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.
Elon Musk
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.1 texting and driving: we tested it
We decided to test it, and our main objective was to try to determine a more definitive label for when it would allow you to grab your phone and look at it without any nudge from the in-car driver monitoring system.
On Thursday, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said that Full Self-Driving v14.2.1 would enable texting and driving “depending on [the] context of surrounding traffic.”
Tesla CEO Elon Musk announces major update with texting and driving on FSD
We decided to test it, and our main objective was to try to determine a more definitive label for when it would allow you to grab your phone and look at it without any nudge from the in-car driver monitoring system.
I’d also like to add that, while Tesla had said back in early November that it hoped to allow this capability within one to two months, I still would not recommend you do it. Even if Tesla or Musk says it will allow you to do so, you should take into account the fact that many laws do not allow you to look at your phone. Be sure to refer to your local regulations surrounding texting and driving, and stay attentive to the road and its surroundings.
The Process
Based on Musk’s post on X, which said the ability to text and drive would be totally dependent on the “context of surrounding traffic,” I decided to try and find three levels of congestion: low, medium, and high.
I also tried as best as I could to always glance up at the road, a natural reaction, but I spent most of my time, during the spans of when it was in my hand, looking at my phone screen. I limited my time looking at the phone screen to a few seconds, five to seven at most. On local roads, I didn’t go over five seconds; once I got to the highway, I ensured the vehicle had no other cars directly in front of me.
Also, at any time I saw a pedestrian, I put my phone down and was fully attentive to the road. I also made sure there were no law enforcement officers around; I am still very aware of the law, which is why I would never do this myself if I were not testing it.
I also limited the testing to no more than one minute per attempt.
I am fully aware that this test might ruffle some feathers. I’m not one to text and drive, and I tried to keep this test as abbreviated as possible while still getting some insight on how often it would require me to look at the road once again.
The Results
Low Congestion Area
I picked a local road close to where I live at a time when I knew there would be very little traffic. I grabbed my phone and looked at it for no more than five seconds before I would glance up at the road to ensure everything was okay:
In full: the Low Congestion Area pic.twitter.com/6DqlBnekPn
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 4, 2025
Looking up at the road was still regular in frequency; I would glance up at the road after hitting that five-second threshold. Then I would look back down.
I had no nudges during this portion of the test. Traffic was far from even a light volume, and other vehicles around were very infrequently seen.
Medium Congestion Area
This area had significantly more traffic and included a stop at a traffic light. I still kept the consecutive time of looking at my phone to about five seconds.
I would quickly glance at the road to ensure everything was okay, then look back down at my phone, spending enough time looking at a post on Instagram, X, or Facebook to determine what it was about, before then peeking at the road again.
There was once again no alert to look at the road, and I started to question whether I was even looking at my phone long enough to get an alert:
In full: the Medium Congestion Area pic.twitter.com/gnhIfBVe6Q
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 4, 2025
Based on past versions of Full Self-Driving, especially dating back to v13, even looking out the window for too long would get me a nudge, and it was about the same amount of time, sometimes more, sometimes less, I would look out of a window to look at a house or a view.
High Congestion Area
I decided to use the highway as a High Congestion Area, and it finally gave me an alert to look at the road.
As strange as it is, I felt more comfortable looking down at my phone for a longer amount of time on the highway, especially considering there is a lower chance of a sudden stop or a dangerous maneuver by another car, especially as I was traveling just 5 MPH over in the left lane.
This is where I finally got an alert from the driver monitoring system, and I immediately put my phone down and returned to looking at the road:
In full: the High Congestion Area pic.twitter.com/K9rIn4ROvm
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 4, 2025
Once I was able to trigger an alert, I considered the testing over with. I think in the future I’d like to try this again with someone else in the car to keep their eyes on the road, but I’m more than aware that we can’t always have company while driving.
My True Thoughts
Although this is apparently enabled based on what was said, I still do not feel totally comfortable with it. I would not ever consider shooting a text or responding to messages because Full Self-Driving is enabled, and there are two reasons for that.
The first is the fact that if an accident were to happen, it would be my fault. Although it would be my fault, people would take it as Tesla’s fault, just based on what media headlines usually are with accidents involving these cars.
