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.
News
Tesla ‘Killer’ heads to the graveyard as AFEELA taps out
SHM has officially discontinued development of its highly anticipated AFEELA electric vehicles. On March 25, the joint venture between Sony and Honda announced it would halt the AFEELA 1 luxury sedan and a planned SUV model.
There have been many Tesla “Killers” over the years, all of which have either failed to dethrone the automaker from its dominance in the United States, or even make it to the market altogether.
The Sony Honda Mobility (SHM) project, known as AFEELA, is the latest to make it to the grave, as the company announced its intentions to abandon the project earlier this week, Bloomberg reported.
SHM has officially discontinued development of its highly anticipated AFEELA electric vehicles. On March 25, the joint venture between Sony and Honda announced it would halt the AFEELA 1 luxury sedan and a planned SUV model.
🚗 Tesla Killers Graveyard:
Sony-Honda AFEELA
The sleek, AI-packed luxury sedan with PlayStation integration. Officially cancelled in March 2026 after Honda scaled back its EV plans.Fisker Ocean
Stylish SUV with solar roof promises. Company filed for bankruptcy in 2024 amid… https://t.co/Om14UhISOy— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 26, 2026
The decision follows Honda’s March 12 reassessment of its electrification strategy, which scrapped several upcoming EV programs amid slowing demand, high costs, and shifting market conditions.
SHM stated that it could no longer rely on key Honda technologies and manufacturing assets, leaving “no viable path forward.” Reservation fees for early buyers in California are being fully refunded, and the joint venture’s future is now under review.
Launched with fanfare in 2022, the AFEELA was positioned as a tech-forward premium EV blending Honda’s engineering reliability with Sony’s entertainment and AI expertise.
Prototypes featured advanced autonomous driving systems, immersive in-cabin displays, and even PlayStation integration, earning it early media labels as a potential “Tesla Killer.”
Priced around $90,000, the sedan was slated for limited production at Honda’s Ohio plant with deliveries targeted for late 2026. Industry watchers saw it as a serious challenger to Tesla’s dominance in software, connectivity, and premium appeal.
Yet, like many ambitious EV projects, it fell victim to broader industry headwinds: softening consumer demand, persistent high interest rates, and intense competition from established players.
The AFEELA joins a long list of vehicles once hyped as “Tesla Killers” that failed to deliver. In the late 2010s, Fisker’s second act, the Ocean SUV, promised stylish design and solid-state battery tech but collapsed into bankruptcy in 2024 after production delays, quality issues, and financial shortfalls.
Faraday Future poured billions into the FF 91 luxury sedan, touting it as a hyper-tech rival with unmatched performance and features; the company delivered fewer than 100 vehicles before fading into obscurity.
Lordstown Motors’ Endurance electric pickup generated massive pre-order buzz and Wall Street excitement but imploded after exaggerated range claims, a factory sale, and eventual bankruptcy.
Even Lucid Motors’ Air sedan, frequently called a Tesla slayer for its superior range and luxury, has struggled with sluggish sales and missed growth targets despite strong reviews.
Rivian’s R1T and R1S trucks enjoyed similar early acclaim and a blockbuster IPO, yet production ramp-up challenges and profitability woes have prevented it from dethroning Tesla.
The AFEELA’s quiet demise underscores a harsh reality in the EV sector. While Tesla’s first-mover advantage in software, charging infrastructure, and brand loyalty remains formidable, legacy automakers and tech newcomers alike continue to underestimate the complexities of scaling affordable, desirable electric vehicles.
As market realities force tough choices, the graveyard of “Tesla Killers” grows longer, another reminder that innovation alone is rarely enough to topple an established leader.
Elon Musk
TIME honors SpaceX’s Gwynne Shotwell: From employee No. 7 to world’s most valuable company
Time Magazine honors Gwynne Shotwell as SpaceX reaches a $1.25 trillion valuation and eyes its IPO.
TIME Magazine has put SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell on its cover, and the timing could not be more fitting. Published today, the profile of Shotwell arrives at a moment when the company she has quietly run for more than two decades stands at the center of the most consequential developments in aerospace, artificial intelligence, and the future of human civilization.
Shotwell joined SpaceX in 2002 as its seventh employee and has never stopped expanding her role. She oversees day-to-day operations across multiple executive teams spanning Falcon, Starlink, Starship, and now xAI following SpaceX’s February 2026 merger with Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company, a deal that made SpaceX the world’s most valuable private company at a reported valuation of $1.25 trillion. A highly anticipated IPO is expected in the second quarter of 2026.
