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.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s Elon Musk: 10 billion miles needed for safe Unsupervised FSD
As per the CEO, roughly 10 billion miles of training data are required due to reality’s “super long tail of complexity.”
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has provided an updated estimate for the training data needed to achieve truly safe unsupervised Full Self-Driving (FSD).
As per the CEO, roughly 10 billion miles of training data are required due to reality’s “super long tail of complexity.”
10 billion miles of training data
Musk comment came as a reply to Apple and Rivian alum Paul Beisel, who posted an analysis on X about the gap between tech demonstrations and real-world products. In his post, Beisel highlighted Tesla’s data-driven lead in autonomy, and he also argued that it would not be easy for rivals to become a legitimate competitor to FSD quickly.
“The notion that someone can ‘catch up’ to this problem primarily through simulation and limited on-road exposure strikes me as deeply naive. This is not a demo problem. It is a scale, data, and iteration problem— and Tesla is already far, far down that road while others are just getting started,” Beisel wrote.
Musk responded to Beisel’s post, stating that “Roughly 10 billion miles of training data is needed to achieve safe unsupervised self-driving. Reality has a super long tail of complexity.” This is quite interesting considering that in his Master Plan Part Deux, Elon Musk estimated that worldwide regulatory approval for autonomous driving would require around 6 billion miles.
FSD’s total training miles
As 2025 came to a close, Tesla community members observed that FSD was already nearing 7 billion miles driven, with over 2.5 billion miles being from inner city roads. The 7-billion-mile mark was passed just a few days later. This suggests that Tesla is likely the company today with the most training data for its autonomous driving program.
The difficulties of achieving autonomy were referenced by Elon Musk recently, when he commented on Nvidia’s Alpamayo program. As per Musk, “they will find that it’s easy to get to 99% and then super hard to solve the long tail of the distribution.” These sentiments were echoed by Tesla VP for AI software Ashok Elluswamy, who also noted on X that “the long tail is sooo long, that most people can’t grasp it.”
News
Tesla earns top honors at MotorTrend’s SDV Innovator Awards
MotorTrend’s SDV Awards were presented during CES 2026 in Las Vegas.
Tesla emerged as one of the most recognized automakers at MotorTrend’s 2026 Software-Defined Vehicle (SDV) Innovator Awards.
As could be seen in a press release from the publication, two key Tesla employees were honored for their work on AI, autonomy, and vehicle software. MotorTrend’s SDV Awards were presented during CES 2026 in Las Vegas.
Tesla leaders and engineers recognized
The fourth annual SDV Innovator Awards celebrate pioneers and experts who are pushing the automotive industry deeper into software-driven development. Among the most notable honorees for this year was Ashok Elluswamy, Tesla’s Vice President of AI Software, who received a Pioneer Award for his role in advancing artificial intelligence and autonomy across the company’s vehicle lineup.
Tesla also secured recognition in the Expert category, with Lawson Fulton, a staff Autopilot machine learning engineer, honored for his contributions to Tesla’s driver-assistance and autonomous systems.
Tesla’s software-first strategy
While automakers like General Motors, Ford, and Rivian also received recognition, Tesla’s multiple awards stood out given the company’s outsized role in popularizing software-defined vehicles over the past decade. From frequent OTA updates to its data-driven approach to autonomy, Tesla has consistently treated vehicles as evolving software platforms rather than static products.
This has made Tesla’s vehicles very unique in their respective sectors, as they are arguably the only cars that objectively get better over time. This is especially true for vehicles that are loaded with the company’s Full Self-Driving system, which are getting progressively more intelligent and autonomous over time. The majority of Tesla’s updates to its vehicles are free as well, which is very much appreciated by customers worldwide.
Elon Musk
Judge clears path for Elon Musk’s OpenAI lawsuit to go before a jury
The decision maintains Musk’s claims that OpenAI’s shift toward a for-profit structure violated early assurances made to him as a co-founder.
A U.S. judge has ruled that Elon Musk’s lawsuit accusing OpenAI of abandoning its founding nonprofit mission can proceed to a jury trial.
The decision maintains Musk’s claims that OpenAI’s shift toward a for-profit structure violated early assurances made to him as a co-founder. These claims are directly opposed by OpenAI.
Judge says disputed facts warrant a trial
At a hearing in Oakland, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers stated that there was “plenty of evidence” suggesting that OpenAI leaders had promised that the organization’s original nonprofit structure would be maintained. She ruled that those disputed facts should be evaluated by a jury at a trial in March rather than decided by the court at this stage, as noted in a Reuters report.
Musk helped co-found OpenAI in 2015 but left the organization in 2018. In his lawsuit, he argued that he contributed roughly $38 million, or about 60% of OpenAI’s early funding, based on assurances that the company would remain a nonprofit dedicated to the public benefit. He is seeking unspecified monetary damages tied to what he describes as “ill-gotten gains.”
OpenAI, however, has repeatedly rejected Musk’s allegations. The company has stated that Musk’s claims were baseless and part of a pattern of harassment.
Rivalries and Microsoft ties
The case unfolds against the backdrop of intensifying competition in generative artificial intelligence. Musk now runs xAI, whose Grok chatbot competes directly with OpenAI’s flagship ChatGPT. OpenAI has argued that Musk is a frustrated commercial rival who is simply attempting to slow down a market leader.
The lawsuit also names Microsoft as a defendant, citing its multibillion-dollar partnerships with OpenAI. Microsoft has urged the court to dismiss the claims against it, arguing there is no evidence it aided or abetted any alleged misconduct. Lawyers for OpenAI have also pushed for the case to be thrown out, claiming that Musk failed to show sufficient factual basis for claims such as fraud and breach of contract.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers, however, declined to end the case at this stage, noting that a jury would also need to consider whether Musk filed the lawsuit within the applicable statute of limitations. Still, the dispute between Elon Musk and OpenAI is now headed for a high-profile jury trial in the coming months.
Tesla’s Elon Musk: 10 billion miles needed for safe Unsupervised FSD
Tesla earns top honors at MotorTrend’s SDV Innovator Awards
