News
SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander under fire yet again as Blue Origin sues NASA
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.
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.
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.
News
Tesla Model 3 and Model Y earn Euro NCAP Best in Class safety awards
“The company’s best-selling Model Y proved the gold standard for small SUVs,” Euro NCAP noted.
Tesla won dual categories in the Euro NCAP Best in Class awards, with the Model 3 being named the safest Large Family Car and the Model Y being recognized as the safest Small SUV.
The feat was highlighted by Tesla Europe & Middle East in a post on its official account on social media platform X.
Model 3 and Model Y lead their respective segments
As per a press release from the Euro NCAP, the organization’s Best in Class designation is based on a weighted assessment of four key areas: Adult Occupant, Child Occupant, Vulnerable Road User, and Safety Assist. Only vehicles that achieved a 5-star Euro NCAP rating and were evaluated with standard safety equipment are eligible for the award.
Euro NCAP noted that the updated Tesla Model 3 performed particularly well in Child Occupant protection, while its Safety Assist score reflected Tesla’s ongoing improvements to driver-assistance systems. The Model Y similarly stood out in Child Occupant protection and Safety Assist, reinforcing Tesla’s dual-category win.
“The company’s best-selling Model Y proved the gold standard for small SUVs,” Euro NCAP noted.
Euro NCAP leadership shares insights
Euro NCAP Secretary General Dr. Michiel van Ratingen said the organization’s Best in Class awards are designed to help consumers identify the safest vehicles over the past year.
Van Ratingen noted that 2025 was Euro NCAP’s busiest year to date, with more vehicles tested than ever before, amid a growing variety of electric cars and increasingly sophisticated safety systems. While the Mercedes-Benz CLA ultimately earned the title of Best Performer of 2025, he emphasized that Tesla finished only fractionally behind in the overall rankings.
“It was a close-run competition,” van Ratingen said. “Tesla was only fractionally behind, and new entrants like firefly and Leapmotor show how global competition continues to grow, which can only be a good thing for consumers who value safety as much as style, practicality, driving performance, and running costs from their next car.”
News
Tesla is shifting FSD to a subscription-only model, confirms Elon Musk
Tesla CEO Elon Musk confirmed the upcoming update in a post on social media platform X.
Tesla will be ending one-time purchases of its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system after Valentine’s Day, transitioning the feature to a monthly subscription-only model.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk confirmed the upcoming update in a post on social media platform X.
No more FSD one-time purchases
As per Elon Musk in his post on X, “Tesla will stop selling FSD after Feb 14. FSD will only be available as a monthly subscription thereafter.” This marks a shift in how Tesla monetizes its FSD system, which can now be purchased for a one-time fee or accessed through a monthly subscription.
FSD’s subscription model has been $99 per month in the United States, while its one-time purchase option is currently priced at $8,000. FSD’s one-time purchase price has swung wildly in recent years, reaching $15,000 in September 2022. At the time, FSD was proficient, but its performance was not on par with v14. This made its $15,000 upfront price a hard sell for consumers.
Tesla’s move to a subscription-only model could then streamline how the company sells FSD. It also lowers the entry price for the system, as even price-conscious drivers would likely be able to justify FSD’s $99 monthly subscription cost during periods when long-distance travel is prevalent, like the holidays.
Musk’s compensation plan and FSD subscription targets
Tesla’s shift to a subscription-only FSD model comes amidst Musk’s 2025 CEO Performance Award, which was approved by Tesla shareholders at the 2025 Annual Shareholders Meeting with roughly 75% support. Under the long-term compensation plan, Musk must achieve a series of ambitious operational milestones, including 10 million active FSD subscriptions, over the next decade for his stock awards to vest.
The 2025 CEO Performance Award’s structure ties Musk’s potential compensation to Tesla’s aggressive targets that span market capitalization, vehicle deliveries, robotics, and software adoption. Apart from his 10-million active FSD subscription target, Musk’s compensation is also tied to Tesla producing 20 million vehicles cumulatively, delivering 1 million Tesla bots, and having 1 million Robotaxis in operation. He must also lead Tesla to a market cap of $8.5 trillion.
If successful, Elon Musk’s 2025 CEO Performance Award could make him the world’s first trillionaire. It could also help Tesla become the world’s most valuable company by market cap by a notable margin.
Tesla is planning for a new 300+ stall Supercharger station that will be an expansion of an existing facility, and the company is planning to add a surprise for the Semi.
The Firebaugh, California Supercharger is currently 72 Superchargers, but Tesla filed for an expansion that will add 232 additional plugs for passenger vehicles, and it also plans to add 16 Semichargers.
This will be the biggest Supercharger station Tesla will have to date, just months after it finished the Supercharger Oasis in Lost Hills, California, which has 168 stalls. This will have 304 total Supercharger stalls, and then the additional 16 Megachargers.
🚨 This Supercharger station will have 304 total stalls and 16 Semichargers following this expansion
Absolutely INSANE size 🔥
This is located on I-5, so many semis will be traveling along this route https://t.co/hM9hdLcWwg
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 13, 2026
The Firebaugh Supercharger is located on I-5, which is a major reason for why Tesla has chosen the location for additional Megacharger plug-ins, as Tesla Semi Program Manager Dan Priestley said on X earlier today.
Lots of trucks to electrify on I-5
— Dan Priestley (@danWpriestley) January 13, 2026
The project was revealed by MarcoRP, a Supercharger tracker.
The expansion is a massive signal for charging demand, especially as Tesla’s Superchargers are opened to numerous automakers and are no longer exclusive to the company’s EVs. Additionally, the installation of Megachargers is a good sign to come for the Tesla Semi program, which aims to truly ramp up this year.
Tesla plans to launch production of the Semi later this year.
It could also mean Tesla is going to expand its footprint of large-scale Supercharger projects in the coming years, which would be a big boost as EV adoption continues to soar in the United States.
Tesla Model 3 and Model Y earn Euro NCAP Best in Class safety awards
Tesla is shifting FSD to a subscription-only model, confirms Elon Musk
