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.

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.”

Advertisement
-
-

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.

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

News

Tesla Full Self-Driving insurance program with heavy discount expands

Published

18 hours ago

on

August 3, 2026

By

Lemonade has expanded its innovative Autonomous Car insurance program to Tennessee, giving Tesla owners in the state a substantial discount on Full Self-Driving (FSD) miles. Announced on August 3, the product offers 50 percent off every mile driven with FSD activated, positioning the digital insurer as a leader in pricing insurance around autonomous technology.

The program, marketed as Lemonade Autonomous Car insurance, uses a direct connection via Tesla’s Fleet API (with customer permission) to automatically distinguish FSD-engaged miles from manual driving. Policyholders pay a low base rate when the vehicle is stationary and a few cents per mile when moving, with the 50 percent reduction applied specifically to FSD miles.

Coverage includes standard protections such as liability, collision, comprehensive, roadside assistance, and Tesla-specific benefits like access to certified repair shops and emergency crash services. Eligible vehicles require Hardware 4, as well as recent firmware.

Lemonade first unveiled the product on January 21 of this year, describing it as a first-of-its-kind offering designed for self-driving cars, starting with Tesla FSD. It began rolling out in Arizona on January 26, followed by Oregon about a month later. Subsequent expansions brought it to Indiana in early June 2026 and Colorado later that month.

Tennessee marks the fifth state.

Tesla Full Self-Driving gets outrageous insurance offer with insanely cheap rates

The discount rests on Lemonade’s strong belief in the safety of Tesla’s FSD system. The company cites Tesla’s data showing that FSD-driven miles are twice as safe as those driven manually, or associated with roughly a 50 percent crash reduction.

Lemonade Co-founder and President Shai Wininger has emphasized this distinction: “Traditional insurers treat a Tesla like any other car, and AI like any other driver. But a car that sees 360 degrees, never gets drowsy, and reacts in milliseconds can’t be compared to a human.”

He added that “Teslas driven with FSD are involved in far fewer accidents” and committed that as FSD software improves and becomes safer, Lemonade’s prices will drop further.

Tesla Full Self-Driving gets an offer to be insured for ‘almost free’

This approach leverages Lemonade’s existing pay-per-mile technology and AI-driven risk models, which analyze nuanced vehicle data including software version and sensor performance. The company expects the model to reward higher FSD usage with greater savings while supporting mixed households that include both Tesla and non-Tesla vehicles under one policy. Bundling with home, renters, or pet insurance can yield additional discounts.

As autonomous driving technology advances, Lemonade’s state-by-state expansion of usage-based pricing that directly reflects real-world safety data represents a notable shift in how insurers evaluate risk.

Tesla owners in the five available states – Arizona, Oregon, Indiana, Colorado, and now Tennessee – can obtain quotes quickly through the Lemonade app or website, potentially lowering the overall cost of ownership for vehicles equipped with advanced driver-assistance systems. Further states are expected as regulatory approvals progress.

Continue Reading

Cybertruck

Tesla quietly made the Cybertruck even stronger

Published

22 hours ago

on

August 3, 2026

By

Credit: Tesla

Tesla has continued to flex the strength, rigidity, and robustness of its all-electric pickup, the Cybertruck. In fact, since 2019, Cybertruck’s ability to avoid dents, dings, and even gunfire has been one of the main selling points Tesla has used to attract buyers who are looking for a vehicle that can handle the most intense challenges.

But that does not mean Tesla is not still actively trying to make it even better.

In a new hardware update, Tesla has decided to change the material of the Cybertruck’s underbody panels from aluminum to carbon fiber, a move that aims to not only increase pricing efficiency but also improve strength.

RELATED:

Tesla Cybertruck is officially the safest pickup, IIHS says

Cybertruck Lead Engineer Wes Morrill confirmed the change was made to the Cybertruck recently after it was spotted by Coleton Guerin of Out of Spec. This particular trim level was a Cyberbeast, but it is being applied to all trims to keep supply chain efficiency high and have less variance across trim levels.

Morrill said that Tesla tested different materials for the underbody panel protection, and carbon fiber performed better than aluminum, which is what the company was using since its first deliveries in 2023.

Additionally, there are some efficiency improvements because Tesla can better form the areas around the bolts to keep underbody airflow cleaner than previously.

Carbon fiber is traditionally lighter and more durable than aluminum, which is why it is such a popular material among luxury automakers, and EV makers will utilize some of the materials around battery packs to save weight.

This is the first instance of Tesla utilizing carbon fiber on the Cybertruck’s exterior to help with overall performance and strength. As previously mentioned, Tesla used aluminum to protect the underside of the body, but it is pretty typical for the company to continue making engineering changes that will improve the car in the future.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.7 early review: FSD saved me from an accident

Published

2 days ago

on

August 2, 2026

By

Credit: Teslarati

Tesla released Full Self-Driving version 14.3.7 yesterday, and after about 90 miles of testing today, it is evident there are some definite fixes from version 14.3.6, which I wrote about last week and called a regression.

