News
SpaceX’s upgraded Starship set for test flight despite sore NASA contract losers
Within the last week, while SpaceX has been diligently working to ready an upgraded Starship prototype for its first launch, former competitors Blue Origin and Dynetics – both of which recently lost a historic NASA Moon lander contract to SpaceX – have filed “protests” and forced the space agency to freeze work (and funds).
That means that NASA is now legally unable to use funds or resources related to its Human Lander System (HLS) program or the $2.9 billion contract it awarded SpaceX on April 16th to develop a variant of Starship to return humanity to the Moon. However, just like SpaceX has already spent a great deal of its own time and money on Starship development and – more recently – a rapid-fire series of launches, the company appears to have no intention of letting sore losers hamper its rocket factory or test campaign.
Instead, on the same two days Blue Origin and Dynetics loudly filed official protests with the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), SpaceX performed two back-to-back static fire tests with a Starship prototype and Raptor engines outfitted with “hundreds of improvements.” Technical challenges and unsavory weather conditions forced SpaceX to call off a launch planned sometime last week but the company now appears to be on track to launch Starship prototype SN15 as early as Tuesday, May 4th.
In principle, the ability for companies to protest US government contracting decisions is a necessity and (nominally) a net good but it can easily be misused – and often in damaging ways. In the case of Blue Origin and Dynetics, it’s difficult not to perceive both protests as examples of the latter.
Blue Origin effectively disagrees with every single major point made and conclusion drawn by NASA’s Source Selection Authority (Kathy Lueders) and a separate panel of experts – often to the point that the company is strongly implying that it understands NASA’s contracting process better than the space agency itself. Blue Origin partners Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin are both partially or fully responsible for several of their own catastrophic acquisition boondoggles (F-35, Orion, SLS, James Webb Space Telescope, etc.) and are part of the military-industrial complex primarily responsible for turning US military and aerospace procurement into the quagmire of political interests, quasi-monopolies, and loopholes it is today.
The primary argument is generally shared by both protestors. In essence, Dynetics [p. 23; PDF] and Blue Origin [PDF] believe that it was unfair or improper for NASA to select just a single provider from the three companies or groups that competed. They argue that downselecting to one provider in lieu of budget shortfalls changed the procurement process and competition so much that NASA should have effectively called it quits and restarted the entire five-month process. Blue Origin and Dynetics also both imply that they were somehow blindsided by NASA’s concerns about a Congressional funding shortfall.
In reality, NASA could scarcely have been clearer that it was exceptionally sensitive about HLS funding and extremely motivated to attempt to return humans to the Moon by 2024 with or without the full support of Congress – albeit in fewer words. As Lueders herself noted in the HLS Option A award selection statement, the solicitation Blue, Dynetics, and SpaceX responded to states – word for word – that “the overall number of awards will be dependent upon funding availability and evaluation results.”
Additionally, implications that NASA somehow blindsided offerors with its lack of funding are woefully ignorant at best and consciously disingenuous at worse. Anyone with even the slightest awareness of the history of large-scale NASA programs would know that the space agency’s budget is all but exclusively determined by Congress each year and liable to change just as frequently if political winds shift. Short of blackmailing members of Congress or wistfully hoping that other avenues of legal political influence and partnership actually lead to desired funding and priorities appearing in appropriations legislation, NASA knows the future of its budget about as well as anyone else with access to the internet and a rudimentary awareness of history and current events.
It became clear that Congress was likely to drastically underfund NASA’s HLS program as early as November 2020 – weeks before HLS Option A proposals were due. The latest appropriations bill was passed on January 3rd, 2021, providing NASA $850 million of the ~$3.4 billion it requested for HLS. Historically, NASA’s experience with the Commercial Crew Program – public knowledge available to anyone – likely made it clear to the agency that it could not trust Congress to fund its priorities in good faith when half a decade of drastic underfunding ultimately delayed the critical program by several years. That damage was done by merely halving NASA Commercial Crew budget request from 2010 to 2013, whereas Congress had already set itself on a path to provide barely a quarter of the HLS funds NASA asked for in the weeks before Moon lander proposals were due.
