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 has reportedly pushed the unveiling of the Roadster once again, but there are also evidently new details about the event that the company plans to show off.
The Information reported this morning that Tesla will now unveil, for the second time, the next-generation Roadster in August, a further delay from the multiple timeline that the company had previously stated.
The report has not been confirmed or denied by Tesla at any capacity.
It also states the unveiling event will take place in Texas, the same place that Tesla executives revealed in May would be the place of manufacture for the company’s highly-anticipated supercar, which boasts a top speed of over 250 MPH and 650 miles of range, according to its website.
Tesla is also expected to showcase the SpaceX package, which will be used for faster acceleration and potentially hovering capabilities, at the unveiling event, the report states. Musk has always planned for this to happen, but now it seems it is more realistic than ever
The report also states the Roadster unveiling is planned for August pic.twitter.com/By26XZIJzU
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
The Roadster has had its unveiling date and manufacturing date pushed back on many occasions. It was set to start production in 2020, but the COVID-19 pandemic crippled supply chain operations, forcing Tesla to push its timeline back considerably.
However, COVID has been over for some time, and Tesla has still not managed to successfully schedule and execute an unveiling event, which is something fans and enthusiasts, as well as those who have put down a $50,000 deposit, have been waiting for.
The vehicle was close to completion last year, but Musk truly wanted Lars Moravy and Franz von Holzhausen to push the limits of the Roadster. In July of last year, Moravy said:
“Roadster is definitely in development. We did talk about it last Sunday night. We are gearing up for a super cool demo. It’s going to be mind-blowing; We showed Elon some cool demos last week of the tech we’ve been working on, and he got a little excited.”
It is important to note two things: Tesla has not confirmed these details, and the company has regularly pushed these dates back. Until Tesla sends out formal invitations with a concrete date, taking any unveiling event reports with a grain of salt is a good idea.
Tesla is offering a tasty Supercharging incentive on certain Model 3 trims, but the company has officially put a concrete end date on it, so those interested should act fast.
Tesla is offering Free Supercharging for One Year on the Model 3 Premium and Performance trims, the top two offerings of the all-electric sedan. There are three trims of the Model 3 that will have the Free Supercharging offer attached:
- Premium Rear-Wheel-Drive – $42,490
- Premium All-Wheel-Drive – $47,490
- Performance – $54,990
Tesla has now announced that this offer will expire on June 15, giving potential buyers about ten days to take advantage of the incentive.
This could be an additional incentive for car buyers to transition to electric vehicles. Many states are showing gas prices well over $4 per gallon, with the national average currently sitting at $4.22, according to AAA.
A free year of Supercharging miles would allow people to charge and travel for free, other than routine maintenance, which is already incredibly cheap compared to a gas car.
🚨 Tesla is now showing that it’s Free Supercharging offer for Model 3 Premium and Performance trims ends June 15 pic.twitter.com/VCLeddNSj8
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
At Tesla Superchargers, peak rates, meaning prices between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m., average between $0.45 and $0.60. One year of driving at an average of 12,000 miles would cost between $1,000 and $1,500 at $0.50 per kWh. It’s a pretty good deal.
Supercharging prices have also increased recently:
Many of the Superchargers in my area just had their peak rates increased from $0.44 per kWh to $0.49, $0.52, and $0.54 per kWh
If you’re looking to save on your commute/travel for the next year, this Model 3 Free Supercharging incentive might not be a bad idea https://t.co/YDwwl4xxHk pic.twitter.com/DleURW7eqa
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
Tesla has used Free Supercharging to move units in the past, and it’s a great strategy for those who plan to use the car for longer commutes, cross-country drives, or do not have reliable access to home charging.
It should be noted that Tesla recommends that Supercharging be used at a minimum to preserve the life of the battery, as fast-charging is more stressful on the cells.
However, some people might not have an option, so the Free Supercharging incentive could truly be a great reason for many people to charge their cars.
The Supercharging incentive is short-term, and it is pretty rare that Tesla utilizes it, so once this offer is gone, we probably will not see it on the Model 3 for some time.
Ferrari CEO Benedetto Vigna revealed that the Italian automaker’s future will not involve self-driving, a point that echoes that of Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s — sort of.
You might be thinking, “Are you insane? Musk has been so incredibly hellbent on delivering self-driving vehicles to the public, so much so that he has even hinted that Tesla won’t need the ever-popular and widely-requested Model Y L in the U.S.”
However, when it comes to electric supercars with high-performance specs and lofty price tags, Vigna’s stance is exactly what Musk wants for Tesla’s own hypercar project, the Tesla Roadster.
🚨 Tesla Roadster vs. Ferrari Luce
Price – $250,000 vs. $640,000
Horsepower – 1,000+ vs. 1,035
0-60 MPH – 1.1s OR 1.9s vs. 2.4s
Top Speed – 250+ MPH vs. 194 MPH
Range – 620 miles vs. 280 miles https://t.co/uEgswwVLeD pic.twitter.com/XcP58ZRO6Z— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
In a new interview with Australian media outlet Drive, Vigna made it clear that Ferrari’s ambitions for the future do not involve autonomy, simply because the company’s cars are not designed for anything but manual, spirited driving.
He said:
“We will not make fully autonomous cars — loud and clear. We want the people to have fun, not the [computer] chips. We want to have a steering wheel and a man or a woman behind the steering wheel. Otherwise, why do you buy a Ferrari?”
This seems to be a reasonable assertion. Ferraris are not made for daily commutes, cross-country road trips, or bumper-to-bumper traffic. They’re made for fast, spirited driving, and many of their buyers will only put a few thousand miles on them throughout their lifetime. True, exciting, fun driving is meant to be done manually.
That is not to say Full Self-Driving or other semi-autonomous suites are not “fun,” but they are meant to take the stress out of driving. They are made for the daily commutes, the rush hour traffic, and the parking lots and garages. It’s made to take the stress out of driving.
Tesla Full Self-Driving attempts 150-mile stress test: the good and the bad
Musk had stated in an interview in early 2026 that the Roadster would also be geared toward fun, manually-controlled driving. On the Moonshots podcast with Peter Diamandis, Musk said about the Roadster:
“This is not a…safety is not the main goal. If you buy a Ferrari, safety is not the number one goal. I say, if safety is your number one goal, do not buy the Roadster…We’ll aspire not to kill anyone in this car. It’ll be the best of the last of the human-driven cars. The best of the last.”
There are cars out there that simply are meant to be driven by humans, and Ferraris and Roadsters are a few of them. Ferrari has no true advantage in developing self-driving; their cars sell at low volumes with high price tags, and their performance specs and engineering are all geared toward spirited driving.
Tesla Roadster unveiling gets pushed again, but new event details emerge
Tesla Model 3 has a tasty Supercharging incentive, but it’s ending soon
