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 confirms Robotaxi expansion plans with new cities and aggressive timeline
Tesla plans to launch in Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Miami, Orlando, Tampa, and Las Vegas. It lists the Bay Area as “Safety Driver,” and Austin as “Ramping Unsupervised.”
Tesla confirmed its intentions to expand the Robotaxi program in the United States with an aggressive timeline that aims to send the ride-hailing service to several large cities very soon.
The Robotaxi program is currently active in Austin, Texas, and the California Bay Area, but Tesla has received some approvals for testing in other areas of the U.S., although it has not launched in those areas quite yet.
However, the time is coming.
During Tesla’s Q4 Earnings Call last night, the company confirmed that it plans to expand the Robotaxi program aggressively, hoping to launch in seven new cities in the first half of the year.
Tesla plans to launch in Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Miami, Orlando, Tampa, and Las Vegas. It lists the Bay Area as “Safety Driver,” and Austin as “Ramping Unsupervised.”
These details were released in the Earnings Shareholder Deck, which is published shortly before the Earnings Call:
🚨 BREAKING: Tesla plans to launch its Robotaxi service in Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Miami, Orlando, Tampa, and Las Vegas in the first half of this year pic.twitter.com/aTnruz818v
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 28, 2026
Late last year, Tesla revealed it had planned to launch Robotaxi in Las Vegas, Phoenix, Dallas, and Houston, but Tampa and Orlando were just added to the plans, signaling an even more aggressive expansion than originally planned.
Tesla feels extremely confident in its Robotaxi program, and that has been reiterated many times.
Although skeptics still remain hesitant to believe the prowess Tesla has seemingly proven in its development of an autonomous driving suite, the company has been operating a successful program in Austin and the Bay Area for months.
In fact, it announced it achieved nearly 700,000 paid Robotaxi miles since launching Robotaxi last June.
🚨 Tesla has achieved nearly 700,000 paid Robotaxi miles since launching in June of last year pic.twitter.com/E8ldSW36La
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 28, 2026
With the expansion, Tesla will be able to penetrate more of the ride-sharing market, disrupting the human-operated platforms like Uber and Lyft, which are usually more expensive and are dependent on availability.
Tesla launched driverless rides in Austin last week, but they’ve been few and far between, as the company is certainly easing into the program with a very cautiously optimistic attitude, aiming to prioritize safety.
Investor's Corner
Tesla (TSLA) Q4 and FY 2025 earnings call: The most important points
Executives, including CEO Elon Musk, discussed how the company is positioning itself for growth across vehicles, energy, AI, and robotics despite near-term pressures from tariffs, pricing, and macro conditions.
Tesla’s (NASDAQ:TSLA) Q4 and FY 2025 earnings call highlighted improving margins, record energy performance, expanding autonomy efforts, and a sharp acceleration in AI and robotics investments.
Executives, including CEO Elon Musk, discussed how the company is positioning itself for growth across vehicles, energy, AI, and robotics despite near-term pressures from tariffs, pricing, and macro conditions.
Key takeaways
Tesla reported sequential improvement in automotive gross margins excluding regulatory credits, rising from 15.4% to 17.9%, supported by favorable regional mix effects despite a 16% decline in deliveries. Total gross margin exceeded 20.1%, the highest level in more than two years, even with lower fixed-cost absorption and tariff impacts.
The energy business delivered standout results, with revenue reaching nearly $12.8 billion, up 26.6% year over year. Energy gross profit hit a new quarterly record, driven by strong global demand and high deployments of MegaPack and Powerwall across all regions, as noted in a report from The Motley Fool.
Tesla also stated that paid Full Self-Driving customers have climbed to nearly 1.1 million worldwide, with about 70% having purchased FSD outright. The company has now fully transitioned FSD to a subscription-based sales model, which should create a short-term margin headwind for automotive results.
Free cash flow totaled $1.4 billion for the quarter. Operating expenses rose by $500 million sequentially as well.
Production shifts, robotics, and AI investment
Musk further confirmed that Model S and Model X production is expected to wind down next quarter, and plans are underway to convert Fremont’s S/X line into an Optimus robot factory with a capacity of one million units.
Tesla’s Robotaxi fleet has surpassed 500 vehicles, operating across the Bay Area and Austin, with Musk noting a rapid monthly expansion pace. He also reiterated that CyberCab production is expected to begin in April, following a slow initial S-curve ramp before scaling beyond other vehicle programs.
Looking ahead, Tesla expects its capital expenditures to exceed $20 billion next year, thanks to the company’s operations across its six factories, the expansion of its fleet expansion, and the ramp of its AI compute. Additional investments in AI chips, compute infrastructure, and future in-house semiconductor manufacturing were discussed but are not included in the company’s current CapEx guidance.
More importantly, Tesla ended the year with a larger backlog than in recent years. This is supported by record deliveries in smaller international markets and stronger demand across APAC and EMEA. Energy backlog remains strong globally as well, though Tesla cautioned that margin pressure could emerge from competition, policy uncertainty, and tariffs.
Tesla is bringing closure to its flagship Model S and Model X vehicles, which CEO Elon Musk said several years ago were only produced for “sentimental reasons.”
The Model S and Model X have been light contributors to Tesla’s delivery growth over the past few years, commonly contributing only a few percentage points toward the over 1.7 million cars the company has handed over to customers annually since 2022.
However, the Model S and Model X have remained in production because of their high-end performance and flagship status; they are truly two vehicles that are premium offerings and do not hold major weight toward Tesla’s future goals.
On Wednesday, during the Q4 2025 Earnings Call, Musk confirmed that Tesla would bring closure to the two models, ending their production and making way for the manufacturing efforts of the Optimus robot:
“It is time to bring the Model S and Model X programs to an end with an honorable discharge. It is time to bring the S/X programs to an end. It’s part of our overall shift to an autonomous future.”
Musk said the production lines that Tesla has for the Model S and Model X at the Fremont Factory in Northern California will be transitioned to Optimus production lines that will produce one million units per year.
Tesla Fremont Factory celebrates 15 years of electric vehicle production
Tesla will continue to service Model S and Model X vehicles, but it will officially stop deliveries of the cars in Q2, as inventory will be liquidated. When they’re gone, they’re gone.
BREAKING: Tesla will wind down Model S and Model X production next quarter, Elon Musk confirms.
“It is time to bring the Model S and Model X programs to an end with an honorable discharge.” pic.twitter.com/Czn7aQjJE1
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 28, 2026
Tesla has been making moves to sunset the two vehicles for the better part of one year. Last July, it stopped taking any custom orders for vehicles in Europe, essentially pushing the idea that the program was coming to a close soon.
Musk said back in 2019:
“I mean, they’re very expensive, made in low volume. To be totally frank, we’re continuing to make them more for sentimental reasons than anything else. They’re really of minor importance to the future.”
That point is more relevant than ever as Tesla is ending the production of the cars to make way for Optimus, which will likely be Tesla’s biggest product in the coming years.
Musk added during the Earnings Call on Wednesday that he believes Optimus will be a major needle-mover of the United States’ GDP, as it will increase productivity and enable universal high income for humans.
Tesla confirms Robotaxi expansion plans with new cities and aggressive timeline
Tesla (TSLA) Q4 and FY 2025 earnings call: The most important points
