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.
Investor's Corner
Tesla Optimus is already benefiting investors, top Wall Street firm says
Piper Sandler has updated its detailed valuation model for Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA), concluding that at recent share prices around $400–$420, investors are essentially acquiring the company’s ambitious Optimus humanoid robot project at no extra cost.
Tesla Optimus is already benefiting investors from a fiscal standpoint, at least that is what Alexander Potter at Piper Sandler, a top Wall Street firm covering the company, says.
Piper Sandler has updated its detailed valuation model for Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA), concluding that at recent share prices around $400–$420, investors are essentially acquiring the company’s ambitious Optimus humanoid robot project at no extra cost.
Analyst Alexander Potter, in the firm’s latest “Definitive Guide to Investing in Tesla,” built a comprehensive framework covering 17 separate product lines.
This granular approach values Tesla’s core businesses—including electric vehicles, energy storage, Full Self-Driving (FSD) software, in-house insurance, Supercharging network, and a standalone robotaxi operation—at approximately $400 per share, without assigning any value to Optimus or related inference-as-a-service opportunities.
“At $400/share, we think investors can buy Optimus for ‘free,’” Potter stated in the note. Piper Sandler maintained its Overweight rating on Tesla shares and a $500 price target, which implicitly attributes roughly $100 per share to the robot-related businesses— a figure the analyst views as potentially conservative.
The updated model incorporates elements often overlooked by other sell-side analysts, such as detailed forecasts for Tesla’s insurance operations, Supercharger revenue, and a distinct valuation for the robotaxi business separate from FSD software licensing. It also accounts for Tesla’s 2025 CEO compensation plan for the first time.
Potter acknowledged that his estimates for 2026 and 2027 fall below Wall Street consensus, citing factors like declining deliveries from certain discontinued models and reduced regulatory credit income.
However, he expressed limited concern, noting that traditional vehicle delivery metrics are expected to matter less over time as FSD subscriber growth and robotaxi deployment metrics gain prominence. On Optimus specifically, Potter suggested the humanoid robot program, combined with inference services, “arguably will be worth more than Tesla’s other businesses combined,” though the firm has not yet produced formal long-term forecasts for these segments.
Tesla shares have traded near the $400 range in recent sessions, reflecting ongoing investor focus on the company’s autonomous driving progress and expansion into robotics and AI. The Optimus project remains in early development stages, with Tesla aiming to deploy the robots initially for internal factory tasks before broader commercial applications.
This Piper Sandler analysis highlights the growing emphasis among some investors and analysts on Tesla’s long-term technology platform potential beyond its current automotive and energy businesses.
As with any forward-looking valuation, outcomes will depend on execution timelines, technological breakthroughs, regulatory approvals for autonomous systems, and market adoption of humanoid robotics—areas that carry significant uncertainty and execution risk.
The note underscores a common theme in Tesla coverage: differing views on how to quantify emerging high-growth opportunities like robotics within the company’s overall enterprise value. Investors are advised to consider their own risk tolerance and conduct thorough due diligence regarding these speculative elements.
News
Tesla Giga Texas buzzing as new Cybertruck appears to enter production
Additionally, the Cybercab manufacturing ramp-up is continuing amidst Tesla’s busy May, which includes a handful of things from an automotive perspective.
Tesla Giga Texas is buzzing with a lot of action, as it appears the new Cybertruck trim that was offered a few months back has entered production. Additionally, the Cybercab manufacturing ramp-up is continuing amidst Tesla’s busy May, which includes a handful of things from an automotive perspective.
Drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer captured striking footage over Giga Texas on the morning of May 11, 2026, revealing fresh batches of Cybertrucks that may mark the start of series production for the long-awaited $59,990 Dual Motor AWD variant.
Tesla launches new Cybertruck trim with more features than ever for a low price
The vehicles lined up in staging areas, and we got a great look at three of the units parked on the property:
Hard to say for sure, but production of the $59K AWD @Cybertruck may be just getting started here on this early and soggy morning at Giga Texas … this version is much harder to visually distinguish from the premium AWD versions, so I’ll come back on Wednesday and we’ll see if… pic.twitter.com/UX7yCQpgeC
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) May 11, 2026
Tegtmeyer notes the difficulty in visually distinguishing this base AWD model from higher-trim versions, unlike the earlier Long-Range RWD that lacked a motorized tonneau cover.
Tesla launched the $59,990 Dual Motor AWD Cybertruck in late February 2026 with a brief introductory pricing window that closed by month’s end.
