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 FSD mocks BMW human driver: Saves pedestrian from near miss
Tesla FSD anticipated a BMW driver’s lane drift before the human behind the wheel could react.
A video posted to r/TeslaFSD this week put a sharp spotlight on Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) software being able to react to pedestrian intent than an actual human driver behind the wheel. In the Reddit clip, a BMW driver can be seen rolling through a neighborhood street completely unaware of a pedestrian stepping in to cross. At the same time, a Tesla driving on FSD had already begun slowing down before the pedestrian even began their attempt to cross the street The BMW kept moving, prompting the pedestrian to hop back, while the Tesla came to a stop and provide right-of-way for the human to safely cross.
That gap between what the BMW driver saw and what FSD had already processed is the story. Tesla FSD wasn’t reacting to a person in the street, rather it was reading the signals that a person was about to enter it based on the pedestrian’s movement, trajectory, and their trajectory to telegraph intent.
Tesla’s FSD is now built on an end-to-end neural network trained on billions of real-world miles, learning to interpret subtle human behavioral cues the same way an experienced human driver does instinctively. The difference is consistency. A human driver distracted for two seconds misses what FSD does not.
Tesla sues California DMV over Autopilot and FSD advertising ruling
Reddit commenters in the thread were blunt about the BMW driver’s failure, with several pointing out that the pedestrian was visible well before the crossing. One response put it plainly that the car on FSD saw the situation developing before the human in the other car had registered there was a situation at all.
Tesla has published data showing FSD (Supervised) is 54% safer than a human driver, accumulated across billions of miles driven on the system. Elon Musk has said FSD v14 will outperform human drivers by a factor of two to three, and that v15 has “a shot” at a 10x improvement. Pedestrian safety is where the stakes are highest, and where intent prediction closes the gap fastest. At 30 mph, a car covers roughly 44 feet per second. An extra second of awareness from reading a person’s body language rather than waiting for them to step out is often the difference between a near miss and a fatality.
Video and community discussion: r/TeslaFSD on Reddit
FSD saves man from becoming a pancake. BMW driver nearly flattens him.
by
u/Qwertygolol in
TeslaFSD
News
Tesla Robotaxi gets a small but significant change
In the world of Tesla, where billion-dollar battery breakthroughs and autonomy milestones dominate headlines, a quiet design update can still pack a punch.
In the world of Tesla, where billion-dollar battery breakthroughs and autonomy milestones dominate headlines, a quiet design update can still pack a punch.
Last week in downtown Austin, sharp-eyed observers spotted a subtle but telling evolution on the Cybercab: a new “ROBOTAXI” logo graphic now graces the vehicle’s doors at Tesla’s Autonomy Popup.
What looks at first glance like a minor stylistic choice is, in fact, a deliberate rebranding move that hints at how the company envisions its robotaxi fleet fitting into everyday life.
The updated lettering is bold, graffiti-inspired, and unapologetically street-smart. Rendered in black with dripping white accents and a glowing yellow outline, the font evokes urban energy and playful irreverence.
Live From Downtown Austin:
Tesla Cybercab with new logo Graphic at their Autonomy Popup pic.twitter.com/MTTb9KDr3b
— David Moss (@DavidMoss) March 13, 2026
Gone is the sleek, minimalist typography that defined earlier Cybercab prototypes. In its place is something more human, almost rebellious.
The new logo pops against the Cybercab’s smooth, metallic body, turning the autonomous pod into a rolling piece of public art rather than just another futuristic taxi.
Designers know that fonts are silent brand ambassadors. They shape perception before a single ride is taken. Tesla’s classic sans-serif aesthetic screams precision engineering and Silicon Valley cool.
The new Robotaxi script leans into accessibility and fun, suggesting the vehicle is approachable, not intimidating. For a product meant to ferry strangers through city streets 24/7, that matters. It signals that the robotaxi isn’t reserved for tech elites; it’s for everyone.
Tesla Cybercab spotted next to Model Y shows size comparison
The timing is no accident. With regulatory approvals for unsupervised autonomy advancing and Tesla preparing to scale Cybercab production, the company is shifting from prototype showcase to fleet deployment.
A fresh logo helps differentiate the vehicles visually in dense urban environments—crucial for rider recognition and brand recall. It also aligns with Elon Musk’s long-standing ethos: make the future feel exciting, not sterile.
Small changes like this often foreshadow a larger strategy. Tesla has always obsessed over details—door handles, screen interfaces, even the curvature of a steering wheel.
Updating the Robotaxi font reflects the same meticulous care now applied to consumer-facing autonomy. It’s not just paint on metal; it’s a statement that the ride of the future should feel personal, memorable, and undeniably cool.
In an industry racing toward self-driving fleets, Tesla’s willingness to evolve even the smallest visual cues shows confidence. A font won’t launch the robotaxi network, but it might just help millions climb aboard with a smile.
News
Tesla makes latest announcement on Model S and Model X
The announcement follows Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s statement on the Q4 2025 earnings call in late January. Musk described the decision as an “honorable discharge” for the two vehicles, noting that production would wind down in Q2 2026.
Tesla has officially begun winding down production of its flagship Model S and Model X in the United States, notifying owners via email that the long-running models will soon reach the end of the line.
The email, sent to U.S. customers on March 27, opens with gratitude. “Model S and Model X marked the beginning of the world’s transition to electric transportation,” it reads. “These vehicles also made it possible for Tesla to develop the technology that would move our world toward autonomy.”
It then delivers the news directly: “As we make way for this autonomous future, Model S and Model X production will be ending. If you’d like to bring home a new Model S or Model X, order yours soon from our limited inventory.”
Tesla just sent out a new email thanking Model S/X owners.
“These vehicles made it possible for Tesla to develop the technology that would move our world toward autonomy. As we make way for this autonomous future, Model S and Model X production will be ending. If you’d like to… pic.twitter.com/IeUhZ3iDnX
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) March 27, 2026
The message closes with a simple thank-you: “Thank you for being part of our journey.”
The announcement follows Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s statement on the Q4 2025 earnings call in late January. Musk described the decision as an “honorable discharge” for the two vehicles, noting that production would wind down in Q2 2026.
The move frees factory floor space at Fremont, California, for next-generation manufacturing, including Optimus humanoid robots and the upcoming Robotaxi platform.
Introduced in 2012 and 2015, respectively, the Model S and Model X were Tesla’s original halo cars. They proved EVs could outperform gasoline luxury vehicles in acceleration, range, and tech features while pioneering over-the-air updates and early autonomy hardware.
Although they never matched the volume of the Model 3 and Model Y, their engineering breakthroughs laid the foundation for the company’s current lineup and full self-driving development.
Early adopters highlighted how the cars convinced them to invest in Tesla stock and the EV movement. Some U.S. owners who had not yet received the note voiced mild frustration, and international customers confirmed the outreach remains U.S.-only for now.
Tesla has not detailed an exact final production date beyond the Q2 2026 target or confirmed immediate replacements. Speculation continues about a possible Cybertruck-derived SUV, but the company’s public focus has shifted squarely to autonomy and robotics.
For buyers still interested in the S or X, the window is closing. Inventory is described as limited, and Tesla’s Korean division has already set a March 31 cutoff for new orders in that market. The email serves as both a farewell and final sales push, an elegant close to a chapter that helped define modern electric driving.
Tesla FSD mocks BMW human driver: Saves pedestrian from near miss
Tesla Robotaxi gets a small but significant change
Tesla makes latest announcement on Model S and Model X
Elon Musk says Tesla is developing a new vehicle: ‘Way cooler than a minivan’
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
