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 launches its coolest gift idea ever just a few weeks after it was announced
“Gift one month of Full Self-Driving (Supervised), which allows the vehicle to drive itself almost anywhere with minimal intervention.”
Tesla has launched its coolest gift idea ever, just a few weeks after it was announced.
Tesla is now giving owners the opportunity to gift Full Self-Driving for one month to friends or family through a new gifting program that was suggested to the company last month.
The program will enable people to send a fellow Tesla owner one month of the company’s semi-autonomous driving software, helping them to experience the Full Self-Driving suite and potentially help Tesla gain them as a subscriber of the program, or even an outright purchase.
Tesla is going to allow owners to purchase an FSD Subscription for another owner for different month options
You’ll be able to gift FSD to someone! https://t.co/V29dhf5URj
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 3, 2025
Tesla has officially launched the program on its Shop. Sending one month of Full Self-Driving costs $112:
“Gift one month of Full Self-Driving (Supervised), which allows the vehicle to drive itself almost anywhere with minimal intervention. All sales are final. Can only be purchased and redeemed in the U.S. This gift card is valued at $112.00 and is intended to cover the price of one month of FSD (Supervised), including up to 13% sales tax. It is not guaranteed to cover the full monthly price if pricing or tax rates change. This gift card can be stored in Tesla Wallet and redeemed toward FSD (Supervised) or any other Tesla product or service that accepts gift card payments.”
Tesla has done a great job of expanding Full Self-Driving access over the past few years, especially by offering things like the Subscription program, free trials through referrals, and now this gift card program.
Gifting Full Self-Driving is another iteration of Tesla’s “butts in seats” strategy, which is its belief that it can flip consumers to its vehicles and products by simply letting people experience them.
There is also a reason behind pushing Full Self-Driving so hard, and it has to do with CEO Elon Musk’s compensation package. One tranche requires Musk to achieve a certain number of active paid Full Self-Driving subscriptions.
More people who try the suite are likely to pay for it over the long term.
News
Tesla expands Robotaxi app access once again, this time on a global scale
Tesla said recently it plans to launch Robotaxi in Miami, Houston, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Dallas.
Tesla has expanded Robotaxi app access once again, but this time, it’s on a much broader scale as the company is offering the opportunity for those outside of North America to download the app.
Tesla Robotaxi is the company’s early-stage ride-hailing platform that is active in Texas, California, and Arizona, with more expansion within the United States planned for the near future.
Tesla said recently it plans to launch Robotaxi in Miami, Houston, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Dallas.
The platform has massive potential, and Tesla is leaning on it to be a major contributor to even more disruption in the passenger transportation industry. So far, it has driven over 550,000 miles in total, with the vast majority of this coming from the Bay Area and Austin.
First Look at Tesla’s Robotaxi App: features, design, and more
However, Tesla is focusing primarily on rapid expansion, but most of this is reliant on the company’s ability to gain regulatory permission to operate the platform in various regions. The expansion plans go well outside of the U.S., as the company expanded the ability to download the app to more regions this past weekend.
So far, these are the areas it is available to download in:
- Japan
- Thailand
- Hong Kong
- South Korea
- Australia
- Taiwan
- Macau
- New Zealand
- Mexico
- U.S.
- Canada
Right now, while Tesla is focusing primarily on expansion, it is also working on other goals that have to do with making it more widely available to customers who want to grab a ride from a driverless vehicle.
One of the biggest goals it has is to eliminate safety monitors from its vehicles, which it currently utilizes in Austin in the passenger’s seat and in the driver’s seat in the Bay Area.
A few weeks ago, Tesla started implementing a new in-cabin data-sharing system, which will help support teams assist riders without anyone in the front of the car.
Tesla takes a step towards removal of Robotaxi service’s safety drivers
As Robotaxi expands into more regions, Tesla stands to gain tremendously through the deployment of the Full Self-Driving suite for personal cars, as well as driverless Robotaxis for those who are just hailing rides.
Things have gone well for Tesla in the early stages of the Robotaxi program, but expansion will truly be the test of how things operate going forward. Navigating local traffic laws and gaining approval from a regulatory standpoint will be the biggest hurdle to jump.
Tesla received a price target boost from Morgan Stanley, according to a new note on Monday morning, but there is some considerable caution also being communicated over the next year or so.
Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco took over Tesla coverage for the firm from longtime bull Adam Jonas, who appears to be focusing on embodied AI stocks and no longer automotive.
Percoco took over and immediately adjusted the price target for Tesla from $410 to $425, and changed its rating on shares from ‘Overweight’ to ‘Equal Weight.’
Percoco said he believes Tesla is the leading company in terms of electric vehicles, manufacturing, renewable energy, and real-world AI, so it deserves a premium valuation. However, he admits the high expectations for the company could provide for a “choppy trading environment” for the next year.
He wrote:
“However, high expectations on the latter have brought the stock closer to fair valuation. While it is well understood that Tesla is more than an auto manufacturer, we expect a choppy trading environment for the TSLA shares over the next 12 months, as we see downside to estimates, while the catalysts for its non-auto businesses appear priced at current levels.”
Percoco also added that if market cap hurdles are achieved, Morgan Stanley would reduce its price target by 7 percent.
Perhaps the biggest change with Percoco taking over the analysis for Jonas is how he will determine the value of each individual project. For example, he believes Optimus is worth about $60 per share of equity value.
He went on to describe the potential value of Full Self-Driving, highlighting its importance to the Tesla valuation:
“Full Self Driving (FSD) is the crown jewel of Tesla’s auto business; we believe that its leading-edge personal autonomous driving offering is a real game changer, and will remain a significant competitive advantage over its EV and non-EV peers. As Tesla continues to improve its platform with increased levels of autonomy (i.e., hands-off, eyes-off), it will revolutionize the personal driving experience. It remains to be seen if others will be able to keep pace.”
Additionally, Percoco outlined both bear and bull cases for the stock. He believes $860 per share, “which could be in play in the next 12 months if Tesla manages through the EV-downturn,” while also scaling Robotaxi, executing on unsupervised FSD, and scaling Optimus, is in play for the bull case.
Will Tesla thrive without the EV tax credit? Five reasons why they might
Meanwhile, the bear case is placed at $145 per share, and “assumes greater competition and margin pressure across all business lines, embedding zero value for humanoids, slowing the growth curve for Tesla’s robotaxi fleet to reflect regulatory challenges in scaling a vision-only perception stack, and lowering market share and margin profile for the autos and energy businesses.”
Currently, Tesla shares are trading at around $441.
Tesla launches its coolest gift idea ever just a few weeks after it was announced
Tesla expands Robotaxi app access once again, this time on a global scale
