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
SpaceX’s triple-rocket that launched a Tesla into space is back on a mission
SpaceX Falcon Heavy returns after 18 months away to deliver a satellite that only it could carry.
After an 18-month absence, SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy is returning to mission on Monday morning when it’s scheduled to lift off from Launch Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center at 10:21 a.m. EDT.
The mission is called ViaSat-3 F3, and the heavy satellite payload needs to reach geostationary orbit, sitting 22,236 miles above Earth where its speed matches the planet’s rotation. Getting a satellite that heavy to that altitude demands more thrust than a single-core Falcon 9 can deliver.
This marks the Falcon Heavy’s 12th flight overall since its debut in February 2018, and its first since NASA’s Europa Clipper mission in October 2024.
Arguably, the most exciting element for spectators will be watching the booster recoveries in action when the two side boosters, B1072 and B1075, will attempt simultaneous landings at Landing Zone 2 and the newer Landing Zone 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, while the center core will be expended over the ocean.
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
Following satellite deployment, expected roughly five hours after launch, ViaSat-3 F3 will spend several months traveling to its final orbital slot before undergoing in-orbit testing, with service entry expected by late summer 2026
As Teslarati reported, NASA awarded SpaceX a $175.7 million contract on April 16, 2026 to launch the ESA Rosalind Franklin Mars rover aboard a Falcon Heavy no earlier than late 2028, which would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars. That contract came on top of an already deep pipeline that includes the Roman Space Telescope, the Dragonfly Saturn mission, and multiple national security payloads.
SpaceX executed 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. With Starlink surpassing 10 million subscribers and an IPO targeting a $1.75 trillion valuation still ahead, Monday’s launch is one more data point in a company that has quietly become the backbone of both commercial and government space access worldwide.
Tesla is launching its solution to end Supercharger fights once and for all, eliminating any confusion on who is to charge next at a congested location.
Last year, a notable incident at a Tesla Supercharger led to a fight, and it all stemmed from a disagreement over who arrived at the location first.
Congestion at Tesla Superchargers is a pretty infrequent occurrence for most of us, but there are more congested and popular areas where wait times can be extensive. An unfortunate growing pain of EV ownership is the plain fact that chargers are not as available as gas pumps, and there are, at times, lines to charge.
This can cause tensions to flare and people to get entitled when visiting Superchargers. Nobody wants to spend hours at a Supercharger, but now, there will be no more confusion when there is a queue, and that’s thanks to Tesla’s new Virtual Queue for Superchargers.
Tesla is finally starting to build out the Virtual Supercharger Queue, according to Not a Tesla App, but it still relies on drivers to make it work.
When a driver is near a Supercharger that is full, a message will pop up on the Tesla App, using the driver’s location to determine their eligibility to join the virtual queue.
The app states:
“While the app is closed, Tesla uses your location to notify you of accurate wait times at Superchargers when you arrive.”
Another message within the app states:
“There is a waitlist to charge. Are you sure you want to start a charging session now?”
This sounds as if it will require drivers to act appropriately and only plug in when the app prompts them to do so, by letting them know it is their turn.
The app will notify the driver of their position in the queue, as well as how many vehicles are ahead of them.
Tesla launches first ‘true’ East Coast V4 Supercharger: here’s what that means
The company announced a while back that it would be working on a solution for this issue. Personally, I’ve only had to wait at a Supercharger for a charge on one occasion, and there was a line of between 3 and 10 cars during this singular occurrence.
I’m out at the Lancaster, PA Supercharger and showed up with a queue of three vehicles.
It’s now up to five and there have been several issues with order of arrival and confusion about who is first.
Any update on Supercharger queue? @elonmusk @aelluswamy @r_jegaa
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 31, 2026
There were no conflicts or arguments about who had arrived first, but there was some discussion between several drivers during my time there about who was to charge first. Throw a non-Tesla EV into the mix, one that can only charge at a pull-in spot, and that causes even more of a complication.
News
Tesla offers awesome Free Supercharging incentive on an unexpected vehicle
In the past, Tesla has used Free Supercharging to incentivize the purchase of its expensive vehicles, like the Model S and Model X. However, those vehicles are leaving the company lineup, and Tesla saw a benefit from applying the incentive to another car.
Tesla is offering an awesome new Free Supercharging incentive on a vehicle that is sort of unexpected.
In the past, Tesla has used Free Supercharging to incentivize the purchase of its expensive vehicles, like the Model S and Model X. However, those vehicles are leaving the company lineup, and Tesla saw a benefit from applying the incentive to another car.
Tesla North America has introduced a compelling new incentive aimed at boosting Model 3 sales. Starting with orders placed on or after April 24, buyers of the Model 3 Premium (Long Range) and Performance variants in the United States will receive one full year of complimentary Supercharging.
The offer applies exclusively to new vehicle orders and does not extend to existing owners or other trims like the base Rear-Wheel Drive model.
New orders of Model 3 Premium & Performance now come with 1 year of free Supercharging 🇺🇸
Also, all Teslas pay the lowest Supercharging rates – all others pay a ~40% premium or need a subscription
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) April 24, 2026
The announcement underscores Tesla’s continued dominance in EV charging infrastructure.
While the incentive provides 12 months of zero-cost access to the Supercharger network, Tesla also reiterated its pricing structure: all Tesla vehicles receive the lowest Supercharging rates.
Non-Tesla EVs, by contrast, pay approximately 40 percent more per kWh or must purchase a subscription to access the network at standard rates. This tiered approach highlights the strategic value of owning a Tesla, where seamless integration with the world’s largest and most reliable fast-charging network remains a key differentiator.
For prospective buyers, the savings can be substantial. Depending on driving habits, a typical Model 3 owner might log 12,000–15,000 miles annually.
With average Supercharging costs around $0.40–$0.50 per kWh, one year of free sessions could translate to $800–$1,200 in avoided expenses.
That effectively lowers the total cost of ownership and makes long-distance travel more affordable from day one. Early delivery customers have already noted similar past incentives, with one Cybertruck owner reporting over $2,400 saved in just six months under similar offers that Tesla has deployed in the past.
The timing of the offer appears strategic. Tesla faces growing competition from other automakers expanding their own charging networks and offering aggressive EV incentives.
By bundling free Supercharging rather than discounting the vehicle’s MSRP, Tesla preserves perceived value while directly addressing one of the biggest barriers for new EV adopters: charging costs and convenience.
The move also encourages higher-mileage use of the network, generating valuable real-world data for Tesla’s autonomous driving development.
Why Tesla would apply this incentive to the Model 3 is pretty interesting. It usually is a pretty good incentive to move units out the door, so there’s some speculation whether Tesla is planning to launch new upgrades to the mass-market sedan in the coming months, and the company wants to move what will be outdated units from its inventory.
However, there is also just the idea that Tesla could be attempting to stimulate some early quarter demand for the Model 3, especially as the Model Y continues to sell very well. Tesla’s loss of the $7,500 EV tax credit last year had an impact on sales, and Tesla might be testing some formidable options to see if it can add some demand once again.
SpaceX’s triple-rocket that launched a Tesla into space is back on a mission
The FCC just said ‘No’ to SpaceX for now
