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.
Tesla is pushing back against the unfair reporting of accidents involving its vehicles. Many media outlets were quick to jump to conclusions about a fatal accident involving a Tesla in Katy, Texas, that happened recently.
The driver of the vehicle, which slammed into a brick house and killed a woman inside, stated the car was operating on Autopilot. Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy both challenged that claim, with Elluswamy revealing last night that the system was overridden by the driver, who pressed the accelerator pedal “all the way to 100%.”
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The car reached a speed of 73 MPH during the crash, Elluswamy detailed, and stated that the accelerator pedal was even pressed after the crash.
The story has been spread throughout the media with either incomplete or incorrect reporting, with some stories still not updated nearly 24 hours after Musk and Elluswamy posted answers about the crash on X.
The reporting has been a thorn in the side of Tesla for several years. Vehicle accidents involving Teslas are usually reported with the manufacturer’s name in the headline, while other companies are free of criticism when their cars are involved in accidents.
Here’s an example of that:
So you don’t report the vehicle’s make when it isn’t a Tesla, but you do report it when it is a Tesla?
The vehicle in your post above is a Hyundai Ioniq 5 EV. pic.twitter.com/4WT3sZ2DHm— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) February 17, 2026
Many media outlets stated the car was in “self-driving mode” or “Autopilot mode” when the car crashed. The truth is, now that Tesla has chimed in, that the driver had manually overriden the system by pressing the accelerator. Elluswamy commented on the unfair reporting:
“This blatantly irresponsible reporting does more harm to people than they realize.
Using Tesla self-driving is far safer than manual driving, and this was measured over 10B miles.
Planting such FUD in the minds of general public, who might not know the all the facts, might prevent them from using this technology that makes them safer.”
This blatantly irresponsible reporting does more harm to people than they realize.
Using Tesla self-driving is far safer than manual driving, and this was measured over 10B miles.
Planting such FUD in the minds of general public, who might not know the all the facts, might…
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
The damage these headlines do to Tesla and the self-driving car movement is unexplainable. Most people do not realize the safeguards that are in place with Tesla’s self-driving functions; many people who have used it know the car would never travel at that speed in a residential area, not even on the most aggressive “Mad Max” setting.
It is important to remember that Tesla Full Self-Driving is not autonomous, and the company never claimed it was. Drivers are still responsible for paying attention and remaining vigilant. They must be able to take over at all times.
Tesla Supercharging is getting yet another layer of gamification, as the company is rolling out a new competition that could win Free Supercharging miles.
Tesla is ramping up its efforts to make vehicle ownership more engaging through gamification. In June 2026, the company announced the 2026 Free Supercharging Competition, building on the Charging Passport feature introduced the previous year. This initiative turns Supercharging into a competitive, collectible adventure while offering substantial real-world incentives.
🚨 Tesla is taking its gamification of Supercharging a step further with the launch of the 2026 Free Supercharging Contest:
“In January 2027, Tesla will celebrate nine outstanding Supercharger users from 2026 by awarding them free Supercharging for their Tesla vehicle for as… pic.twitter.com/CPPYJLJwFD
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 23, 2026
The Charging Passport, rolled out late last year, functions like a digital travel log or a year-in-review for Tesla owners. These types of things are used by many platforms, including Spotify and Apple Music, which show listeners what type of taste they had for the year.
Accessed in the Tesla App under the ‘Charging’ section, it displays a map of visited Superchargers, key stats, such as total energy charged (kWh), number of unique sites, total charging sessions, top charging day, and miles added. Owners earn collectible Charging Badges in categories, which include:
- Charging Milestones – for total energy, consecutive weeks of Supercharging, or unique sites visited
- Iconic Chargers – for Flagship Locations or stations near famous landmarks
- Special Events – limited-time badges for specific experiences. These badges appear within 24 hours of qualifying activity and provide a fun, shareable recap of an owner’s Supercharging journeys. Milestone progress resets annually, allowing fresh challenges each year
The 2026 contest elevates this gamification by rewarding top performers with lifetime free Supercharging. All Supercharging sessions from January 1 to December 31, 2026, count toward the competition. To participate, owners must enable “Share Charging Data with Tesla App” in vehicle settings and open the 2026 Charging Passport in the app at least once before January 1, 2027.
