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 adds a new feature to Navigation in preparation for a new vehicle
After CEO Elon Musk announced earlier this week that the Semi’s mass production processes were scheduled for later this year, the company has been making various preparations as it nears manufacturing.
Tesla has added a new feature to its Navigation and Supercharger Map in preparation for a new vehicle to hit the road: the Semi.
After CEO Elon Musk announced earlier this week that the Semi’s mass production processes were scheduled for later this year, the company has been making various preparations as it nears manufacturing.
Elon Musk confirms Tesla Semi will enter high-volume production this year
One of those changes has been the newly-released information regarding trim levels, as well as reports that Tesla has started to reach out to customers regarding pricing information for those trims.
Now, Tesla has made an additional bit of information available to the public in the form of locations of Megachargers, the infrastructure that will be responsible for charging the Semi and other all-electric Class 8 vehicles that hit the road.
Tesla made the announcement on the social media platform X:
We put Semi Megachargers on the map
→ https://t.co/Jb6p7OPXMi pic.twitter.com/stwYwtDVSB
— Tesla Semi (@tesla_semi) February 10, 2026
Although it is a minor development, it is a major indication that Tesla is preparing for the Semi to head toward mass production, something the company has been hinting at for several years.
Nevertheless, this, along with the other information that was released this week, points toward a significant stride in Tesla’s progress in the Semi project.
Now that the company has also worked toward completion of the dedicated manufacturing plant in Sparks, Nevada, there are more signs than ever that the vehicle is finally ready to be built and delivered to customers outside of the pilot program that has been in operation for several years.
For now, the Megachargers are going to be situated on the West Coast, with a heavy emphasis on routes like I-5 and I-10. This strategy prioritizes major highways and logistics hubs where freight traffic is heaviest, ensuring coverage for both cross-country and regional hauls.
California and Texas are slated to have the most initially, with 17 and 19 sites, respectively. As the program continues to grow, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Washington, New York, and Nevada will have Megacharger locations as well.
For now, the Megachargers are available in Lathrop, California, and Sparks, Nevada, both of which have ties to Tesla. The former is the location of the Megafactory, and Sparks is where both the Tesla Gigafactory and Semifactory are located.
Elon Musk
Tesla stock gets latest synopsis from Jim Cramer: ‘It’s actually a robotics company’
“Turns out it’s actually a robotics and Cybercab company, and I want to buy, buy, buy. Yes, Tesla’s the paper that turned into scissors in one session,” Cramer said.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) got its latest synopsis from Wall Street analyst Jim Cramer, who finally realized something that many fans of the company have known all along: it’s not a car company. Instead, it’s a robotics company.
In a recent note that was released after Tesla reported Earnings in late January, Cramer seemed to recognize that the underwhelming financials and overall performance of the automotive division were not representative of the current state of affairs.
Instead, we’re seeing a company transition itself away from its early identity, essentially evolving like a caterpillar into a butterfly.
The narrative of the Earnings Call was simple: We’re not a car company, at least not from a birds-eye view. We’re an AI and Robotics company, and we are transitioning to this quicker than most people realize.
Tesla stock gets another analysis from Jim Cramer, and investors will like it
Tesla’s Q4 Earnings Call featured plenty of analysis from CEO Elon Musk and others, and some of the more minor details of the call were even indicative of a company that is moving toward AI instead of its cars. For example, the Model S and Model X will be no more after Q2, as Musk said that they serve relatively no purpose for the future.
Instead, Tesla is shifting its focus to the vehicles catered for autonomy and its Robotaxi and self-driving efforts.
Cramer recognizes this:
“…we got results from Tesla, which actually beat numbers, but nobody cares about the numbers here, as electric vehicles are the past. And according to CEO Elon Musk, the future of this company comes down to Cybercabs and humanoid robots. Stock fell more than 3% the next day. That may be because their capital expenditures budget was higher than expected, or maybe people wanted more details from the new businesses. At this point, I think Musk acolytes might be more excited about SpaceX, which is planning to come public later this year.”
He continued, highlighting the company’s true transition away from vehicles to its Cybercab, Optimus, and AI ambitions:
“I know it’s hard to believe how quickly this market can change its attitude. Last night, I heard a disastrous car company speak. Turns out it’s actually a robotics and Cybercab company, and I want to buy, buy, buy. Yes, Tesla’s the paper that turned into scissors in one session. I didn’t like it as a car company. Boy, I love it as a Cybercab and humanoid robot juggernaut. Call me a buyer and give me five robots while I’m at it.”
Cramer’s narrative seems to fit that of the most bullish Tesla investors. Anyone who is labeled a “permabull” has been echoing a similar sentiment over the past several years: Tesla is not a car company any longer.
Instead, the true focus is on the future and the potential that AI and Robotics bring to the company. It is truly difficult to put Tesla shares in the same group as companies like Ford, General Motors, and others.
Tesla shares are down less than half a percent at the time of publishing, trading at $423.69.
Elon Musk
SpaceX secures win as US labor board drops oversight case
The NLRB confirmed that it no longer has jurisdiction over SpaceX.
SpaceX scored a legal victory after the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decided to dismiss a case which accused the company of terminating engineers who were involved in an open letter against founder Elon Musk.
The NLRB confirmed that it no longer has jurisdiction over SpaceX. The update was initially shared by Bloomberg News, which cited a letter about the matter it reportedly reviewed.
In a letter to the former employees’ lawyers, the labor board stated that the affected employees were under the jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board (NMB), not the NLRB. As a result, the labor board stated that it was dismissing the case.
As per Danielle Pierce, a regional director of the agency, “the National Labor Relations Board lacks jurisdiction over the Employer and, therefore, I am dismissing your charge.”
The NMB typically oversees airlines and railroads. The NLRB, on the other hand, covers most private-sector employers, as well as manufacturers such as Boeing.
The former SpaceX engineers have argued that the private space company did not belong under the NMB’s jurisdiction because SpaceX only offers services to “hand-picked customers.”
In an opinion, however, the NMB stated that SpaceX was under its jurisdiction because “space transport includes air travel” to get to outer space. The mediation board also noted that anyone can contact SpaceX to secure its services.
SpaceX had previously challenged the NLRB’s authority in court, arguing that the agency’s structure was unconstitutional. Jennifer Abruzzo, the NLRB general counsel under former United States President Joe Biden, rejected SpaceX’s claims. Following Abruzzo’s termination under the Trump administration, however, SpaceX asked the labor board to reconsider its arguments.
SpaceX is not the only company that has challenged the constitutionality of the NLRB. Since SpaceX filed its legal challenge against the agency in 2024, other high-profile companies have followed suit. These include Amazon, which has filed similar cases that are now pending.
Tesla adds a new feature to Navigation in preparation for a new vehicle
Tesla stock gets latest synopsis from Jim Cramer: ‘It’s actually a robotics company’
