Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s Starship to spar with Blue Origin for NASA Moon landing contracts

SpaceX wants to land Starship on the Moon as early as 2022 and NASA may be willing to use the massive spacecraft to transport commercial and scientific payloads to its surface. (SpaceX)

Published

6 years ago

on

On November 18th, NASA announced that it had added commercial Moon lander offerings from SpaceX, Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada Corporation, and others to a pool of companies that will be able to compete to affordably deliver cargo to the surface of the Moon. With this latest addition of landers, competition could get very interesting, very quickly.

In November 2018, NASA revealed a big step forward in its plans to kickstart robotic exploration and utilization of the Moon, announcing nine new partners in its Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) initiative. Designed first and foremost to encourage the commercial development of unprecedentedly affordable Moon landers, the program’s first nine partners included Lockheed Martin, Astrobotic, Intuitive Machines, Masten Space, Orbit Beyond, and several others.

In May 2019, NASA announced the next step, contracting with three of those nine aforementioned providers to bring their proposed Moon landers to fruition and attempt their first lunar landings. Orbit Beyond dropped out shortly after but Astrobotic and Intuitive Machines continue to work towards that goal and aim to attempt the first Moon landings with their respective Peregrine and Nova-C spacecraft no earlier than (NET) July 2021. Intuitive Machines has contracted a SpaceX Falcon 9 for its first Nova-C Moon launch, while Astrobotic side with the very first launch of United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) next-generation Vulcan rocket.

From left to right: Astrobotic’s Peregrine, Intuitive Machines’ Nova-C, and OrbitBeyond’s Z-01. (NASA)

Generally speaking, the landers offered by the first nine CLPS partners were on the smaller side of the spectrum, capable of delivering around 50-100 kg (100-200 lb) of useful cargo to the surface of the Moon with launch masses around 1500-3000 kg (3300-6600 lb). On November 18th, NASA announced that a second group of partners would be added to the competitive ‘pool’ of CLPS-eligible Moon landers, all of which can technically compete to land a range of NASA payloads on the Moon. The new five are Ceres Robotics, Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems, Sierra Nevada Corporation, Blue Origin, and SpaceX.

Next to nothing is known about Tyvak’s or Ceres Robotics’ apparently proposed landers, but a render of SNC’s Moon lander concept shares some obvious similarities with its Dream Chaser spacecraft and expendable power and propulsion module, implying that it’s likely on the larger side. Blue Origin and SpaceX, of course, proposed their Blue Moon and Starship spacecraft.

Historic first landing of Blue Moon spacecraft
byu/BlackMarine inSpaceXLounge
Although tongue-in-cheek, the above render does serve as an excellent size comparison of Starship and Blue Moon, as do the identical NASA Moon rovers on the uppermost Starship’s elevator and atop the Blue Moon lander pictured below.

As a 100%-speculative guess, Ceres and Tyvak’s landers are likely in the same ~100 kg-class range as the nine CLPS providers selected before it, while Sierra Nevada’s lander concept is probably closer to 500 kg (1100 lb). According to Blue Origin, it’s recently-updated Blue Moon lander is designed to deliver up to 4500 kg (9900 lb) to the lunar surface and is expected to attempt its first Moon landing no earlier than 2024.

Unsurprisingly, SpaceX’s Starship blows all 13 other lander proposals out of the water and, in the context of the CLPS program, is a bit like bringing a Gatling gun to a paintball match. According to SpaceX, a fully-refueled Starship should be able to land 100 metric tons (220,000 lb) of cargo on the Moon, although it’s unclear if that would allow the Starship to return to Earth.

Advertisement

In simpler terms, there is just no chance whatsoever that the practical scope of NASA’s CLPS program could possibly warrant more than a few metric tons delivered to the surface of the Moon. NASA as a whole doesn’t have the budget needed to build useful several-dozen-ton spacecraft or experiments, let alone CLPS. In that sense, the real question to ask is what could Starship manage if the useful payloads it needs to deliver are no more than a few metric tons?

Assuming SpaceX’s technical know-how is mature enough to allow Starship to preserve cryogenic propellant for weeks or months after launch, it’s entirely conceivable that a Moon launch with, say, 10 tons of cargo could be achieved with just one or two in-orbit refuelings, all while leaving that Starship enough margin to safely return to Earth. Given that NASA awarded Intuitive Machines and Astrobotic approximately $80M apiece to land 50-100 kg on the Moon, it’s far too easy to imagine SpaceX quoting a similar price to deliver 10+ tons to the Moon by enabling full Starship reuse.

All things considered, politics still looms in the distance and there is just as much of a chance that SpaceX (and maybe even Blue Origin) will be passed over by CLPS when the time comes to award the next round of Moon delivery contracts. Still, the odds of something far out of the ordinary happening are much higher with a program like CLPS. Stay tuned!

Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.

Related Topics:

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

‘I don’t understand TSLAQ:’ notable investor backs Tesla, Elon Musk

Published

4 hours ago

on

October 8, 2025

By

tesla showroom
(Credit: Tesla)

One notable investor that many people will recognize said today on X that he does not understand Tesla shorts, otherwise known as $TSLAQ, and he’s giving some interesting reasons.

