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 puts Giga Berlin in Plaid Mode with new massive investment
The facility, Tesla’s first in Europe, opened in 2022 and has become a cornerstone for Model Y production and, increasingly, in-house battery manufacturing. Recent announcements highlight a dual focus on scaling vehicle output and advancing vertical integration through 4680 battery cells.
Tesla is pushing forward with significant upgrades at its Gigafactory Berlin-Brandenburg in Grünheide, Germany, signaling renewed confidence in its European operations despite past market challenges.
The facility, Tesla’s first in Europe, opened in 2022 and has become a cornerstone for Model Y production and, increasingly, in-house battery manufacturing. Recent announcements highlight a dual focus on scaling vehicle output and advancing vertical integration through 4680 battery cells.
In April, plant manager André Thierig announced a 20 percent increase in Model Y production starting in July, following a record Q1 output of more than 61,000 vehicles. To support the ramp-up, Tesla plans to hire approximately 1,000 new employees beginning in May and convert 500 temporary workers to permanent positions.
The move is expected to lift weekly production significantly, addressing rebounding demand in Europe after a challenging 2025.
Today, we announced a $ 250m investment for our Giga Berlin Cell factory. This will enable 18GWh of annual 4680 cell production and create more than 1500 new jobs. Good news during challenging times for the German industry. pic.twitter.com/ou4SWMfWh9
— André Thierig (@AndrThie) May 12, 2026
The expansion builds on earlier progress. In 2025, Tesla secured partial approvals to add roughly 2 million square feet of factory space, raising potential annual vehicle capacity from around 500,000 toward 800,000 units, with longer-term ambitions approaching one million vehicles per year. Logistical improvements, new infrastructure, and battery-related facilities are already underway on company-owned land.
Battery production is the latest major focus. On May 12, Thierig revealed an additional $250 million investment in the on-site cell factory. This more than doubles the planned 4680 battery cell capacity to 18 gigawatt-hours annually—up from the 8 GWh target set in December 2025—while creating over 1,500 new battery-related jobs.
Total cell investments at the site now exceed previous figures, bringing the factory closer to full vertical integration: cells, packs, and vehicles produced under one roof. Tesla describes this as unique in Europe and a step toward stronger supply chain resilience.
The plans come amid regulatory and community hurdles. Earlier expansion proposals faced protests over environmental concerns and water usage, leading to phased approvals beginning in 2024. Tesla has navigated these by emphasizing sustainable practices and economic benefits, including thousands of local jobs in Brandenburg.
With nearly 12,000 employees already on site and production steadily climbing, Gigafactory Berlin is poised for growth. The combined vehicle and battery expansions position the plant as a key hub for Tesla’s European ambitions, potentially making it one of the continent’s largest manufacturing complexes if local support continues.
As EV demand recovers, these investments underscore Tesla’s commitment to scaling efficiently in Germany while addressing regional supply chain needs.
News
Honda gives up on all-EV future: ‘Not realistic’
Mibe believes the demand for its gas vehicles is certainly strong enough and has changed “beyond expectations.” As many drivers went for EVs a few years back, hybrids are becoming more popular for consumers as they offer the best of both worlds.
Honda has given up on a previous plan to completely changeover to EVs by 2040, a new report states. The company’s CEO, Toshihiro Mibe, said that the idea is “not realistic.”
Mibe believes the demand for its gas vehicles is certainly strong enough and has changed “beyond expectations.” As many drivers went for EVs a few years back, hybrids are becoming more popular for consumers as they offer the best of both worlds.
Mibe said (via Motor1):
“Because of the uncertainty in the business environment and also the customer demand, is changing beyond our expectation and, therefore, we have judged that it’ll be difficult to achieve. That ratio [100-percent electric in 2040] is not realistic as of now. We have withdrawn this target.”
Instead of going all-electric, Honda still wants to oblige by its hopes to be net carbon neutral by 2050. It will do this by focusing on those popular hybrid powertrains, planning to launch 15 of them by March 2030.