Ultimately, the protests filed by Blue Origin and Dynetics are packed to the brim with petty axe-grinding, attempts to paint SpaceX in a negative light, and a general lack of indication that either company is operating in good faith. Instead, their protests appear all but guaranteed to fail while simultaneously forcing NASA to freeze HLS work and delay related disbursements for up to 100 days. Given that SpaceX is now technically working to design, build, qualify, and fly an uncrewed Lunar Starship prototype by 2023 and a crewed demonstration landing by 2024, 100 days represents a full 7-10% of the time that’s available to complete that extraordinary task.
Ironically, the protests made by Blue Origin and Dynetics have already helped demonstrate why NASA’s decision – especially in light of unambiguous budgetary restrictions – to sole-source its HLS Moon lander contract to SpaceX was an astute one. Had a victorious Blue Origin or Dynetics been in a similar position to SpaceX, it’s almost impossible to imagine either team continuing work to a significant degree in lieu of NASA funding or direction. SpaceX, on the other hand, hasn’t missed a beat and looks set to continue Starship development, production, and testing around the clock regardless of NASA’s capacity to help.
In other words, with a little luck, the actual schedule impact of a maximum 100-day work and funding freeze should be a tiny fraction of what it could have been if NASA had selected an HLS provider more interested in profit margins and stock buybacks than creating a sustainable path for humanity’s expansion beyond Earth.
Elon Musk
Tesla CEO Elon Musk drops massive bomb about Cybercab
“And there is so much to this car that is not obvious on the surface,” Musk said.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk dropped a massive bomb about the Cybercab, which is the company’s fully autonomous ride-hailing vehicle that will enter production later this year.
The Cybercab was unveiled back in October 2024 at the company’s “We, Robot” event in Los Angeles, and is among the major catalysts for the company’s growth in the coming years. It is expected to push Tesla into a major growth phase, especially as the automaker is transitioning into more of an AI and Robotics company than anything else.
The Cybercab will enable completely autonomous ride-hailing for Tesla, and although its other vehicles will also be capable of this technology, the Cybercab is slightly different. It will have no steering wheel or pedals, and will allow two occupants to travel from Point A to Point B with zero responsibilities within the car.
Tesla shares epic 2025 recap video, confirms start of Cybercab production
Details on the Cybercab are pretty face value at this point: we know Tesla is enabling 1-2 passengers to ride in it at a time, and this strategy was based on statistics that show most ride-hailing trips have no more than two occupants. It will also have in-vehicle entertainment options accessible from the center touchscreen.
It will also have wireless charging capabilities, which were displayed at “We, Robot,” and there could be more features that will be highly beneficial to riders, offering a full-fledged autonomous experience.
Musk dropped a big hint that there is much more to the Cybercab than what we know, as a post on X said that “there is so much to this car that is not obvious on the surface.”
And there is so much to this car that is not obvious on the surface
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 2, 2026
As the Cybercab is expected to enter production later this year, Tesla is surely going to include a handful of things they have not yet revealed to the public.
Musk seems to be indicating that some of the features will make it even more groundbreaking, and the idea is to enable a truly autonomous experience from start to finish for riders. Everything from climate control to emergency systems, and more, should be included with the car.
It seems more likely than not that Tesla will make the Cybercab its smartest vehicle so far, as if its current lineup is not already extremely intelligent, user-friendly, and intuitive.
Investor's Corner
Tesla Q4 delivery numbers are better than they initially look: analyst
The Deepwater Asset Management Managing Partner shared his thoughts in a post on his website.
Longtime Tesla analyst and Deepwater Asset Management Managing Partner Gene Munster has shared his insights on Tesla’s Q4 2025 deliveries. As per the analyst, Tesla’s numbers are actually better than they first appear.
Munster shared his thoughts in a post on his website.
Normalized December Deliveries
Munster noted that Tesla delivered 418k vehicles in the fourth quarter of 2025, slightly below Street expectations of 420k but above the whisper number of 415k. Tesla’s reported 16% year-over-year decline, compared to +7% in September, is largely distorted by the timing of the tax credit expiration, which pulled forward demand.
“Taking a step back, we believe September deliveries pulled forward approximately 55k units that would have otherwise occurred in December or March. For simplicity, we assume the entire pull-forward impacted the December quarter. Under this assumption, September growth would have been down ~5% absent the 55k pull-forward, a Deepwater estimate tied to the credit’s expiration.
