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.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk teased the insane capabilities of the next major Full Self-Driving update just hours after the company rolled out version 14.2 to owners.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2 had some major improvements from the previous iteration of v14.1.x. We were on v14.1.7, the most advanced configuration of the v14.1 family, before Tesla transitioned us and others to v14.2.
However, Musk has said that the improvements coming in the next major update, which will be v14.3, will be where “the last big piece of the puzzle finally lands.”
14.3 is where the last big piece of the puzzle finally lands
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 21, 2025
There were some major improvements with v14.2, most notably, Tesla seemed to narrow in on the triggers that caused issues with hesitation and brake stabbing in v14.1.x.
One of the most discussed issues with the past rollout was that of brake stabbing, where the vehicle would contemplate proceeding with a route as traffic was coming from other directions.
We experienced it most frequently at intersections, especially four-way stop signs.
Elon Musk hints at when Tesla can fix this FSD complaint with v14
In our review of it yesterday, it was evident that this issue had been resolved, at least to the extent that we had no issues with it in a 62-minute drive, which you can watch here.
Some owners also reported a more relaxed driver monitoring system, which is something Tesla said it was working on as it hopes to allow drivers to text during operation in the coming months. We did not test this, as laws in Pennsylvania prohibit the use of phones at any time due to the new Paul Miller’s Law, which took effect earlier this year.
However, the improvements indicate that Tesla is certainly headed toward a much more sentient FSD experience, so much so that Musk’s language seems to be more indicative of a more relaxed experience in terms of overall supervision from the driver, especially with v14.3.
Musk did not release or discuss a definitive timeline for the release of v14.3, especially as v14.2 just rolled out to Early Access Program (EAP) members yesterday. However, v14.1 rolled out to Tesla owners just a few weeks ago in late 2025. There is the potential that v14.3 could be part of the coming Holiday Update, or potentially in a release of its own before the New Year.
Tesla rolled out Full Self-Driving version 14.2 yesterday to members of the Early Access Program (EAP). Expectations were high, and Tesla surely delivered.
With the rollout of Tesla FSD v14.2, there were major benchmarks for improvement from the v14.1 suite, which spanned across seven improvements. Our final experience with v14.1 was with v14.1.7, and to be honest, things were good, but it felt like there were a handful of regressions from previous iterations.
While there were improvements in brake stabbing and hesitation, we did experience a few small interventions related to navigation and just overall performance. It was nothing major; there were no critical takeovers that required any major publicity, as they were more or less subjective things that I was not particularly comfortable with. Other drivers might have been more relaxed.
With v14.2 hitting our cars yesterday, there were a handful of things we truly noticed in terms of improvement, most notably the lack of brake stabbing and hesitation, a major complaint with v14.1.x.
However, in a 62-minute drive that was fully recorded, there were a lot of positives, and only one true complaint, which was something we haven’t had issues with in the past.
The Good
Lack of Brake Stabbing and Hesitation
Perhaps the most notable and publicized issue with v14.1.x was the presence of brake stabbing and hesitation. Arriving at intersections was particularly nerve-racking on the previous version simply because of this. At four-way stops, the car would not be assertive enough to take its turn, especially when other vehicles at the same intersection would inch forward or start to move.
This was a major problem.
However, there were no instances of this yesterday on our lengthy drive. It was much more assertive when arriving at these types of scenarios, but was also more patient when FSD knew it was not the car’s turn to proceed.
Can report on v14.2 today there were ZERO instances of break stabbing or hesitation at intersections today
It was a significant improvement from v14.1.x
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 21, 2025
This improvement was the most noticeable throughout the drive, along with fixes in overall smoothness.
Speed Profiles Seem to Be More Reasonable
There were a handful of FSD v14 users who felt as if the loss of a Max Speed setting was a negative. However, these complaints will, in our opinion, begin to subside, especially as things have seemed to be refined quite nicely with v14.2.
Freeway driving is where this is especially noticeable. If it’s traveling too slow, just switch to a faster profile. If it’s too fast, switch to a slower profile. However, the speeds seem to be much more defined with each Speed Profile, which is something that I really find to be a huge advantage. Previously, you could tell the difference in speeds, but not in driving styles. At times, Standard felt a lot like Hurry. Now, you can clearly tell the difference between the two.
It seems as if Tesla made a goal that drivers should be able to tell which Speed Profile is active if it was not shown on the screen. With v14.1.x, this was not necessarily something that could be done. With v14.2, if someone tested me on which Speed Profile was being used, I’m fairly certain I could pick each one.
Better Overall Operation
I felt, at times, especially with v14.1.7, there were some jerky movements. Nothing that was super alarming, but there were times when things just felt a little more finicky than others.
v14.2 feels much smoother overall, with really great decision-making, lane changes that feel second nature, and a great speed of travel. It was a very comfortable ride.
The Bad
Parking
It feels as if there was a slight regression in parking quality, as both times v14.2 pulled into parking spots, I would have felt compelled to adjust manually if I were staying at my destinations. For the sake of testing, at my first destination, I arrived, allowed the car to park, and then left. At the tail-end of testing, I walked inside the store that FSD v14.2 drove me to, so I had to adjust the parking manually.
This was pretty disappointing. Apart from parking at Superchargers, which is always flawless, parking performance is something that needs some attention. The release notes for v14.2. state that parking spot selection and parking quality will improve with future versions.
Any issues with parking on your end? 14.1.7 didn’t have this trouble with parking pic.twitter.com/JPLRO2obUj
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 21, 2025
However, this was truly my only complaint about v14.2.
You can check out our full 62-minute ride-along below:
Elon Musk
SpaceX issues statement on Starship V3 Booster 18 anomaly
The incident unfolded during gas-system pressure testing at the company’s Massey facility in Starbase, Texas.
SpaceX has issued an initial statement about Starship Booster 18’s anomaly early Friday. The incident unfolded during gas-system pressure testing at the company’s Massey facility in Starbase, Texas.
SpaceX’s initial comment
As per SpaceX in a post on its official account on social media platform X, Booster 18 was undergoing gas system pressure tests when the anomaly happened. Despite the nature of the incident, the company emphasized that no propellant was loaded, no engines were installed, and personnel were kept at a safe distance from the booster, resulting in zero injuries.
“Booster 18 suffered an anomaly during gas system pressure testing that we were conducting in advance of structural proof testing. No propellant was on the vehicle, and engines were not yet installed. The teams need time to investigate before we are confident of the cause. No one was injured as we maintain a safe distance for personnel during this type of testing. The site remains clear and we are working plans to safely reenter the site,” SpaceX wrote in its post on X.
Incident and aftermath
Livestream footage from LabPadre showed Booster 18’s lower half crumpling around the liquid oxygen tank area at approximately 4:04 a.m. CT. Subsequent images posted by on-site observers revealed extensive deformation across the booster’s lower structure. Needless to say, spaceflight observers have noted that Booster 18 would likely be a complete loss due to its anomaly.
Booster 18 had rolled out only a day earlier and was one of the first vehicles in the Starship V3 program. The V3 series incorporates structural reinforcements and reliability upgrades intended to prepare Starship for rapid-reuse testing and eventual tower-catch operations. Elon Musk has been optimistic about Starship V3, previously noting on X that the spacecraft might be able to complete initial missions to Mars.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk teases insane capabilities of next major FSD update
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2 – Full Review, the Good and the Bad