Nine winners will be selected — three per region (Americas, Asia-Pacific, and EMEA, with some countries excluded for regulatory reasons) — one in each of three categories:
- Longest Trip: Longest continuous streak of unique Supercharger locations where each new site is visited within 24 hours of the previous session’s start time
- Most Unique Supercharger Sites Visited: Highest number of distinct locations
- Most Energy Supercharged: Highest total in kWh charged at Superchargers
A unique site is defined as shown in the Tesla app or vehicle navigation. Repeat visits during a streak are allowed but do not extend the count. Ties are broken by total energy charged. Ineligible participants include vehicles already receiving free Supercharging, commercial-use vehicles (taxi, rideshare, delivery), Tesla employees and their immediate families, and residents of certain excluded countries.
Winners receive free Supercharging on the winning vehicle for as long as they own or lease it.
This contest is part of Tesla’s broader gamification strategy. The Safety Score has long rewarded safe driving habits with a numerical rating that can influence insurance rates or feature access. The referral program incentivizes owners with credits or free Supercharging months for successful referrals.
In-app statistics, streaks, and community features further encourage engagement. Older third-party apps even awarded “mayor” titles for frequenting specific Superchargers.
By combining digital badges, competitive leaderboards, and high-value rewards, Tesla boosts network utilization, gathers usage data, and fosters deeper owner loyalty. The 2026 Free Supercharging Competition invites enthusiasts to plan epic road trips while turning everyday charging into a rewarding pursuit. With the Passport already proving popular, expect heightened activity across the Supercharger network throughout the year.
Tesla is atop the American-Made Index from Cars.com for the sixth-straight year, as the Model 3 and Model Y took the top two spots, respectively.
Last year, the Model 3, Model Y, Model S, and Model X took the top four spots, respectively. The company has routinely performed well in the Index. However, Tesla discontinued its flagship Model S and Model X earlier this year, which took the two cars out of the ranking.
Cybertruck is not considered due to its curb weight being above the 8,500-pound threshold, which eliminates it from being required to have more detailed assembly information.
Cars.com uses five main categories to develop its rankings:
- Location(s) of final assembly
- Percentage of U.S. and Canadian parts
- Countries of origin for all available engines
- Countries of origin for all available transmissions
- U.S. manufacturing workforce
These five major factors are then put into a 100-point scale. The vehicles with the highest scores sit atop the list. The Model 3 edged out the Model Y.
🇺🇸 The Tesla Model 3 and Tesla Model Y have been put atop the American-Made Index from https://t.co/PXZ0g1pPb6, meaning they are the most American vehicles you can possibly buy.
This is the SIXTH-STRAIGHT year a Tesla has been listed as the most American-made vehicle: pic.twitter.com/HyraOmaxSL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 23, 2026
Tesla uses a strong domestic strategy to build its cars and parts domestically. It relies on intense vertical integration that reduces its dependence on global suppliers, keeping more value and jobs in the United States.
This strategy has helped Tesla gain a strong reputation for domestically produced vehicles and parts. However, it helps it with more than just awards like this one. Keeping a supply chain local has also helped insulate Tesla more than others from tariffs and supply chain disruptions.
This year’s American-Made Index from Cars.com studied nearly 400 vehicles from the 2026 model year. Tesla was the only manufacturer to have an EV inside the Top 10. The Kia EV9 was the next EV to make the list, scoring the 17th position.
The Hyundai IONIQ 5 was 21st, and the final EV to make the list was the Cadillac LYRIQ in 77th.
Tesla pushes back against unfair reporting of accidents
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