Martin Shkreli was long known as “Pharmabro.” For years, he was known as the guy who bought the rights to a drug called Daraprim, hiked the prices, and spent a few years in Federal prison for securities fraud and conspiracy.

Shkreli is now an investor who co-founded several hedge funds, including Elea Capital, MSMB Capital Management, and MSMB Healthcare. He is also known for his frank, blunt, and straightforward responses on X.

His LinkedIn currently shows he is the Co-Founder of DL Software Inc.

One of his most recent posts on X criticized those who choose to short Tesla stock, stating he does not understand their perspective. He gave a list of reasons, which I’ll link here, as they’re not necessarily PG. I’ll list a few:

  • Fundamentals always have and will always matter
  • TSLAQ was beaten by Tesla because it’s “a great company with great management,” and they made a mistake “by betting against Elon.”
  • When Shkreli shorts stocks, he is “shorting FRAUDS and pipe dreams”

After Shkreli continued to question the idea behind shorting Tesla, he continued as he pondered the mentality behind those who choose to bet against the stock:

“I don’t understand ‘TSLAQ.’ Guy is the richest man in the world. He won. It’s over. He’s more successful with his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th largest companies than you will ever be, x100.

You can admit you are wrong, it’s just a feeling which will dissipate with time, trust me.”

According to reports from both Fortune and Business Insider, Tesla short sellers have lost a cumulative $64.5 billion since Tesla’s IPO in 2010.

Elon Musk issues dire warning to Tesla (TSLA) shorts

Shorts did accumulate a temporary profit of $16.2 billion earlier this year.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla will let you bring back this removed Model 3 part for a price

It will cost $595 and is available on Tesla’s website. You will have to have a Model 3 on your Tesla account to purchase the stalk retrofit kit.

Published

8 hours ago

on

October 8, 2025

By

Credit: Tesla Asia/X

Tesla is now letting Model 3 owners in the United States bring back one part that the company decided to remove after it refreshed the all-electric sedan last year. Of course, you can do it for a price.

With the Model 3 “Highland” refresh that Tesla launched last year, one of the most monumental changes the company made was to ditch the turn signal stalk altogether. Instead, Tesla opted for turn signal buttons, which have been met with mixed reviews.

I drove the new Tesla Model 3, here’s what got better

The change was widely regarded as Tesla preparing for more autonomous driving in its vehicles, especially as its interiors have gotten even more minimalistic.

The lack of a stalk in the new Model 3 was just another move the company made to adjust drivers and passengers to seeing less at the steering wheel column.

However, many drivers did not prefer the use of buttons and wanted the stalk reinstalled. Tesla allowed it in several regions, launching a retrofit kit. It has now made its way to the United States:

It will cost $595 and is available on Tesla’s website. You will have to have a Model 3 on your Tesla account to purchase the stalk retrofit kit.

It is interesting to note that despite Tesla’s strategy to remove the stalk with the new Model 3, which was released in early 2024, the company did not choose to make the same move with the new Model Y.

The new Model Y launched in the United States in early 2025, and Tesla chose to install a stalk in this vehicle.

It seemed as if the turn signal buttons were too much of a polarizing feature, and although the company technically could have given orderers an option, it would not have been the most efficient thing for manufacturing.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.1 first impressions: Robotaxi-like features arrive

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.1 is here, and we got to experience it for ourselves.

Published

9 hours ago

on

October 8, 2025

By

Tesla rolled out its Full Self-Driving v14.1 yesterday, its first public launch of its most robust and accurate FSD iteration yet. Luckily, I was able to get my hands on it through the Early Access Program.

The major changes in FSD v14.1 were revealed in the release notes, which outline several notable improvements in areas such as driving styles, parking, and overall navigation. Here’s what Tesla outlined fully in its release notes:

  • Added Arrival Options for you to select where FSD should park: in a Parking Lot, on the Street, in a Driveway, in a Parking Garage, or at the Curbside.
  • Added handling to pull over or yield for emergency vehicles (e.g. police cars, fire trucks, ambulances).
  • Added navigation and routing into the vision-based neural network for real-time handling of blocked roads and detours.
  • Added additional Speed Profile to further customize driving style preference.
  • Improved handling for static and dynamic gates.
  • Improved offsetting for road debris (e.g. tires, tree branches, boxes).
  • Improve handling of several scenarios including: unprotected turns, lane changes, vehicle cut-ins, and school busses.
  • Improved FSD’s ability to manage system faults and recover smoothly from degraded operation for enhanced reliability.
  • Added alerting for residue build-up on interior windshield that may impact front camera visibility. If affected, visit Service for cleaning!

I wanted to try it for myself. My big must-dos were my complaints with v13.2.9, which included parking when arriving at a destination, Navigation when leaving a destination, and definitely a general improvement in the car traveling at an acceptable rate of speed, even when using the “Hurry” driving style.

