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.
After launching in Austin, Texas, last week, Tesla is looking to expand the Cybercab to new parts of the United States in an effort that will see the driverless, steering wheel-less, and pedal-less vehicle chauffeur people around as part of the Robotaxi ride-hailing service.
However, the expansion will go far beyond the United States, and CEO Elon Musk revealed he hopes Europe will be the next market where Cybercab will be operational.
Musk has publicly expressed hope that Tesla’s Cybercab robotaxi will reach Europe in the near future.
On September 8, Tesla’s Chief Executive quoted a German rider who had just completed a trip in Austin, Texas, and wrote that he hoped the vehicle would not take years to arrive in Germany. Musk replied with a short but notable message: “Hopefully soon in Europe too.”
Hopefully soon in Europe too https://t.co/vqQ69bLJuN
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 8, 2026
The comment arrived only days after Tesla opened Cybercab ride-hailing to the public in Austin. The two-seat vehicle has no steering wheel or pedals and relies entirely on Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software. Early passengers have described the rides as quiet, smooth, and more stylish than competing robotaxis such as Waymo.
Austin is currently the only city where members of the public can hail a Cybercab through Tesla’s Robotaxi app. The initial fleet is small; Texas registration records show only a few dozen of the purpose-built vehicles on the road.
Tesla set to open Cybercab rides to the public, with no steering wheel or pedals
Tesla has also been operating a larger number of conventional Model Y robotaxis in the same area, but the Cybercab itself represents the company’s first dedicated, controls-free taxi design.
Europe presents a different regulatory picture. The European Union does not permit manufacturers to self-certify vehicles the way Tesla did in the United States.
Type-approval rules and a small-series limit of 1,500 automated vehicles per type per year apply across the bloc.
Supervised Full Self-Driving has gained provisional approval in several member states through national recognition of Dutch certification, yet unsupervised robotaxi operation remains a separate and more distant step. Tesla has not announced a European launch city, date, or approval pathway for the Cybercab.
Musk himself has previously cautioned that the company does not control European regulators. In an earnings call earlier in 2026, he noted that even supervised FSD took an “immense amount of time” to clear and that unsupervised service would be “somewhat at the mercy of the governments in Europe and the EU.”
The latest social-media remark therefore functions more as an expression of intent than a timetable.
If the Cybercab eventually reaches European streets, it would mark a significant expansion of Tesla’s robotaxi ambitions beyond the United States. For now, the vehicle remains an Austin-only experience, and the gap between Musk’s hope and actual deployment will be decided by regulators rather than by engineering alone.
Tesla Cybercab might have just rolled out to the public as it entered the company’s Robotaxi suite in Austin this past week. However, the vehicle might already be on its way to becoming even better, as the company is asking riders to describe what they’d like to see improved with the Cybercab.
Tesla sent a rider experience survey to Cybercab passengers only days after paid rides began in Austin. The questionnaire asks how satisfied riders were with the overall trip. Then it requests star ratings for availability and wait time, door functionality, vehicle touchscreen, mobile app experience, seat comfort, interior space, ride comfort, cleanliness, and cargo space.
A later section asks which features riders would most like to have and allows selection of up to three items from a list that includes heated seats, ventilated seats, fully reclining seats, a tray table, a wireless phone charger, a better sound system, and more storage. Respondents may also choose none of these or write in another idea. The survey closes with a recommendation score from zero to ten.
Tesla just sent out a Cybercab rider experience survey so you can give feedback to the team. pic.twitter.com/YsU5OYdAjW
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 8, 2026
This rapid request for input illustrates Tesla’s habit of treating early users as collaborators rather than mere customers. The company has long refined vehicles through software updates and hardware changes informed by real-world use across its passenger cars.
Collecting structured opinions so soon after commercial service started shows the same mindset applied to a purpose-built autonomous taxi. The questions themselves reveal an openness to cabin changes even after the first vehicles reached public streets, which is no surprise.
Tesla has always hoped to cater a great experience to anyone in its vehicles, which is why so many fan-requested features have made it into its vehicles.
Replies already circulating online favor reclining seats, tray tables, wireless charging, improved audio, and extra room when seats fold back.
Tesla Cybercabs narrowly miss deadly Amazon cargo plane crash
Those preferences point toward comfort upgrades that Tesla can implement in later production batches or through cabin revisions. Because the Cybercab is designed around software first principles, many requested amenities can arrive faster than in traditional automakers.
Tesla’s willingness to survey riders immediately after launch therefore makes near-term cabin and experience improvements likely as the team reviews responses and iterates toward a more refined robotaxi people will choose daily.
Tesla Cybertruck Lead Engineer Wes Morrill revealed the company has made several changes to the all-electric pickup, which he calls a “living thing, constantly evolving and improving.”
Cybertruck is manufactured at Tesla’s Gigafactory Texas just outside of Austin, and over the past few years, Tesla has continued to make small changes to the pickup to improve everything from cost, reliability, serviceablility, and manufacturability.
“The finish line isn’t getting to production. A product is a living thing, constantly evolving and improving,” Morrill added.
RELATED:
Tesla Cybertruck AWD is a steal at $60k, is it still at $75k? Full Review
Some of those changes are yet to be revealed, but perhaps the most notable one was the change Tesla made to the aero shield that sits underneath the truck. In the past, it was aluminum, but now the Cybertruck is using a self-reinforcing polypropylene.
Morrill said that the polypropylene is “stretched into fibers and then laminated into the form,” and is much more durable, much lighter, and significantly cheaper than aluminum when it is manufactured this way.
It also enabled some improvements in the geometry of the Cybertruck, improving the manufacturing around the bolts and edges, in addition to minor form changes. These all benefitted the Cybertruck in more ways than one: specifically with durability and improved drag.
I was surprised by how interested people were to find out we made a relatively benign change to the Cybertruck aero shield, a part of the car most people never even see. So I’ll share some more details.
Here are two photos, the left is one of the latest trucks off the… pic.twitter.com/F5cZo2CZKf
— Wes (@wmorrill3) September 7, 2026
Typically, Teslas are not necessarily identified by model year because these changes are fluid and occur when the company sees fit to implement them. It is not like other automotive companies, which usually make sweeping manufacturing changes when building a new model year.
Instead, Teslas are recognized by their “generation” or “era.” For example, those with a newer Model Y might refer to their car as a “Juniper.” This is the same with Model 3, as many refer to the new body style as the “Highland.”
Tesla’s manufacturing changes are proof of the company’s constant need to improve its products and move things forward with its vehicles. There is no need to drag one’s feet and wait until next year if the product can be made better right now, and that’s precisely what Tesla did with the Cybertruck.
Elon Musk hints at Tesla Cybercab’s next market
Tesla Cybercab improvements are already on the minds of company engineers
