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 officially begins sunset of Model S and Model X
In the latest move to show Tesla is planning to eliminate the Model S and Model X from production, the company’s Korean arm has officially set a firm cutoff date of March 31, 2026, for new orders of both models.
Tesla has officially started its process of sunsetting the Model S and Model X just months after the company confirmed it would stop producing the two flagship vehicles in 2026.
This step marks the end of an era for the vehicles that helped establish not only Tesla’s prowess as an automaker but also its status as a disruptor in the entire car industry. While these two cars have done a tremendous amount for Tesla, the signal that it is time to wind down their production has evidently arrived.
In the latest move to show Tesla is planning to eliminate the Model S and Model X from production, the company’s Korean arm has officially set a firm cutoff date of March 31, 2026, for new orders of both models.
This is the first time Tesla has announced a hard global deadline for the Model S and X, as after that date, only existing inventory will be available in South Korea.
The move to bring closure to the Model S and Model X aligns with CEO Elon Musk’s plans for Tesla moving forward. During the Q4 2025 Earnings Call in January, Musk said the two cars deserved an “honorable discharge” for what they have done for the company.
The long-running programs are primarily being removed so that manufacturing lines can be repurposed for high-volume manufacturing of the Optimus humanoid robot. Tesla is targeting a production rate of up to one million units each year.
The Model S and Model X being removed from Tesla’s plans is a tough choice, but it was one that was written on the wall. Sales of these premium models have declined sharply in recent years, and even with Plaid configurations that are performance-forward, the company still has had trouble getting them sold.
In 2025, the Model S and Model X together accounted for roughly 3 percent of Tesla’s global deliveries, down significantly from prior periods as competition intensified in the luxury EV segment and buyers shifted toward more affordable options like the Model 3 and Model Y.
The Model S saw sales drop over 50 percent year-over-year in some quarters, while the Model X faced similar pressures from rivals, including the Rivian R1S and BMW iX.
Despite their dwindling volume, the Model S and Model X remain technological showcases. The Plaid variants deliver blistering acceleration, advanced Full Self-Driving capability, and luxurious interiors.
The phase-out paves the way for Tesla’s strategic pivot toward autonomy, robotics, and higher-volume vehicles.
Tesla brings closure to flagship ‘sentimental’ models, Musk confirms
Fremont will continue producing the refreshed Model 3 and Model Y, ensuring the factory remains a key automotive hub while expanding into robotics. Tesla has stated that the shift is not expected to result in job losses and could increase headcount as Optimus production ramps up.
For Tesla fans, the sunset represents a bittersweet moment. The Model S, introduced in 2012, proved EVs could compete with luxury sedans, while the Falcon-wing-door Model X set new standards for family haulers. Owners can expect continued software support and service for years to come.
Many fans have pushed for the Model X to hang around due to its appeal for families.
With the two cars heading out, Tesla’s priority now becomes its future products, especially that of the Optimus robot, which is the main reason for the S/X platform’s conclusion.
News
Tesla shows off mysterious vehicle at Giga Texas
The mysterious structure, partially unboxed amid construction materials, has sparked widespread speculation among Tesla enthusiasts and analysts. Many are convinced it is the long-rumored Model Y L, the extended-wheelbase variant already popular in China, now arriving in Texas for potential U.S. production.
Tesla seemingly showed off a mysterious vehicle at Giga Texas, one that seems to be completely different than anything the company currently makes for the U.S. market.
The vehicle, which was spotted on the plant’s property, appears to be similar to the Model Y L that has not yet launched in North America, and is currently built at Gigafactory Shanghai in China.
Drone pilot Joe Tegtmeyer captured intriguing footage at Tesla’s Giga Texas on March 23, 2026, revealing what appears to be a large, blue plastic-wrapped vehicle body resting inside a wooden shipping crate outdoors.
Well this is interesting at Giga Texas today … what do YOU think this is? 🤔😎 pic.twitter.com/U9pLvqbf7L
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) March 23, 2026
The mysterious structure, partially unboxed amid construction materials, has sparked widespread speculation among Tesla enthusiasts and analysts. Many are convinced it is the long-rumored Model Y L, the extended-wheelbase variant already popular in China, now arriving in Texas for potential U.S. production.
The images show an elongated silhouette that stands out from standard Model Y bodies. Side-by-side comparisons shared in replies to Tegtmeyer’s post highlight key differences: the rear door extends farther over the wheel arch than on a regular Model Y, and the rear glass appears to run all the way to the spoiler lip without the metal trim seen on shorter versions.
