Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s upgraded Starship set for test flight despite sore NASA contract losers

Sore losers have potentially delay NASA's ability to work on SpaceX's HLS Moon lander contract but the company isn't letting the red tape stop it from making progress. (Dynetics/SpaceX/bocachicagal/Blue Origin)

Published

on

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.

https://twitter.com/CaseyDreier/status/1388232161921093634

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Supercharger access has proven to be a challenge for one company

Interestingly, it seems to be the Volkswagen brand specifically that is having issues with compatibility with Tesla Superchargers. Other brands under the VW umbrella, like Audi and Porsche, have already gained access to the charging network.

Published

on

Credit: MarcoRP | X

Tesla Supercharger access has proven to be quite the challenge for one company, as it continues to delay the date that it will enable its owners to charge at the most expansive network in the world.

Tesla Superchargers have been opening up to other brands for well over a year, and many car companies that are manufacturing electric vehicles now have access to the vast network that has over 70,000 locations worldwide.

Tesla to launch Supercharger access for VW owners later this year

However, one brand has experienced some issues with what it is calling “technical challenges,” specifically failing to enable cross-compatibility between its vehicles and Tesla Superchargers.

Volkswagen has had to delay its ability to enable customers to charge at Superchargers because there have been some difficulties getting things to run smoothly. A report from PCMag cites a quote from a Volkswagen spokesperson who said there are still plans to deliver this year, but there have been some delays:

“Volkswagen looks forward to making it possible for ID. Buzz and ID.4 vehicle owners to gain access to the Tesla NACS Partner Superchargers. The timeline has been delayed by technical challenges, and we ask for customers’ patience. We still expect to deliver access this year.”

Interestingly, it seems to be the Volkswagen brand specifically that is having issues with compatibility with Tesla Superchargers. Other brands under the VW umbrella, like Audi and Porsche, have already gained access to the charging network.

Volkswagen EV owners will need to use an official VW adapter to access the Tesla Supercharger Network once the issues are resolved. It still plans to launch access to its owners later this year, but its spokesperson did not announce any planned timeline.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Giga Berlin makes big move amid strong sales and demand

“We currently have very good sales figures and have therefore revised our production plans for the third and fourth quarters upwards.”

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Manufacturing

Tesla is making a big move at its factory in Germany, known as Giga Berlin, as managers at the plant have indicated the company plans to increase its production rate for the remainder of the year.

Giga Berlin is responsible for manufacturing Model Y vehicles for several markets worldwide, including those outside of Europe. It was opened in March 2022, and it recently built its 500,000th Model Y in March and its 100,000th new Model Y just three weeks ago.

Due to some encouraging sales figures in the markets it provides vehicles for, Tesla said it is planning to increase production at the factory for the remainder of the year.

Andrè Thierig, plant manager at Giga Berlin, said to German news outlet DPA on Sunday that market data has encouraged a move to be made regarding the production at the factory:

“We currently have very good sales figures and have therefore revised our production plans for the third and fourth quarters upwards.”

It is interesting to see this kind of narrative from Thierig, especially as data has shown Tesla has struggled in various markets, including Germany, this year.

Sales drops have been reported, but other markets are holding strong, especially those in Northern Europe, such as Norway, where the Model Y saw a nearly 39 percent increase in sales in August compared to the same month the previous year.

Tesla Model Y leads sales rush in Norway in August 2025

Gigafactory Berlin supplies vehicles for other markets, such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, which are strategically important to avoid tariffs. It also builds cars for the Middle East.

Thierig reiterated this point during the interview with DPA:

“We supply well over 30 markets and definitely see a positive trend there.”

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla analyst says Musk stock buy should send this signal to investors

“With Musk’s (Tesla stock) purchase, combined with the upward momentum for delivery expectations and robotaxi rollout, we are becoming more bullish.”

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

Tesla CEO Elon Musk purchased roughly $1 billion in Tesla shares on Friday, and analysts are now breaking down the move as the stock is headed upward.

One of them is William Blair analyst Jed Dorsheimer, who said in a new note to investors on Monday that Musk’s move should send a signal of confidence to stock buyers, especially considering the company’s numerous catalysts that currently exist.

Elon Musk just bought $1 billion in Tesla stock, his biggest purchase ever

Dorsheimer said in the note:

“With Musk’s (Tesla stock) purchase, combined with the upward momentum for delivery expectations and robotaxi rollout, we are becoming more bullish. This purchase is Musk’s first buy since 2020. To us, this sends a strong signal of confidence in the most important part of Tesla’s future business, robotaxi.”

Musk putting an additional $1 billion back into the company in the form of more stock ownership is obviously a huge vote of confidence.

He knows more than anyone about the progress Tesla has made and is making on the Robotaxi platform, as well as the company’s ongoing efforts to solve vehicle autonomy. If he’s buying stock, it is more than likely a good sign.

Tesla has continued to expand its Robotaxi platform in a number of ways. The project has gotten bigger in terms of service area, vehicle fleet, and testing population. Tesla has also recently received a permit to test in Nevada, unlocking the potential to expand into a brand-new state for the company.

In the note, Dorsheimer also touched on Musk’s recent pay package, revealing that William Blair recently met with Tesla’s Board of Directors, who gave the firm some more color on the situation:

“We recently participated in a meeting with Tesla’s board of directors to discuss the details of Musk’s performance package. The board is confident of its position in the Delaware case and anticipates a verdict by end of year. It does not expect a similar situation to occur under new Texas jurisdiction. Musk has the board’s full support, and we expect he’ll get more than enough shareholder support for this to pass with flying colors.”

Tesla stock is up over 6 percent so far today, trading at $421.50 at the time of publication.

Continue Reading

Trending