Honda will invest 4.4 trillion yen, or almost $28 billion, to build hybrid powertrains built around four and six-cylinder gas engines.
There are so many companies abandoning their all-electric ambitions or even slowing their roll on building them so quickly. Ford, General Motors, Mercedes, and Nissan have all retreated from aggressive EV targets by either cancelling, delaying, or pausing the development of electric models.
Hyundai’s 2030 targets rely on mixed offerings of electric, hybrid & hydrogen vehicles
Early-decade pledges from multiple brands proved overly ambitious as infrastructure lags, battery costs remain high in some markets, and many buyers prefer hybrids for their convenience and range. Toyota has long championed hybrids, while others have quietly extended internal-combustion timelines.
For Honda—historically known for reliable gasoline engines—this shift leverages its core strengths while buying time to refine electric technology. Whether the hybrid-heavy strategy will protect market share in an increasingly competitive landscape remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the gas engine is far from dead at Honda, unfortunately.
Elon Musk
Delta Airlines rejects Starlink, and the reason will probably shock you
In a pointed exchange on X, Elon Musk defended SpaceX’s uncompromising approach to Starlink’s in-flight internet service, explaining why Delta Air Lines walked away from a deal.
SpaceX frontman Elon Musk explained on Wednesday why commercial airline Delta got cold feet over offering Starlink for stable internet on its flights — and the reason will probably shock you.
In a pointed exchange on X, Elon Musk defended SpaceX’s uncompromising approach to Starlink’s in-flight internet service, explaining why Delta Air Lines walked away from a deal.
Delta rejected Starlink because it insisted on routing all connectivity through its branded “Delta Sync” portal rather than allowing a simple Starlink experience.
Instead, the airline partnered with Amazon’s Project Kuiper—rebranded as Amazon Leo—for high-speed Wi-Fi on up to 500 aircraft, with rollout targeted for 2028. At the time of the announcement, Kuiper had roughly 300 satellites in orbit, while Starlink operated more than 10,400.
The use of the “Delta Sync” portal would not work for SpaceX, as Musk went on to say that:
“SpaceX requires that there be no annoying ‘portal’ to use Starlink. Starlink WiFi must just work effortlessly every time, as though you were at home. Delta wanted to make it painful, difficult and expensive for their customers. Hard to see how that is a winning strategy.”
Musk doubled down in a follow-up post:
“Yes, SpaceX deliberately accepted lower revenue deals with airlines in exchange for making Starlink super easy to use and available to all passengers.”
Not exactly. SpaceX requires that there be no annoying “portal” to use Starlink.
Starlink WiFi must just work effortlessly every time, as though you were at home.
Delta wanted to make it painful, difficult and expensive for their customers. Hard to see how that is a winning…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 13, 2026
SpaceX has structured its airline agreements to prioritize zero-friction access—no captive portals, no SkyMiles logins, no paywalls or ads blocking basic connectivity.
While this means forgoing higher-margin deals that would let carriers monetize the service more aggressively, it ensures Starlink feels like home broadband at 35,000 feet. Passengers on partner airlines such as United, Qatar Airways, and Air France have already praised the service for enabling seamless video calls, streaming, and work mid-flight without interruptions.
Delta’s choice reflects a different philosophy. By keeping Wi-Fi behind its Delta Sync ecosystem, the airline aims to drive loyalty program engagement and control the digital passenger journey. Yet, critics argue this short-term control comes at the expense of immediate competitiveness.
Airlines already installing Starlink are pulling ahead in customer satisfaction surveys, while Delta passengers face years of reliance on slower, legacy systems until Leo launches.
SpaceX’s decision to trade revenue for simplicity will pay off in the longer term, as Starlink is already positioning itself as the default high-speed option for carriers that value passenger satisfaction over incremental fees.
Musk’s focus on creating not only a great service but also a reasonable user experience highlights SpaceX’s prowess with Starlink as it continues to expand across new partners and regions.
Tesla puts Giga Berlin in Plaid Mode with new massive investment
Honda gives up on all-EV future: ‘Not realistic’