Within the first 40 minutes of my drive on v14.3.7, it saved me from getting into an accident with an unaware Dodge Charger driver, and some of the things Tesla seemed to miss in v14.3.6 were definitely improved. All in all, the release so far has some really great performance, and I’m looking forward to testing it further.

For now, here’s everything I noticed with v14.3.7:

Overall Improvement

Just generally speaking from a ride perspective, this was a really great experience. A lot of the hesitancy I experienced on v14.3.6 was gone. There were no instances of brake-stabbing, wheel-jerking, or any uncertain or unconfident movements. It was void of anything that I felt made it timid with v14.3.6.

The one thing I do hope to see down the road is a smaller need to adjust Speed Profiles so often. Because Tesla calls FSD “Supervised,” I’m okay with needing to hit the scroll wheel a few times a drive.

However, I hope that things can be incrementally improved upon with speed. Sometimes it’s too fast; other times it’s too slow. It’s a difficult thing to hone in and refine, but I hope it eventually gets there.

I didn’t notice any significant left lane camping or any behaviors that were completely out of line. I am hopeful that this opinion does not change, but after driving a few days with this version and putting it in a variety of different situations, you are exposed to more behaviors, some of which are not necessarily what I’d prefer.

The big things to notice, at least in my experience thus far, are that the major issues with previous versions — meaning the braking stabbing and wheel jerking — simply weren’t there. That’s enough to already consider this progress compared to .6.

Manual Signal Override is More Responsive

On .6, I had quite a few issues with FSD ignoring my manually input turn signals. If Tesla wants to call it “Supervised,” then the car should not ignore any input the driver gives. If I touch the accelerator on FSD, the car speeds up.

The car did a great job of obeying my turn signals when I wanted it to change lanes, which is welcome.

Parking Lot Performance

Before .6, I traditionally took over in nearly every parking lot my car entered, because I knew it would not park somewhere that I wanted, and usually, it was just a tad too timid in this setting.

The one bright spot of .6 was how well it handled parking lots. This continued with v14.3.7:

 

I’m always really happy to see progress at all, but once parking preferences come to FSD, as long as this performance is still around, that could potentially be the biggest improvement I’ve seen in FSD in the year I’ve been using it personally on a daily basis.

Full Self-Driving Averts Disaster

A Dodge Charger changed into my lane without checking if I was there, running me off the road. FSD made the initial avoidance maneuver; I grabbed the wheel out of instinct, looked in my side mirror to ensure I had nobody following closely behind, hit the brake, and straightened the car back up to avoid a curb:

There have been quite a few responses to this video stating that I should never have grabbed the wheel. To be honest, I really wish I had not done so, because I do believe FSD would have avoided any sort of collision with anything, including the car or the curb.

However, this was the first time I had ever been this close to being hit while using FSD. My natural reaction was to take over. I think if I had had something like this happen before, my reaction might have been different.

Hitting the brake avoided hitting the curb, while FSD swerved to avoid the car. My concern after the car was clear of my front end was the curb. All in all, I’m really happy with how things turned out, and I think anyone could be a critic of how I handled it. I only had a split second to really make a decision, and thankfully, any damage was avoided.

It is clear FSD managed to avoid the car coming down before I was able to. I truly credit FSD for avoiding the collision.

What Needs to Improve

Better Recognition of Potholes, Uneven Roads, Sharp Changes in Roadway/Bumps

On Friday, my Fianceè and I were in the car, and FSD was driving us. We crossed over a roadway that has a traffic light, and FSD was traveling at 40 MPH on Standard, 5 MPH over the speed limit. Everything was more than reasonable.

However, the road we were crossing at the light has a major bump both as you start and finish crossing it. Without a speed reduction, your car can go airborne. The Tesla did just this on Friday on v14.3.6; it was an uncomfortable bounce that pretty much confirmed I would not ever let FSD go over again unless we were sitting at that intersection when there is a red light.

I even tried scrolling down into Sloth quickly, but I ended up just taking over:

A few people have said it remains related to the vision-based approach and its difficulty comprehending 3D. This is a huge issue because this can cause serious damage at certain speeds.

Navigation

Nothing new here. I still turn off “Online Routing” quite frequently to get the car to take logical routes from time to time.

Auto Wipers

Auto Wipers are just plain bad. I really hope Tesla just uses a rain sensor. I thought they had improved at one point, but I still get dry wipes, Speed 4 on a drizzle, and Speed 2 on a steady rain. In reality, these should be switched.

You can watch our full review of Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.7 below:

Continue Reading