Here’s what I noticed with the new Full Self-Driving v14.1:

Speed Profiles are More Realistic

I am driving on “Hurry” about 95% of the time when utilizing Full Self-Driving. In past versions, most notably v13.2.9, my Tesla would slowly reach the speed limit, and it would tend to hang out at about 1-2 MPH either above or below it.

My first observation with v14.1 was the vehicle’s tendency to get right up to speed and, since I was still on Hurry, drive slightly above the speed limit. It never got out of line; it traveled at speeds I would typically drive at manually.

I think this is a big improvement on its own, because I felt that I was pressing the accelerator too frequently in past FSD versions. Oftentimes, it just wasn’t going fast enough to justify the “Hurry” label; it felt more conservative and more like a student driver than anything.

Check it out:

This was among my favorite improvements, and it was the first thing I noticed as the car navigated me to the Supercharger, where my next positive is.

Navigating into parking lots, self-parking at Supercharger

One of the changes noted in the Release Notes was the addition of Arrival Options, which allows the car to select the appropriate parking situation. Since I was going to charge, the car had already chosen “Charger” as the parking option.

Pulling into a gas station or convenience store, especially during work days, can be stressful, as they are usually congested and full of foot and vehicle traffic. In past FSD versions, I have noticed the car being slightly “jumpy” and even hesitant to proceed through the lot.

Driving through parking lots was a noticeable improvement. It seems as if the car is much more confident in making its way through, while still being aware and cautious enough to safely navigate to the Supercharger.

It then backed straight into a Supercharger stall, which was recently repaired and is once again active. I was actually upset it chose this specific stall because it had been inactive for a while. However, Tesla got this stall back up and running, the car chose it, and backed into the spot flawlessly:

This was super cool to experience, and I think it is a testament to how hard the Tesla AI team has worked. CEO Elon Musk recently stated that FSD would enable automatic parking at Superchargers, which was really awesome to experience firsthand.

I decided to leave the Supercharger and go to an auto parts store to pick up some interior cleaner and some microfiber towels. I love keeping my Tesla clean!

I also thought it would be a great opportunity to see how it would react to another parking lot, how it would navigate it, and let it choose a parking spot. It did it all flawlessly:

I had zero complaints about everything here. All of it was done really well.

Making a choice after being caught in the middle of an intersection

I arrived at a tight intersection in Dallastown, PA, and what my car did next has catalyzed quite a conversation on X.

It proceeded out into the middle of the intersection as the light was green. It had to yield to oncoming traffic, and while waiting, the light turned yellow, then red.

Most people, including myself, would have turned right and proceeded through the intersection since the car was already past the line. However, FSD chose to back up and wait for the next light cycle, which I felt was also a more than acceptable option:

There are some conflicting perspectives on what it chose to do here. Some said they would have proceeded and would want FSD to also proceed. I can agree with that perspective, but I also think it is not the worst thing in the world to back up. In Pennsylvania, I couldn’t find the exact law that says what is right or wrong. Instead, I did see that a left turn on red is only feasible when you’re going from a One-Way street to another One-Way.

I’m not totally sure what is “correct” here, but I think either option is fine. I have personally done both, and I’ve seen other drivers do both. I was more than fine with the car doing this, and I was honestly impressed that it did.

Navigated a busy grocery store lot, found suitable parking

This is not the busiest my local grocery store gets, but it was still congested enough for me to be impressed.

FSD decided to do one loop in the parking lot before it found a spot that it felt was good enough for me. I was perfectly fine with where it chose to park, and I thought it did a really great job. I was impressed with how stress-free I felt, as I have noted in the past that parking lots are definitely an area where Tesla needs to improve.

I was happy with its performance:

Strange right turn signal as if it saw an emergency vehicle

This was the first bug I noticed with FSD v14.1. While traveling on a local road, it put the right turn signal on and approached the curb as if it was pulling over for an emergency vehicle or as if it was going to park on the street.

It then realized its mistake and proceeded:

I’m not super sure what caused this, but I was a tad bit confused. There were no police cars, ambulances, or anyone with flashing lights to my rear. There was a dump truck on the other side of the road, and I almost felt like the way it navigated “around” that was probably what triggered it.

Navigation is still making strange decisions

I’ve written about navigation and my discontent with some of its decisions. It seems v14.1 didn’t resolve much of anything with navigation, and it did a couple of things wrong.

The first was that it tried to take the illogical and pointless path out of the Supercharger. I wrote about this a few days ago, as FSD tried to take my car the wrong way.

It did it again, but I overrode the decision, and it was all okay:

This is a minor issue, but it is still pretty frustrating. Hopefully, the navigation will learn after performing this adjustment after enough times.

The next navigation issue was more frustrating than the Supercharger one, especially considering it completely ignored the route. The navigation had the vehicle very clearly heading straight, but out of nowhere, the right turn signal went on. I overrode it, but the car still turned right, ignoring the navigation completely:

I ended up taking over here and driving until I could get to a stop sign.

Final Thoughts

I am really impressed with all of the changes Tesla made with FSD v14.1, and while there were a handful of bugs, things were tremendously better than v13.2.9.

Continue Reading

Trending