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 influencers argue company’s polarizing Full Self-Driving transfer decision
Tesla maintains it will honor transfers for orders with initial delivery windows before the deadline and offers full deposit refunds otherwise, citing longstanding fine print that the program is “subject to change at any time.”
Tesla’s decision to tighten its Full Self-Driving (FSD) transfer promotion has ignited fierce debate among owners and enthusiasts.
The company quietly updated its terms in late February 2026, changing the eligibility from “order by March 31, 2026” to “take delivery by March 31, 2026.”
What began as a flexible incentive to boost sales, allowing buyers to transfer their paid FSD (Supervised) to a new vehicle, now excludes many, particularly Cybertruck owners facing delivery delays into summer or later.
Tesla maintains it will honor transfers for orders with initial delivery windows before the deadline and offers full deposit refunds otherwise, citing longstanding fine print that the program is “subject to change at any time.”
The reversal has polarized the Tesla community, with accusations of a “bait-and-switch” clashing against defenses of corporate pragmatism. Many owners who placed orders under the original wording feel betrayed, especially as production backlogs and new unsupervised FSD rollout complicate timelines.
However, Tesla has allowed them to cancel their orders and receive a refund.
Critics of the decision argue that the change disadvantages loyal customers who helped fund FSD development, calling it poor communication and a revenue grab as Tesla pivots toward subscriptions.
Popular influencers have amplified the divide. Whole Mars Catalog struck a measured but firm tone, acknowledging the original “order by” language but emphasizing Tesla’s right to adjust terms. He has continued to defend Tesla in this particular issue:
Sad to see so many fans trashing Tesla with such extreme language.
LIARS!!! PATHETIC!!! And if you aren’t as furious and angry as they are they are you’re “worshipping” and saying “they can do no wrong”.
Let’s get real here. They’re not liars. They offered FSD transfer to us… https://t.co/3Ay7vGaVR6
— Whole Mars Catalog (@wholemars) March 3, 2026
He criticized extreme backlash as “dramatization” and “spoiled kids,” noting the unsupervised FSD era and broader sales challenges make blanket transfers financially risky. Whole Mars advocated for polite outreach to CEO Elon Musk over the issue.
Rather than “calling them out”, I would simply say “Hey Elon, really hoped to be able to do FSD transfer on my cybertruck but the terms changed. Would really appreciate if Tesla could extend this to everyone who ordered before the terms changes”
that would probably work
— Whole Mars Catalog (@wholemars) March 3, 2026
In a contrasting perspective, Dirty TesLA voiced sharper frustration, posting that blocking transfers feels “crazy” and distancing himself from “people that want to worship a corporation and say they can do no wrong.” His stance resonated with owners who view the policy flip as disrespectful to early adopters.
Popular Tesla influencer Sawyer Merritt captured the frustration felt by thousands. In a widely shared thread viewed over 700,000 times, Merritt detailed how pre-change Cybertruck orders now risk losing FSD eligibility unless their initial delivery window falls before March 31.
It’s not a contradiction, it’s a change in policy that Tesla just made an hour ago. I am trying to check if the change is retroactive to all existing orders, including Cybertruck AWD orders, because if it is, that sucks big time.
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) February 28, 2026
The controversy underscores deeper tensions—between Tesla’s need for revenue discipline and owners’ expectations of goodwill. As FSD evolves toward unsupervised capability, the community remains split: some see the change as necessary business, others as a broken promise. Whether Tesla reconsiders under pressure or holds firm remains to be seen, but it does not appear they are planning to budge.
News
Tesla Semi’s latest adoptee will likely encourage more of the same
Public visibility matters. When shoppers see a trusted name like Ralph’s running clean, high-tech trucks on public roads, skepticism fades. Competitors such as Albertsons, which pre-ordered Semis years ago, and other chains chasing ESG targets now have proof that electric autonomy works in real-world grocery fleets.
The latest adoptee of the Tesla Semi will likely encourage more businesses in the same realm to adopt the all-electric Class 8 truck, as a new company utilizing the Semi has been spotted in Southern California.
A sleek, futuristic Tesla Semi truck branded for Ralph’s Supermarkets was spotted cruising a Los Angeles highway in a viral 13-second dashcam video posted March 2, by X user ChargePozitive.
Tesla Semi Truck in the wild pic.twitter.com/SnQY8ShMMJ
— ChargePozitive ⚡️➕ (@ChargePozitive) March 2, 2026
This sighting confirms Kroger’s March 2025 partnership with Tesla to deploy up to 500 autonomous electric Semis.
