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 announced on Monday that the Roadster event scheduled for today would be postponed due to the need for it to be held outside.
Less than 24 hours later, CEO Elon Musk broadened that by stating it was due to high winds, immediately sending everyone into a frenzy over the Roadster’s potential ability to fly.
And realistically, it could definitely have to do with it flying, hovering, or hopping; whatever Tesla has in mind for this demonstration could not be impacted by wind. However, it might have nothing to do with the vehicle flying whatsoever, and instead could be a simple precaution, as the Roadster is a very unique vehicle with some already official specs that are just mind-blowing.
Tesla will very, very likely be showcasing both the acceleration rate and potentially even a top speed demo at the event in Waco. Both of these demonstrations, performed with a vehicle that has such incredibly fast metrics, could easily be impacted by wind as well.
Tesla Roadster event requires restricted airspace, and the FAA obliges
Top Speed Demo
At high speeds, aerodynamic forces are already overwhelmingly present. A crosswind or sudden gust adds a layer of sideways force that the tires must counter with slip angle. On a short demo course, that force can shove the car off the intended line, especially in a light car with a low frontal area and little mass to resist the push.
Electric cars, due to their battery packs, have an advantage of an extremely low center of gravity, giving them extra stability. However, the speeds at which the Roadster could travel at the demo could spell some issues if crosswinds are present.
Gusts are worse than a steady wind because the load changes faster than a driver can smoothly correct. That shows up as weaving or a late correction. Headwinds and tailwinds can also spell disaster. Headwinds cut a measured top speed but raise the power needed to get there or maintain it. Meanwhile, a tailwind can inflate the top speed, and downforce issues could become more noticeable.
Wind also loads the body unevenly. A low car can feel light on the upwind side or see a sudden change in downforce if the gust hits a wing or diffuser at an angle. Tire temperature and pressure might stay near a normal level, but lateral grip can be lost as the vehicle is spent fighting the wind.
Acceleration Demo
Launch and 0-60 MPH runs are shorter, so the car spends less time exposed to forces that could cause things to go awry. However, the first second is very sensitive, as a crosswind at launch could yaw the car before speed builds and prior to aerodynamic impact being too great. The driver will be required to correct traction control or manage how much the wheels are spinning, which will likely be corrected automatically by some sort of traction control system within the Roadster (we are fairly certain Tesla will implement something brilliant with it).
These things could cause an unstable run.
A headwind would increase drag as speed rises, while a tailwind would do the opposite. Meanwhile, surface effects, like wind-driven dust, light debris, or even rain, could reduce grip at the exact moment the tires are asked for peak longitudinal force. Standing water plus a crosswind is a common reason an acceleration attempt might be scrapped.
Flying or Not
No matter what Tesla has in store for the Roadster, waiting for ideal conditions is a great idea. People who follow and support the company, along with the engineers involved in the Roadster program, have been waiting nine years since the last unveiling for this moment. Everything should be ideal.
Some speculate that it’s just not ready, and that’s ridiculous. Why would Tesla even schedule the event — albeit prematurely — after nine years if it was not ready? Why would they jump the gun now?
We were all excited for today, but it truly is the most ideal thing in the world to wait two more weeks so everything, including the weather, can be perfect. The delay is simply worth it. But Tesla, seriously, make this the last one.
Elon Musk
SpaceX nails “Lucky 13” astronaut launch, leaning into Tesla tradition and superstition
SpaceX launched Crew-13 astronauts to the ISS Thursday, setting up a record fast Dragon docking.
SpaceX launched NASA’s Crew-13 mission to the International Space Station on Thursday morning, getting four astronauts to orbit despite a forecast of thunderstorms and gusty winds that had threatened to push the flight to Friday.
Falcon 9 lifted off from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station at 11:10 a.m. ET carrying Dragon Grace, NASA confirmed. On board are NASA commander Jessica Watkins, NASA pilot Luke Delaney, Canadian Space Agency astronaut Joshua Kutryk and Roscosmos cosmonaut Sergey Teteryatnikov. The first stage booster, B1101, landed at Landing Zone 40 beside the pad on its third flight after previously supporting Crew-12 and a Starlink mission.
