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 is pushing Robotaxi features to owner cars with Spring Update
Tesla has quietly begun rolling out one of its most forward-looking Robotaxi-inspired features to existing customer vehicles.
Tesla is starting to push Robotaxi features to owner cars, and the first instances are coming as the Spring 2026 Update starts to roll out.
Tesla has quietly begun rolling out one of its most forward-looking Robotaxi-inspired features to existing customer vehicles.
With the 2026 Spring Update (version 2026.14+), the rear passenger display now features a fully interactive navigation map that works while the car is driving — a capability previously reserved for Tesla Robotaxi.
First look at Tesla’s v2026.14.1 Spring Update.
đź§Rear screen interactive map #teslaupdate #tesla #teslasrpingupdate pic.twitter.com/yH3T4U8qHp— Sergiu Mogan (@sergiumogan) April 17, 2026
Until now, Tesla’s rear displays have been largely limited to media controls, climate settings, and static route overviews. The new interactive map transforms the backseat into an active navigation hub, exactly the kind of passenger-first interface Tesla has been prototyping for its driverless fleet.
In a Robotaxi, where no one sits behind the wheel, every rider will need intuitive, real-time map access. By shipping this UI into thousands of owner cars months ahead of the Cybercab’s planned unveiling, Tesla is stress-testing the software in real-world conditions and giving loyal customers an early taste of the autonomous future.
The rollout is still in its early wave. Only a small number of vehicles have received 2026.14.1 so far, but the feature is expected to expand rapidly in the coming weeks. Owners of Model S, Model X, Model 3, Model Y, and Cybertruck are all eligible.
For buyers of the new Signature Edition Model S and X Plaid vehicles — whose deliveries begin in May — the update will likely arrive shortly after they take delivery, meaning the final chapter of Tesla’s flagship lineup will ship with cutting-edge Robotaxi preview tech baked in.
Elon Musk has long emphasized that Tesla ships supporting infrastructure well before new products launch. This rear-map rollout is a textbook example of that philosophy — quietly preparing both the software and the customer base for a world of fully driverless rides.
While the interactive map may seem like a modest convenience upgrade on the surface, its deeper purpose is unmistakable. Tesla is using its massive installed base of vehicles as a proving ground for the exact passenger experience that will define the Robotaxi era.
For current owners, it’s a free preview of tomorrow’s mobility; for the company, it’s invaluable data and real-world validation before the Cybercab hits the streets.
News
Tesla Cybertruck sales bolstered by bold Musk move, report claims
If accurate, that means nearly one in every five Cybertrucks registered in the quarter was transferred internally within Musk’s business empire. The purchases, valued at more than $100 million, have continued into 2026.
A new report from Bloomberg claims Tesla Cybertruck sales were inflated by internal buyers, meaning companies owned by CEO Elon Musk, and most notably, SpaceX.
According to a new registration data analysis, a significant portion of the fourth quarter’s Cybertruck sales came from Musk companies.
In the fourth quarter of 2025, 7,071 Cybertrucks were registered in the United States. SpaceX, Musk’s rocket and satellite company, accounted for 1,279 of those vehicles—more than 18 percent of the total. Musk’s additional ventures, including xAI, the Boring Company, and Neuralink, acquired another 60 trucks during the same period.
Tesla Cybertruck just won a rare and elusive crash safety honor
If accurate, that means nearly one in every five Cybertrucks registered in the quarter was transferred internally within Musk’s business empire. The purchases, valued at more than $100 million, have continued into 2026.
These internal sales supplemented the Cybertruck’s overall performance for the quarter, as without them, sales would have plunged 51 percent. The vehicle, which has repeatedly been called “the best product Tesla has ever made,” has fallen short of expectations due to pricing.
When first unveiled back in 2019, Tesla had a $39,990, $49,990, and $69,990 configuration for sale. Those prices inflated significantly as the truck was not released to customers until 2023. Those who had placed orders for affordable configurations were priced out.
