Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s upgraded Starship set for test flight despite sore NASA contract losers

Sore losers have potentially delay NASA's ability to work on SpaceX's HLS Moon lander contract but the company isn't letting the red tape stop it from making progress. (Dynetics/SpaceX/bocachicagal/Blue Origin)

Published

5 years ago

on

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.

https://twitter.com/CaseyDreier/status/1388232161921093634

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.

Advertisement
-->

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.

Advertisement
-->

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.

Related Topics:

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

Investor's Corner

Tesla analyst realizes one big thing about the stock: deliveries are losing importance

Published

3 hours ago

on

December 15, 2025

By

Credit: Joe Tegtmeyer | YouTube

Tesla analyst Dan Levy of Barclays realized one big thing about the stock moving into 2026: vehicle deliveries are losing importance.

As a new era of Tesla seems to be on the horizon, the concern about vehicle deliveries and annual growth seems to be fading, at least according to many investors.

Even CEO Elon Musk has implied at times that the automotive side, as a whole, will only make up a small percentage of Tesla’s total valuation, as Optimus and AI begin to shine with importance.

He said in April:

“The future of the company is fundamentally based on large-scale autonomous cars and large-scale and large volume, vast numbers of autonomous humanoid robots.”

Levy wrote in a note to investors that Tesla’s Q4 delivery figures “likely won’t matter for the stock.” Barclays said in the note that it expects deliveries to be “soft” for the quarter.

In years past, Tesla analysts, investors, and fans were focused on automotive growth.

Cars were truly the biggest thing the stock had to offer: Tesla was a growing automotive company with a lot of prowess in AI and software, but deliveries held the most impact, along with vehicle pricing. These types of things had huge impacts on the stock years ago.

In fact, several large swings occurred because of Tesla either beating or missing delivery estimates:

  • January 3, 2022: +13.53%, record deliveries at the time
  • January 3, 2023: -12.24%, missed deliveries
  • July 2, 2024: +10.20%, beat delivery expectations
  • October 3, 2022: -8.61%, sharp miss due to Shanghai factory shutdown
  • July 2, 2020: +7.95%, topped low COVID-era expectations with sizeable beat on deliveries

It has become more apparent over the past few quarters that delivery estimates have significantly less focus from investors, who are instead looking for progress in AI, Optimus, Cybercab, and other projects.

These things are the future of the company, and although Tesla will always sell cars, the stock is more impacted by the software the vehicle is running, and not necessarily the vehicle itself.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla removes Safety Monitors, begins fully autonomous Robotaxi testing

This development, in terms of the Robotaxi program, is massive. Tesla has been working incredibly hard to expand its fleet of Robotaxi vehicles to accommodate the considerable demand it has experienced for the platform.

Published

15 hours ago

on

December 14, 2025

By

Credit: @Mandablorian | X

Tesla has started Robotaxi testing in Austin, Texas, without any vehicle occupants, the company’s CEO Elon Musk confirmed on Sunday. Two Tesla Model Y Robotaxi units were spotted in Austin traveling on public roads with nobody in the car.

The testing phase begins just a week after Musk confirmed that Tesla would be removing Safety Monitors from its vehicles “within the next three weeks.” Tesla has been working to initiate driverless rides by the end of the year since the Robotaxi fleet was launched back in June.

Two units were spotted, with the first being seen from the side and clearly showing no human beings inside the cabin of the Model Y Robotaxi:

Another unit, which is the same color but was confirmed as a different vehicle, was spotted just a few moments later:

The two units are traveling in the general vicinity of the South Congress and Dawson neighborhoods of downtown Austin. These are located on the southside of the city.

This development, in terms of the Robotaxi program, is massive. Tesla has been working incredibly hard to expand its fleet of Robotaxi vehicles to accommodate the considerable demand it has experienced for the platform.

However, the main focus of the Robotaxi program since its launch in the Summer was to remove Safety Monitors and initiate completely driverless rides. This effort is close to becoming a reality, and the efforts of the company are coming to fruition.