Liftoff of Crew-13! pic.twitter.com/vteT0DXMTh
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) October 1, 2026
It was the first spaceflight for Delaney, Kutryk and Teteryatnikov. Watkins, who flew on Crew-4 in 2022, became the first NASA astronaut to launch aboard a Crew Dragon twice.
Before launch, the crew rode to the pad in Teslas, a tradition on NASA’s SpaceX crew flights since 2020. This time the cars carried specialty plates reading “Lucky 13.” Watkins said the mission patch leans into the number on purpose, as a nod to Apollo 13 and the resilience of that crew.
Grace is now on a short trip to the station. Docking at the forward port of the Harmony module is scheduled for about 7 p.m. ET, roughly 7 hours and 50 minutes after liftoff, which Space.com notes would be the fastest Crew Dragon transit to the ISS yet. Most Dragon flights take around 15 to 24 hours to catch the station. Hatch opening is planned for 8:25 p.m. ET.
The launch came more than two weeks later than originally planned. An oxidizer leak was found in Grace’s propulsion system in August, and NASA and SpaceX added time for tests. That pushed back the return of Crew-12, which has been aboard the station since February and is now set to splash down off Southern California next week. Crew-13 is expected to stay about six months.
SpaceX rescue mission for stranded ISS astronauts nears end — Here’s when they’ll return home
SpaceX already holds NASA orders for crew rotations through Crew-17, while Boeing is preparing an uncrewed Starliner flight to the station as early as December.
Crew-13 was only the first of three SpaceX launches planned for Thursday, as Teslarati previewed on Wednesday. A Falcon 9 launched its Transporter-18 mission from California today, where Google will be launching its first orbital artificial intelligence (AI) test satellite. Meanwhile, Falcon Heavy is set to launch the classified NROL-97 mission for the National Reconnaissance Office from Launch Complex 39A at 11:53 p.m. ET. Its two side boosters will return to Landing Zones 1 and 2, which means Central Florida could hear up to three sonic booms in a single day. The busy stretch follows Starship’s Flight 14 on Monday, which reached orbit for the first time.
Tesla has moved its Wireless Charging efforts for its electric vehicles forward, as it had a new patent published today, one that it submitted back in March.
The patent describes a system for detecting foreign objects on the wireless charging pad under varying temperatures, aiming to mitigate any undesired results that could come from something being on top of the charging pad.
🚨 Tesla has a new patent application published today, which was submitted back in March, for a Wireless Charging Pad:
“The present disclosure relates to methods and systems that can reliably detect foreign objects on a wireless charging pad under varying temperatures. In some… pic.twitter.com/LIeLfZAuDJ
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 1, 2026
The abstract of the patent states:
“The present disclosure relates to methods and systems that can reliably detect foreign objects on a wireless charging pad under varying temperatures. In some examples, an object detector can utilize a set of inductive coils included in resonant tanks, and excite the resonant tanks using signals in a range of frequencies including or near a nominal resonant frequency of the resonant tanks. The object detector can detect a metal object based on resistance of a coil increasing and inductance of the coil decreasing. By analyzing the shifts and/or distributions in resonant frequencies and output magnitudes (e.g., output voltage peaks), the object detector can distinguish between changes of frequencies and magnitudes caused by temperature and those caused by foreign objects to accurately detect the foreign objects.”
The object detection system will utilize a set of inductive coils included in resonant tanks, and “excite the resonant tank using signals in a range of frequencies including or near a nominal resonant frequency of the tanks.” Metal can be detected by an increase in the coil’s resistance and a decrease in the coil’s inductance.
By analyzing shifts or disruptions in resonant frequencies and output magnitudes, the system can detect foreign objects. These types of safeguards need to be implemented through the normal operation of the charging pads.
Tesla says its Cybercab wireless charging efficiency is ‘well above 90%’
Tesla plans to utilize wireless charging with Cybercab and Robotaxi-enabled units to help streamline the fully autonomous experience from A to Z. The last thing the company wants to do is have any sort of small obstruction preventing the rider from experiencing Robotaxi as intended.
Why Tesla Roadster unveiling delay might have nothing to do with it flying
SpaceX nails “Lucky 13” astronaut launch, leaning into Tesla tradition and superstition
