Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander under fire yet again as Blue Origin sues NASA

Published

4 years ago

on

Less than three weeks after the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) categorically denied protests from Blue Origin and Dynetics over NASA’s decision to award SpaceX a Moon lander development contract, the former company has sued the space agency.

First reported by The Verge, Blue Origin filed its lawsuit against NASA with the US Court of Federal Claims on Monday, August 16th and continues to spout the same kind of rhetoric that GAO wholeheartedly refuted on July 30th. Namely, the office explicitly upheld the procurement process and reasoning behind NASA’s decision to award SpaceX – and SpaceX alone – a contract to develop a crewed Moon lander.

Thus far, the central argument put forth by Blue Origin and Dynetics is that NASA effectively invalidated the entire Human Landing System (HLS) “Option A” procurement when it didn’t award two HLS development contracts. Option A refers to a limited portion of the HLS program focused on funding the development of crewed Moon landers and the completion of two crucial flight tests – one uncrewed and one with NASA astronauts aboard.

Program-wise, HLS is quite similar to NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP), which began as a series of smaller contracts focused on capability demonstrations that culminated in a major competition to ferry NASA astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS). Ultimately, NASA selected Boeing and SpaceX and the rest is now history (SpaceX flourished; Boeing floundered) and despite unsurprising delays, the program has been an extraordinary success and a financial bargain.

As part of the major Commercial Crew Transportation Capability contracts SpaceX and Boeing won, both companies were tasked with designed, building, and qualifying crewed spacecraft to NASA specifications. The centerpiece of those contracts was a pair of full-up demonstration flights to and from the ISS – one uncrewed and the other with two NASA astronauts. NASA then separately purchased “post-certification missions” – operational crew transport flights – from both companies a few years into development.

Advertisement

The corollaries between Commercial Crew and HLS are clear and unsurprising. However, unlike the Commercial Crew Program, NASA has been able to structure HLS with the benefits of hindsight. This time around, already faced with a Congressional funding shortfall even worse than years of half-funding that directly delayed CCtCap, NASA used a different procurement ‘vessel’ for HLS and repeatedly warned competitors that while it wanted two Moon lander providers, the ability to award two contracts would be entirely dependent on funding availability.

In other words, NASA had learned an important lesson from the Commercial Crew Program and wasn’t about to trap itself with contractual obligations that far outmatched recent Congressional funding trends. Intentionally or not, NASA structured HLS in such a way that it only awarded major Option A lander contracts after Congress had already appropriated its FY2021 funding. As it turned out, Congress ultimately provided a pathetic 25% of the full $3.4 billion NASA had requested, leaving the agency no choice but to downselect to just a single provider – SpaceX. Put simply, NASA has assumed that Congress will continue to supply just a tiny fraction of the funding it would need to develop two landers on time and SpaceX’s Starship proposal was just cheap enough to make any Option A award possible.

The fixed-price 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, the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) vehicle NASA used for its HLS Option A procurement also strictly allows 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.

SpaceX receives first major Starship Moon lander funding from NASA

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.

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

News

Tesla axed one of the Model Y’s best features in ‘Standard’ trims: here’s why

Lars Moravy explains why Tesla chose to go with a glass roof in the new Standard trims, despite it not being visible.

Published

4 hours ago

on

October 10, 2025

By

Credit: Tesla

Tesla chose to implement a glass roof on the new Model 3 and Model Y ‘Standard’ builds, despite the fact that you won’t be able to see it from the inside.

In the new Model 3 and Model Y ‘Standard’ configurations, one of the biggest changes is the lack of a glass roof, which is one of the more unique features Tesla offers.

How Tesla’s Standard models will help deliveries despite price disappointment

The entire roof of the Model 3 and Model Y’s ‘Premium’ and Performance trims is glass, giving everyone in the car an astounding view of the sky.

However, Tesla chose to cover this up in the new ‘Standard’ trim levels. Here’s a look at it:

Credit: ItsKimJava | X

Despite it not being visible from the inside, the roof is still made of glass. It is only visible from the outside. Even if you removed the headliner in the Model 3 or Model Y ‘Standard,’ you would not be able to see the outside, because the glass is opaque:

Tesla’s Vice President of Powertrain, Lars Moravy, commented on the use of glass in the Premium models and how it differs from the glass in the Standard trims:

“All glass is NOT created equal. Remember, the Model Y Premium glass is laminated with silver IR reflective coatings to make it super comfy and reject solar load… the standard is not… plus LOTS of people wanted a closed headliner, always trying to listen (and improve road noise at the same time).”

The decision to cover up the glass while still using it was an efficiency choice. Moravy said Tesla chose to keep the glass for the new Standard models due to “cost, supply chain, and manufacturing efficiency.”

Tesla launched the Standard models on Tuesday. The cars were effectively a counter to the loss of the $7,500 EV tax credit.

Continue Reading

News

How Tesla’s Standard models will help deliveries despite price disappointment

“What a giant miss,” one person said.

“With all due respect, no way is this what y’all have been hyping for 6 quarters…” another one claimed.

“So…where are the affordable models?” another reply read.

Published

8 hours ago

on

October 10, 2025

By

Credit: Tesla

When Tesla unveiled its Standard versions of the Model 3 and Model Y this week, reactions were mixed. Many liked the addition of two new models, but they were also concerned about the price.