Secondly, I am still well aware that it’s against the law to use your phone while driving. In Pennsylvania, we have the Paul Miller Law, which prohibits people from even holding their phones, even at stop lights.
I’d feel much more comfortable using my phone if liability were taken off of me in case of an accident. I trust FSD, but I am still erring on the side of caution, especially considering Tesla’s website still indicates vehicle operators have to remain attentive while using either FSD or Autopilot.
Check out our full test below:
Elon Musk
Tesla CEO Elon Musk announces major update with texting and driving on FSD
“Depending on context of surrounding traffic, yes,” Musk said in regards to FSD v14.2.1 allowing texting and driving.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has announced a major update with texting and driving capabilities on Full Self-Driving v14.2.1, the company’s latest version of the FSD suite.
Tesla Full Self-Driving, even in its most mature and capable versions, is still a Level 2 autonomous driving suite, meaning it requires attention from the vehicle operator.
You cannot sleep, and you should not take attention away from driving; ultimately, you are still solely responsible for what happens with the car.
The vehicles utilize a cabin-facing camera to enable attention monitoring, and if you take your eyes off the road for too long, you will be admonished and advised to pay attention. After five strikes, FSD and Autopilot will be disabled.
However, Musk announced at the Annual Shareholder Meeting in early November that the company would look at the statistics, but it aimed to allow people to text and drive “within the next month or two.”
He said:
“I am confident that, within the next month or two, we’re gonna look at the safety statistics, but we will allow you to text and drive.”
“I am confident that, within the next month or two, we’re gonna look at the safety statistics, but we will allow you to text and drive.”
Does anyone think v14.3 will enable this? pic.twitter.com/N2yn0SK70M
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 23, 2025
Today, Musk confirmed that the current version of Full Self-Driving, which is FSD v14.2.1, does allow for texting and driving “depending on context of surrounding traffic.”
Depending on context of surrounding traffic, yes
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 4, 2025
There are some legitimate questions with this capability, especially as laws in all 50 U.S. states specifically prohibit texting and driving. It will be interesting to see the legality of it, because if a police officer sees you texting, they won’t know that you’re on Full Self-Driving, and you’ll likely be pulled over.
Some states prohibit drivers from even holding a phone when the car is in motion.
It is certainly a move toward unsupervised Full Self-Driving operation, but it is worth noting that Musk’s words state it will only allow the vehicle operator to do it depending on the context of surrounding traffic.
He did not outline any specific conditions that FSD would allow a driver to text and drive.
News
Tesla Semi just got a huge vote of confidence from 300-truck fleet
The confidential meeting marks a major step for the mid-sized carrier in evaluating the electric truck for its regional routes.
The Tesla Semi is moving closer to broader fleet adoption, with Keller Logistics Group wrapping up a key pre-production planning session with the electric vehicle maker’s team this week.
The confidential meeting marks a major step for the mid-sized carrier in evaluating the electric truck for its regional routes.
Keller’s pre-production Tesla Semi sessions
Keller Logistics Group, a family-owned carrier with over 300 tractors and 1,000 trailers operating in the Midwest and Southeast, completed the session to assess the Tesla Semi’s fit for its operations. The company’s routes typically span 500-600 miles per day, positioning it as an ideal tester for the Semi’s day cab configuration in standard logistics scenarios.
Details remain under mutual NDA, but the meeting reportedly focused on matching the truck to yard, shuttle and regional applications while scrutinizing economics like infrastructure, maintenance and incentives.
What Keller’s executives are saying
CEO Bryan Keller described the approach as methodical. “For us, staying ahead isn’t a headline, it’s a habit. From electrification and yard automation to digital visibility and warehouse technology, our teams are continually pressure-testing what’s next. The Tesla Semi discussion is one more way we evaluate new tools against our standards for safety, uptime, and customer ROI. We don’t chase trends, we pressure-test what works,” Keller said.
Benjamin Pierce, Chief Strategy Officer, echoed these sentiments. “Electrification and next-generation powertrains are part of a much broader transformation. Whether it’s proprietary yard systems like YardLink™, solar and renewable logistics solutions, or real-time vehicle intelligence, Keller’s approach stays the same, test it, prove it, and deploy it only when it strengthens service and total cost for our customers,” Pierce said.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.1 texting and driving: we tested it
Tesla CEO Elon Musk announces major update with texting and driving on FSD
