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
Celebrating SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Tesla Roadster launch, seven years later (Op-Ed)
Seven years later, the question is no longer “What if this works?” It’s “How far does this go?”
When Falcon Heavy lifted off in February 2018 with Elon Musk’s personal Tesla Roadster as its payload, SpaceX was at a much different place. So was Tesla. It was unclear whether Falcon Heavy was feasible at all, and Tesla was in the depths of Model 3 production hell.
At the time, Tesla’s market capitalization hovered around $55–60 billion, an amount critics argued was already grossly overvalued. SpaceX, on the other hand, was an aggressive private launch provider known for taking risks that traditional aerospace companies avoided.
The Roadster launch was bold by design. Falcon Heavy’s maiden mission carried no paying payload, no government satellite, just a car drifting past Earth with David Bowie playing in the background. To many, it looked like a stunt. For Elon Musk and the SpaceX team, it was a bold statement: there should be some things in the world that simply inspire people.
Inspire it did, and seven years later, SpaceX and Tesla’s results speak for themselves.
Today, Tesla is the world’s most valuable automaker, with a market capitalization of roughly $1.54 trillion. The Model Y has become the best-selling car in the world by volume for three consecutive years, a scenario that would have sounded insane in 2018. Tesla has also pushed autonomy to a point where its vehicles can navigate complex real-world environments using vision alone.
And then there is Optimus. What began as a literal man in a suit has evolved into a humanoid robot program that Musk now describes as potential Von Neumann machines: systems capable of building civilizations beyond Earth. Whether that vision takes decades or less, one thing is evident: Tesla is no longer just a car company. It is positioning itself at the intersection of AI, robotics, and manufacturing.
SpaceX’s trajectory has been just as dramatic.
The Falcon 9 has become the undisputed workhorse of the global launch industry, having completed more than 600 missions to date. Of those, SpaceX has successfully landed a Falcon booster more than 560 times. The Falcon 9 flies more often than all other active launch vehicles combined, routinely lifting off multiple times per week.
Falcon 9 has ferried astronauts to and from the International Space Station via Crew Dragon, restored U.S. human spaceflight capability, and even stepped in to safely return NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams when circumstances demanded it.
Starlink, once a controversial idea, now dominates the satellite communications industry, providing broadband connectivity across the globe and reshaping how space-based networks are deployed. SpaceX itself, following its merger with xAI, is now valued at roughly $1.25 trillion and is widely expected to pursue what could become the largest IPO in history.
And then there is Starship, Elon Musk’s fully reusable launch system designed not just to reach orbit, but to make humans multiplanetary. In 2018, the idea was still aspirational. Today, it is under active development, flight-tested in public view, and central to NASA’s future lunar plans.
In hindsight, Falcon Heavy’s maiden flight with Elon Musk’s personal Tesla Roadster was never really about a car in space. It was a signal that SpaceX and Tesla were willing to think bigger, move faster, and accept risks others wouldn’t.
The Roadster is still out there, orbiting the Sun. Seven years later, the question is no longer “What if this works?” It’s “How far does this go?”
Energy
Tesla launches Cybertruck vehicle-to-grid program in Texas
The initiative was announced by the official Tesla Energy account on social media platform X.
Tesla has launched a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) program in Texas, allowing eligible Cybertruck owners to send energy back to the grid during high-demand events and receive compensation on their utility bills.
The initiative, dubbed Powershare Grid Support, was announced by the official Tesla Energy account on social media platform X.
Texas’ Cybertruck V2G program
In its post on X, Tesla Energy confirmed that vehicle-to-grid functionality is “coming soon,” starting with select Texas markets. Under the new Powershare Grid Support program, owners of the Cybertruck equipped with Powershare home backup hardware can opt in through the Tesla app and participate in short-notice grid stress events.
During these events, the Cybertruck automatically discharges excess energy back to the grid, supporting local utilities such as CenterPoint Energy and Oncor. In return, participants receive compensation in the form of bill credits. Tesla noted that the program is currently invitation-only as part of an early adopter rollout.
The launch builds on the Cybertruck’s existing Powershare capability, which allows the vehicle to provide up to 11.5 kW of power for home backup. Tesla added that the program is expected to expand to California next, with eligibility tied to utilities such as PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E.
Powershare Grid Support
To participate in Texas, Cybertruck owners must live in areas served by CenterPoint Energy or Oncor, have Powershare equipment installed, enroll in the Tesla Electric Drive plan, and opt in through the Tesla app. Once enrolled, vehicles would be able to contribute power during high-demand events, helping stabilize the grid.
Tesla noted that events may occur with little notice, so participants are encouraged to keep their Cybertrucks plugged in when at home and to manage their discharge limits based on personal needs. Compensation varies depending on the electricity plan, similar to how Powerwall owners in some regions have earned substantial credits by participating in Virtual Power Plant (VPP) programs.
News
Samsung nears Tesla AI chip ramp with early approval at TX factory
This marks a key step towards the tech giant’s production of Tesla’s next-generation AI5 chips in the United States.
Samsung has received temporary approval to begin limited operations at its semiconductor plant in Taylor, Texas.
This marks a key step towards the tech giant’s production of Tesla’s next-generation AI5 chips in the United States.
Samsung clears early operations hurdle
As noted in a report from Korea JoongAng Daily, Samsung Electronics has secured temporary certificates of occupancy (TCOs) for a portion of its semiconductor facility in Taylor. This should allow the facility to start operations ahead of full completion later this year.
City officials confirmed that approximately 88,000 square feet of Samsung’s Fab 1 building has received temporary approval, with additional areas expected to follow. The overall timeline for permitting the remaining sections has not yet been finalized.
Samsung’s Taylor facility is expected to manufacture Tesla’s AI5 chips once mass production begins in the second half of the year. The facility is also expected to produce Tesla’s upcoming AI6 chips.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk recently stated that the design for AI5 is nearly complete, and the development of AI6 is already underway. Musk has previously outlined an aggressive roadmap targeting nine-month design cycles for successive generations of its AI chips.
Samsung’s U.S. expansion
Construction at the Taylor site remains on schedule. Reports indicate Samsung plans to begin testing extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography equipment next month, a critical step for producing advanced 2-nanometer semiconductors.
Samsung is expected to complete 6 million square feet of floor space at the site by the end of this year, with an additional 1 million square feet planned by 2028. The full campus spans more than 1,200 acres.
Beyond Tesla, Samsung Foundry is also pursuing additional U.S. customers as demand for AI and high-performance computing chips accelerates. Company executives have stated that Samsung is looking to achieve more than 130% growth in 2-nanometer chip orders this year.
One of Samsung’s biggest rivals, TSMC, is also looking to expand its footprint in the United States, with reports suggesting that the company is considering expanding its Arizona facility to as many as 11 total plants. TSMC is also expected to produce Tesla’s AI5 chips.
Celebrating SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Tesla Roadster launch, seven years later (Op-Ed)
SpaceX’s xAI merger keeps legal liability and debt at arm’s length: report
