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 Shanghai Megafactory starts exporting Megapacks, first to Australia
Tesla Asia celebrated the Shanghai Megafactory’s first Megapack exports on X.
Tesla has begun exporting Megapack battery systems from its Shanghai Megafactory, with the first shipment departing for Australia on Friday. This marks a key step in Tesla Energy’s expansion into the global energy storage industry, utilizing its new China-based Megafactory to supply several new markets.
Tesla Asia celebrated the Shanghai Megafactory’s first Megapack exports through its official social media account on X.
Tesla Megapacks in Focus
The Tesla Megapack is capable of storing 3.9 MWh of energy, and they are designed for grid use. As per Tesla in its official website, each Megapack battery has enough energy to power an average of 3,600 homes for one hour. The Megapack is designed to be infinitely scalable as well, making it a good fit for large-scale sustainable energy projects.
The Shanghai Megafactory
The Shanghai Megafactory began production in early 2025, a record eight months after its May 2024 groundbreaking. With an initial output of 10,000 units annually, equal to about 40 GWh, the Shanghai Megafactory has the potential to significantly boost Tesla’s battery storage deployments.
As per a report from Xinhua News Agency, Tesla is expecting its energy deployments to rise 50% year-over-year this 2025.
Tesla Leaders on the Shanghai Megafactory
Mike Snyder, vice president of energy and charging at Tesla, previously outlined the potential of the Shanghai Megafactory. “Megafactory gives us the ability to scale production and efficiency. We can lower logistics costs as well as product costs, and grow the business to new markets,” he stated.
The Shanghai Megafactory also seems to be part of Tesla’s efforts to grow its presence in China, which was highlighted by CEO Elon Musk during a meeting with Chinese Premier Li Qiang. During their meeting, Musk reportedly stated that “Tesla is willing to deepen cooperation with China and achieve more win-win results.”
Shark Tank personality and legendary investor Kevin O’Leary roasted former Vice Presidential nominee Tim Walz over his comments regarding Tesla shares earlier this week.
Walz, a Minnesota Democrat, said that he recently added Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) to his Apple Stocks app so he could watch shares fall as they have encountered plenty of resistance in 2025 so far. He said that anytime he needs a boost, he looks at Tesla shares, which are down 36 percent so far this year:
If you need a little boost during the day, check out Tesla stock 📉 pic.twitter.com/KBEh6pOZLW
— Tim Walz (@Tim_Walz) March 19, 2025
Walz, among many others, has been critical of Tesla and Elon Musk, especially as the CEO has helped eliminate excess government spending through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
However, Kevin O’Leary, a legendary investor, showed up on CNN after Walz’s comments to give him a bit of a reality check. O’Leary essentially called Walz out of touch for what he said about Tesla shares, especially considering Tesla made up a good portion of the Minnesota Retirement Fund.
As of June 2024, the pension fund held 1.6 million shares of Tesla stock worth over $319.6 million:
O’Leary continued to slam Walz for his comments:
“That poor guy didn’t check his portfolio and his own pension plan for the state. It’s beyond stupid what he did. What’s the matter with that guy? He doesn’t check the well-being of his own constituents.”
He even called Walz “a bozo” for what he said.
Of course, Walz’s comments are expected considering Musk’s support for the Trump Administration, as the Tesla CEO was a major contributor to the 45th President’s campaign for his second term.
However, it seems extremely out of touch that Walz made these comments without realizing the drop was potentially hurting his fund. While we don’t know if the fund has sold its entire Tesla holdings since June, as a newer, more recent report has not been released yet, it seems unlikely the automaker’s shares are not still making up some portion of the fund.
News
Tesla attackers face 5-20 years in prison if convicted, warns DOJ
Burning Tesla cars & Superchargers isn’t just a protest—it’s a federal offense. The DOJ warns Tesla attackers could get 5-20 years in prison.
Alleged Tesla attackers could face between 5 to 20 years in prison if convicted, warns the Justice Department.
According to U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi, three people have been accused of using Molotov cocktails to set Tesla vehicles and charging stations on fire. Prosecutors recently announced the arrests of the three defendants.
“Let this be a warning: if you join this wave of domestic terrorism against Tesla properties, the Department of Justice will put you behind bars,” noted Bondi.
Bondi echoed the words of Special Agent Spencer Evans from the FBI’s Las Vegas Field Office. Evans emphasized to the public that setting Tesla vehicles and charging stations on fire is a federal crime.
The first defendant in the Tesla arson cases is Lucy Grace Nelson who has pleaded not guilty and been released on bond. A criminal complaint states that Nelson was spotted at a Tesla dealership in Loveland, Colorado, a few times in January and February 2025. The 42-year-old was charged with possession of a destructive device and malicious destruction of property after police found a container of gasoline, a box of bottles, and wicks in Nelson’s car.
The second person arrested in Tesla’s arson cases is Adam Matthew Lansky, who has been accused of throwing eight Molotov cocktails at a Tesla dealership in Salem, Oregon. The 41-year-old is detained while awaiting trial and has not entered a plea.
The last alleged Tesla arsonist is Daniel Clarke-Pounder, who has been charged with throwing Molotov cocktails at Tesla charging stations in North Charleston, South Carolina. Witnesses reported seeing a man spray-paint a profane message about President Trump and the words “Long Live Ukraine,” in the Tesla parking lot. The 24-year-old was released on a $10,000 bond and has not yet entered a plea.
Attacks on Tesla cars, charging stations, and stores have spread throughout the United States recently as more people take their anger for Elon Musk out on the American car manufacturer. Luckily, no one has been injured or died from any of the attacks.
Tesla Shanghai Megafactory starts exporting Megapacks, first to Australia
Shark Tank’s O’Leary roasts Tim Walz over Tesla stock hate session
Tesla attackers face 5-20 years in prison if convicted, warns DOJ
-
News2 weeks agoTesla at risk of 95% crash, claims billionaire hedge fund manager
-
News2 weeks agoTesla contract with Baltimore paused after city ‘decided to go in a different direction’
-
Elon Musk5 days agoElon Musk roasts owners of this car brand after another Tesla vandalism incident
-
Elon Musk1 week agoPresident Donald Trump buys a Tesla at the White House – Here’s which model he chose
-
News1 week agoRivian supports Tesla despite all the Elon Musk hate
-
News7 days agoU.S. AG Pam Bondi: Tesla Molotov attack suspect facing up to 20 years in prison
-
News4 days agoSpaceX rescue mission for stranded ISS astronauts nears end — Here’s when they’ll return home
-
Elon Musk1 week agoTesla says it will be a victim of Trump admin’s tariff strategy