Will Tesla join the fold? Predicting a triple merger with SpaceX and xAI
Her track record is historic. She oversaw the first landing of an orbital rocket’s first stage, the first reuse and re-landing of an orbital booster, and the first private crewed launch to Earth orbit in May 2020. She built the Falcon launch manifest from nothing to more than 170 contracted missions representing over $20 billion in business. Under her operational leadership, SpaceX completed 96 successful missions in 2023 alone and has now flown more than 20 crewed Falcon 9 missions. Starlink, which she championed as a financial pillar of the company long before it was a mainstream topic, now connects tens of millions of users worldwide and provided a critical communications lifeline to Ukraine following the 2022 invasion.
Elon Musk has never been shy about what Shotwell means to him and to SpaceX. When she shared her vision for worldwide internet connectivity through Starlink, Musk responded on X with a simple statement, “Gwynne is awesome.” It is a sentiment that has been echoed across the industry. NASA Administrator Bill Nelson once said of Musk: “One of the most important decisions he made, as a matter of fact, is he picked a president named Gwynne Shotwell. She runs SpaceX. She is excellent.”
Gwynne is awesome https://t.co/tiXtMWJmPE
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 28, 2024
Now, with Starship targeting its first crewed lunar landing under the Artemis program by 2028, an xAI integration underway, and a pending IPO that could reshape capital markets, Shotwell’s mandate has never been larger. She told Time that 18 Starships are already in various stages of construction at Starbase. “By 2028,” she said, gesturing across the factory floor, “these should be long gone. They better have flown by then.” If Shotwell’s history at SpaceX is any guide, they will.
Elon Musk
SpaceX’s IPO might arrive sooner than you think
Musk has hinted for years that an eventual public offering was inevitable, though he has stressed the need to maintain operational focus. Insiders have told outlets that the CEO is pushing for a significant retail investor allocation, reportedly more than 20 percent of shares, and tighter lock-up periods to limit early selling pressure.
Elon Musk’s SpaceX is on the verge of one of the most anticipated Initial Public Offerings (IPO) in history.
However, a new report from The Information indicates the rocket and satellite giant is aiming to file its IPO prospectus with U.S. regulators as soon as this week, or early next week at the latest.
People familiar with the plans told The Information that advisers involved in the process expect the IPO could raise more than 75 billion dollars, potentially making it the largest stock market debut ever and eclipsing Saudi Aramco’s 29.4 billion dollar offering in 2019.
The filing would mark the formal start of what has long been rumored: SpaceX’s transition from a closely held private powerhouse to a publicly traded company.
The timing aligns with earlier signals.
In late February, Bloomberg reported that SpaceX was targeting a confidential IPO filing in March and a possible public listing in June, with a valuation north of 1.75 trillion dollars. At the time, the company’s private valuation hovered around 1.25 trillion dollars.
SpaceX considering confidential IPO filing this March: report
Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, has been the primary driver of that surge, now serving millions of customers worldwide and generating steady revenue. Recent Starship test flights and a record pace of Falcon launches have further bolstered investor confidence.
Musk has hinted for years that an eventual public offering was inevitable, though he has stressed the need to maintain operational focus. Insiders have told outlets that the CEO is pushing for a significant retail investor allocation, reportedly more than 20 percent of shares, and tighter lock-up periods to limit early selling pressure.
A June listing would give SpaceX immediate access to public capital markets at a moment when demand for space-related stocks remains high. It would also allow early employees and long-time investors to cash out portions of their stakes while giving everyday shareholders a chance to own a piece of the company behind reusable rockets, global broadband, and NASA contracts.
Of course, nothing is certain until the SEC filing appears. Market conditions, regulatory reviews, and Musk’s own schedule could still shift timelines.
Yet the latest word from The Information suggests the window has opened. If the filing lands this week, SpaceX’s roadshow could begin in earnest within weeks, setting the stage for what many analysts already call the IPO of the decade.
Tesla ‘Killer’ heads to the graveyard as AFEELA taps out
TIME honors SpaceX’s Gwynne Shotwell: From employee No. 7 to world’s most valuable company
SpaceX’s IPO might arrive sooner than you think
Elon Musk says Tesla is developing a new vehicle: ‘Way cooler than a minivan’
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