“For December deliveries to have declined ~5% year over year would imply total deliveries of roughly 470k. Subtracting the 55k units pulled into September results in an implied December delivery figure of approximately 415k. The reported 418k suggests that, when normalizing for the tax credit timing, quarter-over-quarter growth has been consistently down ~5%. Importantly, this ~5% decline represents an improvement from the ~13% declines seen in both the March and June 2025 quarters.“
Tesla’s United States market share
Munster also estimated that Q4 as a whole might very well show a notable improvement in Tesla’s market share in the United States.
“Over the past couple of years, based on data from Cox Automotive, Tesla has been losing U.S. EV market share, declining to just under 50%. Based on data for October and November, Cox estimates that total U.S. EV sales were down approximately 35%, compared to Tesla’s just reported down 16% for the full quarter. For the first two months of the quarter, Cox reported Tesla market share of roughly a 65% share, up from under 50% in the September quarter.
“While this data excludes December, the quarter as a whole is likely to show a material improvement in Tesla’s U.S. EV market share.“
Elon Musk
Tesla analyst breaks down delivery report: ‘A step in the right direction’
“This will be viewed as better than feared deliveries and a step in the right direction for the Tesla story heading into 2026,” Ives wrote.
Tesla analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush released a new note on Friday morning just after the company released production and delivery figures for Q4 and the full year of 2025, stating that the numbers, while slightly underwhelming, are “better than feared” and as “a step in the right direction.”
Tesla reported production of 434,358 and deliveries of 418,227 for the fourth quarter, while 1,654,667 vehicles were produced and 1,636,129 cars were delivered for the full year.
Tesla releases Q4 and FY 2025 vehicle delivery and production report
Interestingly, the company posted its own consensus figures that were compiled from various firms on its website a few days ago, where expectations were set at 1,640,752 cars for the year. Tesla fell about 4,000 units short of that. One of the areas where Tesla excelled was energy deployments, which totaled 46.7 GWh for the year.
🚨 Wedbush’s Dan Ives has released a new note on Tesla $TSLA:
“Tesla announced its FY4Q25 delivery numbers this morning coming in at 418.2k vehicles slightly below the company’s consensus delivery estimate of 422.9k but much better than the whisper numbers of ~410k as the…
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 2, 2026
In terms of vehicle deliveries, Ives writes that Tesla certainly has some things to work through if it wants to return to growth in that aspect, especially with the loss of the $7,500 tax credit in the U.S. and “continuous headwinds” for the company in Europe.
However, Ives also believes that, given the delivery numbers, which were on par with expectations, Tesla is positioned well for a strong 2026, especially with its AI focus, Robotaxi and Cybercab development, and energy:
“This will be viewed as better than feared deliveries and a step in the right direction for the Tesla story heading into 2026. We look forward to hearing more at the company’s 4Q25 call on January 28th. AI Valuation – The Focus Throughout 2026. We believe Tesla could reach a $2 trillion market cap over the coming year and, in a bull case scenario, $3 trillion by the end of 2026…as full-scale volume production begins with the autonomous and robotics roadmap…The company has started to test the all-important Cybercab in Austin over the past few weeks, which is an incremental step towards launching in 2026 with important volume production of Cybercabs starting in April/May, which remains the golden goose in unlocking TSLA’s AI valuation.”
It’s no secret that for the past several years, Tesla’s vehicle delivery numbers have been the main focus of investors and analysts have looked at them as an indicator of company health to a certain extent. The problem with that narrative in 2025 and 2026 is that Tesla is now focusing more on the deployment of Full Self-Driving, its Optimus project, AI development, and Cybercab.
While vehicle deliveries still hold importance, it is more crucial to note that Tesla’s overall environment as a business relies on much more than just how many cars are purchased. That metric, to a certain extent, is fading in importance in the grand scheme of things, but it will never totally disappear.
Ives and Wedbush maintained their $600 price target and an ‘Outperform’ rating on the stock.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk drops massive bomb about Cybercab
Tesla Q4 delivery numbers are better than they initially look: analyst