While the initial announcement targeted Midwest supply chains, the California appearance under the Ralph’s banner shows the program expanding to Kroger’s West Coast operations. Ralph’s, a staple for millions of Southern California shoppers, is now hauling groceries with the Semi, which has zero tailpipe emissions and claims up to 500 miles of range per charge.
Tesla Semi pricing revealed after company uncovers trim levels
The timing could not be better for sustainable logistics. Traditional trucking accounts for a massive share of retail emissions, but Tesla’s Semi slashes fuel and maintenance costs while leveraging full autonomy to ease driver shortages and improve safety.
Tesla’s expanding Megacharger network, including new sites along major freight corridors and partnerships like the recently-announced one with Pilot Travel Centers, is removing range anxiety and making nationwide scaling realistic. There’s still a long way to go, but things are moving in the right direction.
Public visibility matters. When shoppers see a trusted name like Ralph’s running clean, high-tech trucks on public roads, skepticism fades. Competitors such as Albertsons, which pre-ordered Semis years ago, and other chains chasing ESG targets now have proof that electric autonomy works in real-world grocery fleets.
PepsiCo’s successful pilots already demonstrated viability, and Ralph’s sighting adds retail credibility.
As Tesla ramps high-volume Semi production through 2026, this isn’t an isolated curiosity. Instead, it’s a catalyst. More grocers adopting the platform will accelerate industry-wide decarbonization, cut operating expenses, and deliver tangible environmental wins.
The future of sustainable supply chains is already on the highway, and Ralph’s just made it impossible to ignore.
Moving forward, Tesla hopes to expand the Semi program into other regions, including Europe, which CEO Elon Musk recently said is a total possibility next year.
Elon Musk
Tesla ramps Cybercab test manufacturing ahead of mass production
Tesla still has plans for volume production, which remains between four and eight weeks away, aligning with Musk’s statements that early ramps would be deliberately measured given the Cybercab’s novel architecture and full reliance on Tesla’s vision-based Full Self-Driving technology.
Tesla is seemingly ramping Cybercab test manufacturing ahead of mass production, which is scheduled to begin next month, the company said.
At Tesla’s Gigafactory Texas, production of the Cybercab, the company’s groundbreaking purpose-built Robotaxi vehicle, is accelerating markedly. Drone footage from Joe Tegtmeyer captured striking aerial footage today, revealing what appears to be the largest public sighting of Cyebrcabs to date.
A total of 25 units were observed by Tegtmeyer across the Gigafactory Texas property, marking a clear step-up in testing and validation activities as Tesla prepares for a broader output.
Tesla Cybercab production begins: The end of car ownership as we know it?
In the footage, 14 metallic gold Cybercabs were parked in a tight formation outside the factory exit, showcasing their sleek, autonomous-only design with no steering wheels, pedals, or traditional controls. Another 9 units sat at the crash testing facility, likely undergoing structural and safety validations, while two more appeared at the west end-of-line area for final checks.
Big day for Cybercab at Giga Texas today! Actually, yesterday to kick off March, the production line went into a higher volume & today we see 25 at three main locations, and there were several others I observed driving around too!
I think this may be the largest single grouping… pic.twitter.com/HZDMNv57lJ
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) March 3, 2026
Tegtmeyer noted additional Cybercabs driving around the complex, hinting at active movement and real-world testing beyond static parking.
This surge follows the first production Cybercab rolling off the line in mid-February 2026, several weeks ahead of the originally anticipated April start.
That milestone, celebrated by Tesla employees and confirmed by CEO Elon Musk, kicked off low-volume builds on the dedicated “unboxed” manufacturing line, a modular process designed to slash costs, reduce factory footprint, and enable faster assembly compared to conventional methods.
Industry observers interpret the jump to dozens of visible units in early March as evidence that Tesla has transitioned into higher-volume test manufacturing.
Tesla still has plans for volume production, which remains between four and eight weeks away, aligning with Musk’s statements that early ramps would be deliberately measured given the Cybercab’s novel architecture and full reliance on Tesla’s vision-based Full Self-Driving technology.
The Cybercab, envisioned as a sub-$30,000 autonomous two-seater for robotaxi fleets, represents Tesla’s bold pivot toward scalable autonomy and robotics.
Tesla fans and enthusiasts on X praised the imagery, with many expressing excitement over the visible progress toward deployment. While challenges remain, including software maturity, regulatory hurdles, and supply chain scaling, the increased factory activity underscores Tesla’s momentum in turning the Cybercab vision into reality.
As Giga Texas continues expanding and refining the manufacturing process of the Cybercab, the coming months will prove to be a pivotal time in determining how quickly this revolutionary vehicle reaches roads in the U.S. and internationally.
Tesla influencers argue company’s polarizing Full Self-Driving transfer decision
Tesla Semi’s latest adoptee will likely encourage more of the same
