scores of 804 and 797 out of 1,000 possible points.
Brent Gruber, Executive Director of JD Power’s EV practice, said:
“EV market share has declined sharply following the discontinuation of the federal tax credit program in September 2025, but that dip belies steadily growing customer satisfaction among owners of new EVs. Improvements in battery technology, charging infrastructure, and overall vehicle performance have driven customer satisfaction to its highest level ever. What’s more, the vast majority of current EV owners say they will consider purchasing another EV for their next vehicle, regardless of whether they benefited from the now-expired federal tax credit.”
JD Power’s study showed three key findings: Public charging satisfaction was higher than ever, premium BEVs saw more pronounced quality improvements, and BEVs held their satisfaction ratings compared to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs).
Tesla Grabs Top 2 Spots
Despite what some publications might try to make you believe, Tesla is still the cream of the crop when it comes to EV ownership, and real-world owners surveyed by JD Power will prove that to you.
The Model 3 was the highest ranking EV considered, with a score of 804, followed by the Model Y at 797, the BMW i4 at 795, and the BMW iX at 794. The segment average for “Premium Battery Electric Vehicles” was 786. The Cadillac OPTIQ (762), Rivian R1S (758), Lucid Air (740), Rivian R1T (739), and Audi Q6 e-Tron (690) all finished below that threshold.
Meanwhile, a separate category for “Mass Market Battery Electric Vehicles” had the Ford Mustang Mach-E as the EV with the highest rating at 760. The segment average for this class was 727.
🚨 Tesla topped J.D. Power’s new EV Owner Satisfaction Study for 2026, with the Model 3 (804) and Model Y (797) being the top-rated vehicles, beating out the BMW i4 (795) and iX (794)
Additionally, Tesla Superchargers helped public charging satisfaction rise to new highs:
“The… pic.twitter.com/4WIxoDxHig
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 19, 2026
Tesla Supercharging Improves Public Charging Satisfaction
JD Power said the availability of public charging is “by far the most improved index factor,” and that the consistent growth of publicly available charging has helped push many consumer sentiments in a positive direction.
Most of this is due to the Tesla Supercharger Network and its expansion. However, Tesla owners are also becoming more satisfied with the infrastructure after expanding access to other EV brands, the study said.
Elon Musk
Musk company boycott proposal at City Council meeting gets weird and ironic
The City of Davis in California held a weekly city council meeting on Tuesday, where it voted on a proposal to ban Musk-operated companies. It got weird and ironic.
A city council meeting in California that proposed banning the entry of new contracts with companies controlled by Elon Musk got weird and ironic on Tuesday night after councilmembers were forced to admit some of the entities would benefit the community.
The City of Davis in California held a weekly city council meeting on Tuesday, where it voted on a proposal called “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies.”
The proposal claimed that Musk ” has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”
We reported on it on Tuesday before the meeting:
California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX
However, the meeting is now published online, and it truly got strange.
While it was supported by various members of the community, you could truly tell who was completely misinformed about the influence of Musk’s companies, their current status from an economic and competitive standpoint, and how much some of Musk’s companies’ projects benefit the community.
City Council Member Admits Starlink is Helpful
One City Council member was forced to admit that Starlink, the satellite internet project established by Musk’s SpaceX, was beneficial to the community because the emergency response system utilized it for EMS, Fire, and Police communications in the event of a power outage.
After public comments were heard, councilmembers amended some of the language in the proposal to not include Starlink because of its benefits to public safety.
One community member even said, “There should be exceptions to the rule.”
🚨 After the City of Davis, California, held its City Council meeting on Tuesday and voted on a resolution called “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” it was forced to admit that it needs… pic.twitter.com/hQiCIX3yll
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 19, 2026
Community Members Report Out of Touch Mainstream Media Narratives
Many community members very obviously read big bold headlines about how horribly Tesla is performing in terms of electric vehicles. Many pointed to “labor intimidation” tactics being used at the company’s Fremont Factory, racial discrimination lawsuits, and Musk’s political involvement as clear-cut reasons why Davis should not consider his companies for future contracts.
However, it was interesting to hear some of them speak, very obviously out of touch with reality.
Musk has encouraged unions to propose organizing at the Fremont Factory, stating that many employees would not be on board because they are already treated very well. In 2022, he invited Union leaders to come to Fremont “at their convenience.”
The UAW never took the opportunity.
Some have argued that Tesla prevented pro-union clothing at Fremont, which it did for safety reasons. An appeals court sided with Tesla, stating that the company had a right to enforce work uniforms to ensure employee safety.
Another community member said that Tesla was losing market share in the U.S. due to growing competition from legacy automakers.
“Plus, these existing auto companies have learned a lot from what Tesla has done,” she said. Interestingly, Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis have all pulled back from their EV ambitions significantly. All three took billions in financial hits.
One Resident Crosses a Line
One resident’s time at the podium included this:
Another member of the community did this…a member of the City Council admonished him and it came to a verbal spat https://t.co/zWvKCiCkie pic.twitter.com/1L334qq9av
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 19, 2026
He was admonished by City Council member Bapu Vaitla, who said his actions were offensive. The two sparred verbally for a few seconds before their argument ended.
City Council Vote Result
Ultimately, the City of Davis chose to pass the motion, but they also amended it to exclude Starlink because of its emergency system benefits.
Tesla launches new Cybertruck trim with more features than ever for a low price
Tesla dominates JD Power EV Satisfaction ranking, grabbing top two spots
