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 Cybercab production ignites with 60 units spotted at Giga Texas
Designed exclusively for unsupervised Full Self-Driving, the Cybercab promises to deliver safe, affordable, on-demand mobility without human drivers. Early units with temporary controls allow engineers to refine hardware and software in controlled settings before full autonomous fleets hit the roads.
Tesla Cybercab production at Giga Texas seems to have ignited, as 60 units were spotted outside of the production facility on Wednesday, with speculation hinting the all-electric ride-hailing vehicle could be headed to the lineup sooner rather than later.
Interestingly, they were also spotted with steering wheels, which Tesla said the car would be void of.
Giga Texas observer and drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer shared on X a new post that revealed approximately 60 Cybercabs parked in two organized groups in the factory’s outbound lot—the largest concentration observed to date.
Happy 8 April (Wednesday) at Giga Texas, especially for those wanting an update on Cybercabs … I saw about 60 of them in two groups in the outbound lot today … the largest grouping yet!
Also, looks like at least some of these have white seats and most still have clearly… pic.twitter.com/mZbKH96bA7
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) April 8, 2026
Tegtmeyer noted white seats inside several vehicles and clearly visible steering wheels on most. These are not yet the final steering-wheel-free production versions unveiled in 2024, but early units are likely undergoing validation testing for new features and real-world robotaxi operations across the country.
The timing could not be more symbolic. Tesla has consistently affirmed that mass manufacturing of the Cybercab would begin this month.
CEO Elon Musk has reiterated the April 2026 target multiple times, emphasizing that while initial output will be slow, following the classic S-curve of new-vehicle ramps, the Giga Texas line is being prepared to produce hundreds of units per week.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk outlines expectations for Cybercab production
The first Cybercab already rolled off the line in February, but April marks the official shift to volume production of this purpose-built, pedal- and steering-wheel-free autonomous vehicle.
These 60 Cybercabs signal far more than parked prototypes. They represent tangible proof that Tesla is executing on its ambitious robotaxi roadmap.
Designed exclusively for unsupervised Full Self-Driving, the Cybercab promises to deliver safe, affordable, on-demand mobility without human drivers. Early units with temporary controls allow engineers to refine hardware and software in controlled settings before full autonomous fleets hit the roads.
As production scales, Giga Texas, already home to Cybertruck production, will become the epicenter of Tesla’s autonomous revolution, targeting millions of vehicles annually in the years ahead.
For Tesla and its investors, this sighting underscores manufacturing excellence and timeline discipline. It counters skepticism about the company’s ability to deliver on next-generation vehicles amid a competitive autonomous landscape.
Broader implications are profound: lower transportation costs, reduced emissions, and safer roads as robotaxis proliferate. Musk’s vision of a future where Cybercabs operate 24/7, generating revenue for owners and riders alike, is now visibly underway.
With mass production officially ramping in April, today’s images are not just a snapshot of parked vehicles; they are the first frames of a mobility transformation. Tesla is not only meeting its commitments; it is accelerating toward an era where autonomy reshapes daily life. The Cybercab era has begun.
News
Tesla makes major rebound in European market with 4x in registrations
Tesla delivered a striking performance in Germany’s automotive market in March 2026, with new vehicle registrations more than quadrupling year-over-year, according to official data from the German Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA).
Tesla headlines will have you believe the company is dead to rights in Germany, selling nearly no cars, and stating consumers are more interested in other brands not run by CEO Elon Musk.
However, the latest data from Germany proves this might be a dying narrative.
Tesla delivered a striking performance in Germany’s automotive market in March 2026, with new vehicle registrations more than quadrupling year-over-year, according to official data from the German Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA).
Newly registered Tesla vehicles jumped 315.1 percent to 9,252 units, marking the company’s strongest March on record in the country and signaling a sharp rebound after earlier challenges in the European market.
A big 4x from Tesla in Germany in March in vehicle registrations
Don’t let anyone tell you Tesla is dead in Europe https://t.co/24hyus1xTF pic.twitter.com/205yPwncRv
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 7, 2026
The March surge accounted for roughly 72 percent of Tesla’s first-quarter total in Germany. Q1 registrations reached 12,829 vehicles, a 160 percent increase from the same period a year earlier. For context, the implied March 2025 figure was approximately 2,229 units—one of the brand’s weaker months in recent years.
These numbers underscore Tesla’s ability to capitalize on renewed demand in Europe’s largest car market, where the company had faced softening sales throughout much of 2025 amid heightened competition and broader economic pressures.
Germany’s overall new passenger car market also expanded in March, with 294,161 registrations—a 16 percent rise from the prior year. Battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) performed even more robustly, climbing 66.2 percent to 70,663 units and representing about 24 percent of all new car registrations.