Sam Fiorani, VP of Global Vehicle Forecasting at AutoForecast Solutions, said, “Tesla is running out of buyers for the Cybertruck.” In reality, there are probably a lot of buyers, but they simply cannot afford the truck at its current price point.
The Cybertruck was supposed to broaden Tesla’s appeal beyond its core lineup of sleek sedans and SUVs. While it has done a lot for brand notoriety, it has not lived up to its monumental expectations, and it’s simply because the truck has not been as available as most had thought.
The truck is still the best-selling electric pickup in the country, outpacing rivals like the Ford F-150 Lightning and Chevrolet Silverado EV. It is also not uncommon for companies to use their own vehicles for internal operations, like Ford using its own Transit van for Mobile Service.
However, this much inventory of Cybertrucks being purchased by Musk’s companies is not what you love to see as a fan or investor.
News
Tesla Signature Model S, X owners get hit with crazy no-resale clause
With production of the Model S and X winding down to focus on next-generation projects like the Optimus robot, Tesla is building just 250 units of each model. Priced at $159,420, these exclusive vehicles come loaded with bespoke features and the full Luxe Package—but buyers must sign a binding contract before delivery that bars resale for one full year.
Tesla Signature Model S and X owners got hit with a crazy no-resale clause by the company, a move that has been used before to limit the immediate resale of a vehicle to obtain a sizeable profit.
Tesla has introduced a strict “No Resale Agreement” for its ultra-limited Signature Edition Model S and Model X Plaid vehicles, signaling the automaker’s determination to keep these final flagship models in the hands of genuine enthusiasts rather than speculators.
With production of the Model S and X winding down to focus on next-generation projects like the Optimus robot, Tesla is building just 250 units of each model. Priced at $159,420, these exclusive vehicles come loaded with bespoke features and the full Luxe Package—but buyers must sign a binding contract before delivery that bars resale for one full year.
Signature Edition Model S/X orders contain a No Resale Agreement.
Here is the document.
Additionally, here is the resale clause which states the Luxe Package does not transfer (this is not new) pic.twitter.com/CGB5QBJIL6
— The Cybertruck Guy (@cybrtrkguy) April 12, 2026
Purchasers promise they “will not sell or otherwise attempt to sell the vehicle within the first year following your vehicle’s delivery date.”
Violators face steep consequences: Tesla can pursue liquidated damages equal to $50,000 or the full amount received from any sale or transfer, whichever is greater. The company also reserves the right to refuse future vehicle sales to anyone who breaches the clause. Orders are account-specific, requiring buyers to log in with their personal Tesla account, which further complicates any informal transfers.
The restrictions extend beyond the one-year lockout. Even after the prohibition period ends, key elements of the Signature Edition’s appeal do not transfer with the car. The Luxe Package—bundling lifetime Full Self-Driving (Supervised), free lifetime Supercharging, and permanent Premium Connectivity—terminates upon any change in ownership.
While four years of Premium Service, tire, and windshield protection plans do transfer, the high-value software and charging perks effectively vanish for the second owner. This non-transferability has long been Tesla’s policy for Luxe-equipped vehicles, but it carries extra weight on a nearly $160,000 limited-run model.
Tesla’s move is a direct response to past flipping of rare editions. By tying the car to the original buyer’s account and imposing financial penalties, the company aims to curb gray-market speculation that could drive prices far above MSRP.
Critics of the no-resale clause argue that the agreement limits personal property rights and could complicate legitimate life events like relocation or financial hardship.
For now, the policy appears ironclad. Deliveries of the Signature Editions are expected to begin in May 2026, complete with Garnet Red paint, gold-accented badging, Alcantara interiors, yoke steering, and unique numbered plaques.
In an era when limited-edition vehicles often become instant investment pieces, Tesla is betting that true fans will embrace the rules. Whether the No Resale Agreement successfully protects the final chapter of the Model S and X legacy remains to be seen—but one thing is clear: these will be among the most tightly controlled Teslas ever sold.
Tesla is pushing Robotaxi features to owner cars with Spring Update
Tesla Cybertruck sales bolstered by bold Musk move, report claims
