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.
Ferrari’s first electric vehicle, the Luce, is fully sold out for 2027, according to CEO Benedetto Vigna.
Presenting third-quarter results, he stated: “Everything we plan to sell next year is already fully allocated. Client test drives, scheduled for next year, will help further boost demand. We have no critical issues, neither on manufacturing nor on the demand side. Obviously, the car is more complex because it has many new parts and many new technologies.”
First customer deliveries are expected before the end of 2026, with the model already commanding waitlists despite a turbulent debut.
The Luce is a five-seat, four-door liftback saloon—the longest Ferrari ever produced—powered by four electric motors producing approximately 1,035 horsepower.
It features an 800-volt architecture, a 122-kWh battery, a claimed WLTP range of around 329 miles, 0-62 mph acceleration in 2.5 seconds, and a starting price near €550,000 in Europe (roughly $560,800–$615,000 in the U.S. depending on configuration).
Developed in collaboration with Jony Ive and Marc Newson’s LoveFrom studio alongside Ferrari’s own Centro Stile, it represents a deliberate departure from the brand’s traditional mid-engine sports cars toward a more spacious, grand-touring format.
Its exterior has proven deeply polarizing. Unveiled in Rome in May 2026, the design features smooth, sweeping surfaces, a large glass roof, and restrained detailing that critics described as bland, generic, or more reminiscent of an Apple product or mass-market EV than a Ferrari.
Ferrari unveils its Luce EV, and its reception has been a disaster
Online reactions included memes comparing it to a Nissan Leaf or Polestar, while former Ferrari chairman Luca di Montezemolo publicly warned of “the destruction of a myth” and suggested the prancing horse logo be removed. Italian politicians and longtime owners joined the chorus of disappointment, and Ferrari’s shares dropped roughly 8% in a single day, erasing billions in market value.
Design experts noted the absence of the brand’s signature tension, aggression, and emotional drama.
Yet the controversy has not translated into weak demand among the ultra-wealthy clientele who actually buy Ferraris. Production volumes remain tightly limited, as reports suggest fewer than 500 units in the current year and a longer-term pace of roughly 600 annually through 2030, preserving exclusivity.
One early chassis sold for $40 million at auction. Vigna has indicated that seeing the car in person, along with upcoming client test drives, is expected to strengthen rather than weaken interest. Ferrari aims for fully electric models to comprise 20 percent of its lineup by 2030, with a second EV now delayed to 2028.
For a brand defined by scarcity and desirability, the Luce’s sell-out status suggests that among those who can afford it, the polarizing design has not proven to be a commercial liability.
Tesla and SpaceX shares fell on Wednesday after Democrats swept both chambers of Congress. The decline stood out as broader market securities recovered and turned positive, while both of Musk’s publicly traded companies lagged.
CEO Elon Musk already joked about the unsuccessful campaigning for the Republicans, but now the new party will make pretty drastic changes to how it handles Tesla and SpaceX, and those companies will adjust their outlook.
Let’s take a deeper look.
Tesla ($TSLA)
Tesla shares traded lower during the regular session after Democrats secured both the House and Senate. The stock was down 2.32 percent at around 1:45 p.m. on the East Coast, trading at around $389.30.
The pressure is tied to more than the raw scale of Musk’s political spending, estimated at $450–474 million this cycle with roughly $224 million directed at Texas. In that state, Tesla now faces a Democratic governor and a Democratic senator after Gina Hinojosa unseated Greg Abbott and James Talarico defeated Ken Paxton.
The Austin Gigafactory, Robotaxi pilot programs in multiple Texas cities, and any related AI compute expansion sit under a new state executive who campaigned against certain corporate subsidies and floated a moratorium on new data-center construction.
Federally, Democratic control of key committees opens the door to deeper examination of Tesla’s autonomous-driving safety record, federal energy-storage and manufacturing incentives, and the national-security implications of any combination with SpaceX.
