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
Man credits Grok AI with saving his life after ER missed near-ruptured appendix
The AI flagged some of the man’s symptoms and urged him to return to the ER immediately and demand a CT scan.
A 49-year-old man has stated that xAI’s Grok ended up saving his life when the large language model identified a near-ruptured appendix that his first ER visit dismissed as acid reflux.
After being sent home from the ER, the man asked Grok to analyze his symptoms. The AI flagged some of the man’s symptoms and urged him to return immediately and demand a CT scan. The scan confirmed that something far worse than acid reflux was indeed going on.
Grok spotted what a doctor missed
In a post on Reddit, u/Tykjen noted that for 24 hours straight, he had a constant “razor-blade-level” abdominal pain that forced him into a fetal position. He had no fever or visible signs. He went to the ER, where a doctor pressed his soft belly, prescribed acid blockers, and sent him home.
The acid blockers didn’t work, and the man’s pain remained intense. He then decided to open a year-long chat he had with Grok and listed every detail that he was experiencing. The AI responded quickly. “Grok immediately flagged perforated ulcer or atypical appendicitis, told me the exact red-flag pattern I was describing, and basically said “go back right now and ask for a CT,” the man wrote in his post.
He copied Grok’s reasoning, returned to the ER, and insisted on the scan. The CT scan ultimately showed an inflamed appendix on the verge of rupture. Six hours later, the appendix was out. The man said the pain has completely vanished, and he woke up laughing under anesthesia. He was discharged the next day.
How a late-night conversation with Grok got me to demand the CT scan that saved my life from a ruptured appendix (December 2025)
byu/Tykjen ingrok
AI doctors could very well be welcomed
In the replies to his Reddit post, u/Tykjen further explained that he specifically avoided telling doctors that Grok, an AI, suggested he get a CT scan. “I did not tell them on the second visit that Grok recommended the CT scan. I had to lie. I told them my sister who’s a nurse told me to ask for the scan,” the man wrote.
One commenter noted that the use of AI in medicine will likely be welcomed, stating that “If AI could take doctors’ jobs one day, I will be happy. Doctors just don’t care anymore. It’s all a paycheck.” The Redditor replied with, “Sadly yes. That is what it felt like after the first visit. And the following night could have been my last.”
Elon Musk has been very optimistic about the potential of robots like Tesla Optimus in the medical field. Provided that they are able to achieve human-level articulation in their hands, and Tesla is able to bring down their cost through mass manufacturing, the era of AI-powered medical care could very well be closer than expected.
News
Tesla expands Model 3 lineup in Europe with most affordable variant yet
The Model 3 Standard still delivers more than 300 miles of range, potentially making it an attractive option for budget-conscious buyers.
Tesla has introduced a lower-priced Model 3 variant in Europe, expanding the lineup just two months after the vehicle’s U.S. debut. The Model 3 Standard still delivers more than 300 miles (480 km) of range, potentially making it an attractive option for budget-conscious buyers.
Tesla’s pricing strategy
The Model 3 Standard arrives as Tesla contends with declining registrations in several countries across Europe, where sales have not fully offset shifting consumer preferences. Many buyers have turned to options such as Volkswagen’s ID.3 and BYD’s Atto 3, both of which have benefited from aggressive pricing.
By removing select premium finishes and features, Tesla positioned the new Model 3 Standard as an “ultra-low cost of ownership” option of its all-electric sedan. Pricing comes in at €37,970 in Germany, NOK 330,056 in Norway, and SEK 449,990 in Sweden, depending on market. This places the Model 3 Standard well below the “premium” Model 3 trim, which starts at €45,970 in Germany.
Deliveries for the Standard model are expected to begin in the first quarter of 2026, giving Tesla an entry-level foothold in a segment that’s increasingly defined by sub-€40,000 offerings.
Tesla’s affordable vehicle push
The low-cost Model 3 follows October’s launch of a similarly positioned Model Y variant, signaling a broader shift in Tesla’s product strategy. While CEO Elon Musk has moved the company toward AI-driven initiatives such as robotaxis and humanoid robots, lower-priced vehicles remain necessary to support the company’s revenue in the near term.
Reports have indicated that Tesla previously abandoned plans for an all-new $25,000 EV, with the company opting to create cheaper versions of existing platforms instead. Analysts have flagged possible cannibalization of higher-margin models, but the move aims to counter an influx of aggressively priced entrants from China and Europe, many of which sell below $30,000. With the new Model 3 Standard, Tesla is reinforcing its volume strategy in Europe’s increasingly competitive EV landscape.
News
Tesla FSD (Supervised) stuns Germany’s biggest car magazine
FSD Supervised recognized construction zones, braked early for pedestrians, and yielded politely on narrow streets.
Tesla’s upcoming FSD Supervised system, set for a European debut pending regulatory approval, is showing notably refined behavior in real-world testing, including construction zones, pedestrian detection, and lane changes, as per a recent demonstration ride in Berlin.
While the system still required driver oversight, its smooth braking, steering, and decision-making illustrated how far Tesla’s driver-assistance technology has advanced ahead of a potential 2026 rollout.
FSD’s maturity in dense city driving
During the Berlin test ride with Auto Bild, Germany’s largest automotive publication, a Tesla Model 3 running FSD handled complex traffic with minimal intervention, autonomously managing braking, acceleration, steering, and overtaking up to 140 km/h. It recognized construction zones, braked early for pedestrians, and yielded politely on narrow streets.
Only one manual override was required when the system misread a converted one-way route, an example, Tesla stated, of the continuous learning baked into its vision-based architecture.
Robin Hornig of Auto Bild summed up his experience with FSD Supervised with a glowing review of the system. As per the reporter, FSD Supervised already exceeds humans with its all-around vision. “Tesla FSD Supervised sees more than I do. It doesn’t get distracted and never gets tired. I like to think I’m a good driver, but I can’t match this system’s all-around vision. It’s at its best when both work together: my experience and the Tesla’s constant attention,” the journalist wrote.
Tesla FSD in Europe
FSD Supervised is still a driver-assistance system rather than autonomous driving. Still, Auto Bild noted that Tesla’s 360-degree camera suite, constant monitoring, and high computing power mark a sizable leap from earlier iterations. Already active in the U.S., China, and several other regions, the system is currently navigating Europe’s approval pipeline. Tesla has applied for an exemption in the Netherlands, aiming to launch the feature through a free software update as early as February 2026.
What Tesla demonstrated in Berlin mirrors capabilities already common in China and the U.S., where rival automakers have rolled out hands-free or city-navigation systems. Europe, however, remains behind due to a stricter certification environment, though Tesla is currently hard at work pushing for FSD Supervised’s approval in several countries in the region.
Man credits Grok AI with saving his life after ER missed near-ruptured appendix
Tesla expands Model 3 lineup in Europe with most affordable variant yet