Tesla’s 9,252 deliveries captured approximately 13.1 percent of the BEV segment for the month and roughly 3.1 percent of the total new car market, highlighting its continued leadership among pure-play electric brands despite growing competition from both domestic German manufacturers and Chinese entrants like BYD, which saw its own registrations surge 327.1 percent to 3,438 units.
The strong showing comes as Germany’s EV incentives and infrastructure investments continue to support adoption. Tesla’s lineup, anchored by the Model Y and Model 3, appears to have resonated with buyers seeking premium electric options.
Industry observers note that the concentrated March registrations, accounting for the bulk of the quarter, may reflect strategic inventory management, competitive pricing adjustments, or pent-up demand following a slower start to 2026.
This performance provides a much-needed bright spot for Tesla in Europe, where the brand had seen market share erosion in prior periods.
Tesla Model Y outsells all EV rivals in Europe in 2025 despite headwinds
With Q1 2026 registrations up significantly, Tesla has demonstrated resilience in a market that registered 699,404 new passenger cars for the quarter, up 5.2 percent overall. As the year progresses, sustained momentum in Germany could bolster Tesla’s European outlook, particularly if broader BEV growth persists amid evolving policy support and technological advancements.
The March 2026 data from the KBA paints a picture of Tesla’s renewed strength in Germany: a fourfold monthly leap, record quarterly gains, and a solid foothold in an expanding EV segment.
Whether this marks the beginning of a sustained recovery or a seasonal peak remains to be seen, but the numbers affirm Tesla’s enduring appeal in one of the world’s most competitive automotive landscapes.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk reveals unfortunate truth of Tesla Full Self-Driving development
In a candid reply to a dramatic video of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system averting disaster, Elon Musk laid bare a harsh reality facing autonomous vehicle technology.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite is one of the most significant technological developments in terms of passenger travel in decades, but it is not all sunshine and rainbows, even with major strides in safety, CEO Elon Musk revealed.
In a candid reply to a dramatic video of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system averting disaster, Elon Musk laid bare a harsh reality facing autonomous vehicle technology.
The clip shows a Model 3 traveling at over 65 mph on a foggy, rain-soaked highway when a pedestrian suddenly steps into traffic.
Full Self-Driving instantly detects the threat and swerves safely, preventing what could have been a fatal collision for both the pedestrian and the driver’s cousin.
Musk’s response was unequivocal:
“Tesla self-driving saves a lot of lives – the statistics are unequivocal. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect, of course.” Even with a projected 10x safety improvement over human drivers, FSD would still prevent roughly 90% of the world’s approximately one million annual auto fatalities. The remaining 10%—roughly 100,000 deaths—would expose Tesla to relentless lawsuits. Meanwhile, the vast majority of lives saved would go unnoticed. “The 90% who are still alive mostly won’t even know that Tesla saved them. Nonetheless, it is the right thing to do.”
This “unfortunate truth,” as Musk implicitly framed it, highlights a fundamental asymmetry in how society perceives safety technology. Human drivers cause the overwhelming majority of crashes through distraction, fatigue, or error.
Tesla self-driving saves a lot of lives – the statistics are unequivocal.
That doesn’t mean it’s perfect, of course.
Even when we improve safety 10X, saving 90% of the million lives lost in auto accidents every year, Tesla will still get sued for the 10% who did die. The 90%… https://t.co/OrNB1mO5eF
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 6, 2026
Yet when FSD errs, the incident becomes headline news and a courtroom target. Prevented tragedies, by contrast, leave no trace.
Survivors simply continue their journeys, unaware of the split-second intervention that kept them alive. The result is a distorted public narrative that amplifies failures while rendering successes invisible.
We have seen this through various headlines throughout the years, including the mainstream media’s obsession with only mentioning the manufacturer’s name in the instance of an accident when it is “Tesla.”
Opinion: Tesla Autopilot NHTSA investigation headlines are out of control
The video’s real-world example underscores FSD’s current capabilities. In near-zero visibility, the system’s cameras and neural network reacted faster than any human could, demonstrating the life-saving potential Musk cites.
Tesla’s latest safety data already shows FSD (Supervised) performing significantly better than the U.S. average, with crashes occurring far less frequently per mile driven.
Still, regulatory scrutiny, liability concerns, and media focus on edge-case failures continue to slow widespread adoption. Musk’s frank admission suggests Tesla is prepared to push forward despite the legal and perceptual headwinds.
As FSD edges closer to unsupervised autonomy, Musk’s post serves as both a progress report and a reality check. The technology is already saving lives today.
The unfortunate truth is that proving it and scaling it responsibly will require society to value statistical lives saved as much as dramatic stories of those lost. In the race toward safer roads, perception may prove as formidable an obstacle as the fog and rain in that viral video.
Tesla Cybercab production ignites with 60 units spotted at Giga Texas
Tesla makes major rebound in European market with 4x in registrations