It is a drastic step in the company’s trek for self-driving technology, as it plans to expand it to passenger vehicles in the coming years. Tesla owners have plenty of experience with the Full Self-Driving suite, which is not fully autonomous, but is consistently ranked among the best-performing platforms in the world.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla refines Full Self-Driving, latest update impresses where it last came up short

We were able to go out and test it pretty extensively on Saturday, and the changes Tesla made from the previous version were incredibly impressive, especially considering it seemed to excel where it last came up short.

Published

1 day ago

on

December 14, 2025

By

Credit: TESLARATI

Tesla released Full Self-Driving v14.2.1.25 on Friday night to Early Access Program (EAP) members. It came as a surprise, as it was paired with the release of the Holiday Update.

We were able to go out and test it pretty extensively on Saturday, and the changes Tesla made from the previous version were incredibly impressive, especially considering it seemed to excel where it last came up short.

Tesla supplements Holiday Update by sneaking in new Full Self-Driving version

With Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.1, there were some serious regressions. Speed Profiles were overtinkered with, causing some modes to behave in a strange manner. Hurry Mode was the most evident, as it refused to go more than 10 MPH over the speed limit on freeways.

It would routinely hold up traffic at this speed, and flipping it into Mad Max mode was sort of over the top. Hurry is what I use most frequently, and it had become somewhat unusable with v14.2.1.

It seemed as if Speed Profiles should be more associated with both passing and lane-changing frequency. Capping speeds does not help as it can impede the flow of traffic. When FSD travels at the speed of other traffic, it is much more effective and less disruptive.

With v14.2.1.25, there were three noticeable changes that improved its performance significantly: Speed Profile refinements, lane change confidence, and Speed Limit recognition.

Speed Profile Refinement

Speed Profiles have been significantly improved. Hurry Mode is no longer capped at 10 MPH over the speed limit and now travels with the flow of traffic. This is much more comfortable during highway operation, and I was not required to intervene at any point.

With v14.2.1, I was sometimes assisting it with lane changes, and felt it was in the wrong place at the wrong time more frequently than ever before.

However, this was one of the best-performing FSD versions in recent memory, and I really did not have any complaints on the highway. Speed, maneuvering, lane switching, routing, and aggressiveness were all perfect.

Lane Changes

v14.2.1 had a tendency to be a little more timid when changing lanes, which was sort of frustrating at times. When the car decides to change lanes and turn on its signal, it needs to pull the trigger and change lanes.

It also changed lanes at extremely unnecessary times, which was a real frustration.

There were no issues today on v14.2.1.25; lane changes were super confident, executed at the correct time, and in the correct fashion. It made good decisions on when to get into the right lane when proceeding toward its exit.

It was one of the first times in a while that I did not feel as if I needed to nudge it to change lanes. I was very impressed.

Speed Limit Recognition

So, this is a complex issue. With v14.2.1, there were many times when it would see a Speed Limit sign that was not meant for the car (one catered for tractor trailers, for example) or even a route sign, and it would incorrectly adjust the speed. It did this on the highway several times, mistaking a Route 30 sign for a 30 MPH sign, then beginning to decelerate from 55 MPH to 30 MPH on the highway.

This required an intervention. I also had an issue leaving a drive-thru Christmas lights display, where the owners of the private property had a 15 MPH sign posted nearly every 200 yards for about a mile and a half.

The car identified it as a 55 MPH sign and sped up significantly. This caused an intervention, and I had to drive manually.

It seems like FSD v14.2.1.25 is now less reliant on the signage (maybe because it was incorrectly labeling it) and more reliant on map data or the behavior of nearby traffic.

A good example was on the highway today: despite the car reading that Route 30 sign and the Speed Limit sign on the center screen reading 30 MPH, the car did not decelerate. It continued at the same speed, but I’m not sure if that’s because of traffic or map data:

A Lone Complaint

Tesla has said future updates will include parking improvements, and I’m really anxious for them, because parking is not great. I’ve had some real issues with it over the past couple of months.

Today was no different:

Full Self-Driving v14.2.1.25 is really a massive improvement over past versions, and it seems apparent that Tesla took its time with fixing the bugs, especially with highway operation on v14.2.1.

Continue Reading