“What a giant miss,” one person said.

“With all due respect, no way is this what y’all have been hyping for 6 quarters…” another one claimed.

“So…where are the affordable models?” another reply read.

Tesla launches two new affordable models with ‘Standard’ Model 3, Y offerings

There’s no arguing it: $36,990 and $39,990 for the Model 3 Standard and Model Y Standard were not what consumers had in mind.

But, despite Tesla getting its new offerings to a price that is not necessarily as low as many expected, the two cars still have a chance to assist with quarterly deliveries.

Here’s how:

First-time Tesla buyers will lean toward Standard models

Tesla owners have become accustomed to expecting all the bells and whistles in their cars. Heated seats, ventilated seats, acoustic glass, vegan leather, industry-leading performance, world-class range, and a glass roof are all expected by current or past owners.

But what about new owners?

New owners do not have these high expectations, so to many of those who have not sat in a Tesla or driven one before, they are going to be blown away by the minimalistic looks, capabilities, and features of the Standard models.

The Premium models will feel like the high-end offerings that other automakers also have for sale, except they’ll only be a few thousand dollars more than Tesla’s base models. With other companies, the price for these higher-end trims is $10,000 or more.

The more affordable Standard models will be there, but if buyers want the extra features, they’ll likely be able to justify the extra few thousand dollars.

Tesla’s Standard Models fall under the U.S. Average Transaction Price

Kelley Blue Book releases a new report each month showing the average transaction price (ATP) of all vehicles sold in the U.S. for that month.

The latest report, released on September 10 for the month of August, revealed an ATP of $49,077. This was up 0.5% from July ($48,841) and higher year over year by 2.6%.

Technically, Tesla’s new Standard models fall well under that ATP, meaning they technically do qualify as “affordable.” However, realistically speaking, affordable does not mean “under the national average.”

It means accessible for low-income families, single-parent households, and other groups. This would likely be under $30,000.

Déjà Vu with the Cybertruck Rear-Wheel-Drive

When Tesla offered the Cybertruck RWD, it stripped out many of the best features of the Cybertruck, such as the adjustable air suspension, powered tonneau cover, and interior materials, just to name a few.

It was $10,000 less than the Cybertruck AWD, but many people essentially viewed it as a way to push consumers toward the more expensive variants, since the discount was a better value than missing out on features.

Tesla released the Cybertruck RWD to make the AWD look like a deal

Something similar could happen with the Standard models. With it only being a few thousand dollars less than the Premium Model 3 and Model Y, some consumers will see it as a better option to go with the more expensive trim levels.

Even if they don’t, many car buyers will see it as a deal to grab the Standard versions.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla bull sees a new path to 600,000 deliveries per quarter

“We believe the launch of a lower cost model represents the first step to getting back to a ~500k quarterly delivery run-rate, which will be important to stimulate demand for its fleet with the EV tax credit expiring at the end of September.”

Published

9 hours ago

on

October 10, 2025

By

Credit: Tesla

Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) bull Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities published a new note to investors on Thursday evening, which seemed to open up the possibility of the automaker returning to a growth rate in terms of deliveries.

After nearly two years of leveling off with deliveries, which was expected, Tesla is now slated to potentially return to growth, Ives says, as it has introduced new, more affordable models. It launched its Standard offerings for the Model 3 and Model Y this week, a strategy to bring cheaper cars to customers amid the loss of the $7,500 tax credit.

In his note to investors, Ives said:

“We believe the launch of a lower cost model represents the first step to getting back to a ~500k quarterly delivery run-rate, which will be important to stimulate demand for its fleet with the EV tax credit expiring at the end of September.”

Although these cars come in only slightly under $40,000, there is some belief that they will do two things: attract car buyers looking for an under-$40k EV with Tesla’s technology and infrastructure, or push those on the fence to the now-Premium models, which are simply the Long Range Rear-Wheel-Drive and Long Range All-Wheel-Drive.

Ives said in the note that Tesla’s plans for a $25,000 car are “on hold,” but it seems as if that vehicle will be the Cybercab, which the company unveiled a year ago today.

That project seems to be moving forward as well, based on what we saw at both Fremont and Gigafactory Texas yesterday. At Fremont, the Cybercab was spotted on the Test Track, while crash-tested units were spotted at the factory in Austin.

After the Standard models were rolled out and the Cybercab or another $25,000 unit arrives, Ives believes Tesla could actually get closer to 600,000 deliveries per quarter, he said on CNBC this morning:

Moving forward, Tesla has much more going for it than its potential growth in quarterly deliveries. Ives recognizes that a majority of what Tesla’s value will come from in the future: AI and autonomy.

Ives said:

“The AI valuation will start to get unlocked in the Tesla story and we believe the march to an AI driven valuation for TSLA over the next 6-9 months has now begun in our view with FSD and autonomous penetration of Tesla’s installed base and the acceleration of Cybercab in the US representing the golden goose for Musk & Co. We believe Tesla could reach a $2 trillion market cap early 2026 in a bull case scenario and $3 trillion by the end of 2026 as full scale volume production begins of the autonomous and robotics roadmap.”

Ives and Wedbush maintained their $600 price target and ‘Outperform’ rating on Tesla stock.

Continue Reading

Trending