Investors are also weighing whether the company’s historically close alignment with the prior Republican leadership will invite slower permitting, additional hearings, or tighter rules on Full Self-Driving deployment.
For Tesla, the political shift adds near-term friction around state permitting and federal regulatory approvals for autonomy and energy storage. A potential merger with SpaceX may face slower review even if it proceeds.
Core growth drivers such as vehicle deliveries, energy deployments, and robotaxi rollout remain intact, yet the stock now carries a higher political-risk premium that could weigh on valuation until the company demonstrates workable relationships with the new Texas leadership and congressional majorities.
SpaceX ($SPCX)
SpaceX shares also declined in live trading on November 4 following the Democratic midterm sweep. The stock traded at $134.97, down 4.49 percent. The drop occurred even as broader indexes stabilized, highlighting a company-specific reaction to the election outcome.
Musk’s large contributions, concentrated in Texas races that both companies lost, place SpaceX’s Starbase launch facility and headquarters under a new Democratic governor.
At the federal level, Democratic control of Congress enables greater scrutiny of NASA, the Department of Defense, and other contracts that support a meaningful share of revenue, along with reviews of Starlink national-security uses and any Tesla merger. Analysts have noted that empowered committees can hold hearings and request documents on these relationships.
For SpaceX, the results raise the risk of delayed contract awards, higher compliance costs, and tighter constraints on AI and satellite infrastructure expansion, particularly in Texas where a data-center moratorium has been discussed.
A merger with Tesla could encounter political friction that slows integration of launch, connectivity, and autonomy capabilities.
While Starlink growth and launch cadence continue as primary drivers, the company faces a more contested path for federal funding and state-level operations, requiring management to rebuild ties with the new congressional majorities and Texas leadership to limit the overhang.
Tesla’s new vehicle registrations in Germany rose sharply in October, nearly quadrupling from the same month a year earlier. That’s according to data from the KBA, Germany’s federal motor transport authority.
The KBA reported 2,932 Tesla vehicles registered in October, a 290.9 percent year-over-year- increase. For the first ten months of the year, Tesla’s cumulative registrations reached 47,742 units. This number is up 206.1 percent compared with the January-October period of 2025. These gains occurred against a backdrop of strong overall growth in the BEV sector as a whole.
Germany registered 94,086 new BEVs in October, a 79.5 percent rise that brought the BEV share of the passenger car market to 37 percent of the 254,492 total cars registered that month.
🇩🇪 Tesla’s new registrations in Germany nearly quadrupled in October, according to KBA data.
October: 2,932 units, +290.9% YoY Jan–Oct: 47,742 units, +206.1%
Germany’s overall BEV market grew 79.5% to 94,086 units last month. https://t.co/GMwNqsFAOC
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 4, 2026
Despite the percentage surge, Tesla’s absolute numbers left it with a 1.2 percent share of all new car registrations for October. Chinese competitors did record higher volumes, as BYD registered 5,173 vehicles, a 2 percent share, Leapmotor with 3,661 cars, which equates to 1.4 percent, and Xpeng had a 0.5 percent share.
Year-to-date through October, BYD edged ahead of Tesla with 47,961 registrations versus Tesla’s 47,742.
The October results follow a notably strong September for Tesla in Germany, when it registered 12,552 vehicles, an increase of roughly 269 percent year-over-year and one of its strongest monthly totals on record in the country. That month, the Model Y led all EVs and ranked among the top-selling vehicles of any powertrain.
The figures form part of a broader recovery in Tesla’s European registrations after an extended period of softer demand. While monthly volumes remain subject to typical quarter-end patterns and competitive pressure from both established European brands and rapidly expanding Chinese manufacturers, the year-to-date growth indicates improved traction in Europe’s largest car market.
Tesla’s Gigafactory Berlin-Brandenburg continues to supply the region, positioning the company to capture a share of the expanding German BEV market as overall EV adoptions looks to be accelerating.
Ferrari Luce sold out for 2027 after design controversy
Musk’s Tesla and SpaceX decline after Democratic Midterm sweep