One overlay analysis noted that the visible proportions align precisely with the Chinese-market Model Y L, which measures approximately 4.98 meters long with a 3.04-meter wheelbase, which is about seven inches longer overall than the standard Model Y sold in the U.S.
Model Y L, with a support structure on top, likely for shipping. pic.twitter.com/ET3w46DjpJ
— Owen Sparks (@OwenSparks) March 23, 2026
The vehicle is a bare “body-in-white” shell, typical of prototypes sent abroad for tooling validation and local manufacturing ramp-up. Tesla has already launched the six- and seven-seat Model Y L in China and other markets, where it offers roughly 10% more cargo space and greater family-friendly versatility.
This sighting fits Tesla’s broader strategy. Industry observers expect the company to localize Model Y L production at Giga Texas by mid-2026 to serve American families seeking extra room without stepping up to the larger Cybertruck or a future full-size SUV.
Bringing the design stateside could add tens of thousands of annual deliveries while leveraging existing Model Y lines. People have been adamant that they want the Model Y L in the U.S., especially as Tesla plans to fade the Model X, the company’s most ideal vehicle for large families, out of production in the near future.
Tesla Model Y lineup expansion signals an uncomfortable reality for consumers
While Tesla has made no official comment, the timing, amid Giga Texas expansion and steady Model Y output, suggests the mysterious crate is more than a random prototype.
If confirmed as the Model Y L, it marks another step in Tesla’s effort to refresh its bestselling SUV for global demand. The vehicle would perform exceptionally well in the U.S., and despite the company’s rather mute stance on bringing it to America, this might be the biggest hint to date that it could be on the way.
Cybertruck
Tesla Cybertruck just won a rare and elusive crash safety honor
Only the most outstanding of performances in crash tests can warrant an IIHS Top Safety Pick+ award, as vehicles listed with that ranking must achieve “Good” ratings in the small overlap front, updated side, and updated moderate overlap front tests, along with “Acceptable” or “Good” headlights standard on all trims.
Tesla Cybertruck landed a rare and elusive safety honor from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). It was the only pickup truck in the U.S. market to do so.
The IIHS rewarded the Cybertruck with the Top Safety Pick+ honors, the highest marks a vehicle can receive from the agency.
Only the most outstanding of performances in crash tests can warrant an IIHS Top Safety Pick+ award, as vehicles listed with that ranking must achieve “Good” ratings in the small overlap front, updated side, and updated moderate overlap front tests, along with “Acceptable” or “Good” headlights standard on all trims.
🚨 Absolutely insane.
Tesla Cybertruck was the ONLY pickup on the market to be awarded a Top Safety Pick+ rating by the IIHS
The safest rating out there belongs to Cybertruck 📐 pic.twitter.com/Y8gLOqaL0d
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 24, 2026
Cybertruck was the only truck to also win an NHTSA Five-Star Safety rating, making it the only pickup available on the market to be recognized with top marks from both agencies.
There are a multitude of options for pickups in the U.S. market, as it is one of the most popular vehicle types for consumers in the country. Pickups are great vehicles for anyone who does any sort of hauling or is just looking for extra space for any variety of reasons.
Pickups are also inherently safer than other body types on the road, mostly because they are larger and heavier, making them more favorable against other vehicle types in the event of a collision. However, Tesla has a significant advantage in safety with its vehicles because it engineers them to not only be safer in collisions, but also easier to repair.
The Cybertruck managed to achieve “Good” ratings, the highest marks available by the IIHS, in all three Crashworthiness categories, as well as “Good” ratings in both Crash Avoidance and Mitigation assessments.
It also received “Good” ratings across all driver and pedestrian crash-test performance metrics, except for one, where it earned an “Acceptable” rating for rear passengers in the Chest category.
The Cybertruck’s outstanding crash test performance has won it this incredible mark as the pickup still tends to be one of the more polarizing vehicle designs on the market.
It is no secret that Tesla has struggled with demand of the Cybertruck due to pricing, but the recent rollout of a trim that was temporarily priced at just $59,990 showed plenty of people want the all-electric pickup.
Tesla officially begins sunset of Model S and Model X
Tesla shows off mysterious vehicle at Giga Texas
Tesla Cybertruck just won a rare and elusive crash safety honor
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