Initial U.S. delivery estimates of June 2026 quickly slipped to September–October and, for newer orders, as far as April 2027.
The move underscores robust consumer interest in a more accessible all-wheel-drive Cybertruck priced under $60,000 before incentives—positioning it as a volume play for Tesla’s electric pickup lineup while premium AWD and Cyberbeast variants continue to be sold as usual.
Meanwhile, Cybercab production at the same Austin facility shows steady, if deliberate, progress. Tegtmeyer’s latest flyover documented dozens of glossy production-spec Cybercabs parked in the outbound lot—consistent with Tesla’s early statements that initial output would remain modest before scaling later in 2026.
The purpose-built robotaxi, unveiled in 2024 and lacking a steering wheel or pedals, rolled its first unit off the line in February. Volume manufacturing began in April, with early examples already undergoing autonomous testing around the factory grounds.
Elon Musk has repeatedly emphasized that Cybercab and Semi production will start slowly before ramping “exponentially” toward year-end. The presence of multiple finished units signals Tesla’s Unboxed manufacturing process is maturing, even as the company balances Cybertruck output with autonomy milestones.
Recent drone imagery also shows ongoing construction for Optimus and test-track expansions, highlighting Giga Texas’s evolving role as Tesla’s hub for next-generation vehicles.
For Cybertruck buyers, the potential ramp of the $59K AWD offers hope of shorter waits and broader market access. For autonomy enthusiasts, the growing fleet of Cybercabs hints at robotaxi service trials on the horizon.
While official confirmation from Tesla remains pending, Tegtmeyer’s footage provides the clearest public signal yet that both programs are advancing in parallel at Giga Texas.
News
Tesla Full Self-Driving gains momentum in Europe with new country mulling approval
Tesla is advancing FSD’s technology across Europe with fresh talks underway in Ireland, signaling broader regulatory progress. On May 10, Ireland’s Department of Transport confirmed that Tesla is actively engaging with national authorities, including the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI) to secure approval for FSD Supervised.
Tesla Full Self Driving (FSD) technology is gaining momentum in Europe, with yet another new country mulling a potential approval for operation on its roads.
Tesla is advancing FSD’s technology across Europe with fresh talks underway in Ireland, signaling broader regulatory progress. On May 10, Ireland’s Department of Transport confirmed that Tesla is actively engaging with national authorities, including the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI) to secure approval for FSD Supervised.
While the department noted that full rollout in Ireland would ultimately depend on EU-level clearance, the engagement marks a notable step forward in Tesla’s European expansion strategy, Irish media outlet RTE said.
The news comes on the heels of a landmark breakthrough in the Netherlands. In April, Dutch vehicle authority RDW granted the first-ever EU type approval for FSD Supervised after 18 months of rigorous testing on public roads and tracks. The provisional approval allows the system on all Dutch roads, with Tesla already rolling it out to select owners following mandatory safety training.
The Netherlands has since notified the European Commission and is advocating for wider recognition, positioning the Dutch decision as a potential template for the bloc.
Europe has long lagged behind the United States, China, and other markets where FSD is more widely available. Strict EU regulations on automated driving systems have required extensive validation, but momentum is building.
Tesla now lists the Netherlands alongside established markets such as the U.S., Canada, Australia, and South Korea on its regional FSD page. Other countries, including Belgium, are reportedly fast-tracking their own review processes in response to the Dutch precedent.
Analysts see Ireland’s involvement as strategic. As a smaller EU member with unique road challenges—narrow rural lanes, hedgerows, and variable weather—successful validation there could demonstrate FSD’s adaptability and strengthen the case for harmonized EU approval.
Tesla has indicated it aims for broader EU deployment as early as summer 2026, though the timeline remains fluid. Discussions at the EU’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles continue, with a possible vote later in the year. Some member states, particularly in Scandinavia, have expressed reservations over edge cases like speeding protocols and long-term safety data.
For Tesla, European expansion is more than a software update; it unlocks significant growth. The continent’s dense population and high vehicle ownership could accelerate data collection, refine the AI models powering FSD, and pave the way for unsupervised autonomy and robotaxi services.
Owners stand to benefit from enhanced safety features and reduced driver fatigue, while regulators weigh innovation against proven risk reduction. Early Dutch results already cite safety improvements:
Tesla Full Self-Driving shows stunning maneuver in Europe to silence skeptics
But the work is far from done, and challenges are still present. FSD Supervised still requires driver attention and a readiness to intervene. EU rules emphasize that the technology is not fully autonomous, placing legal responsibility on the human operator. Tesla must also navigate varying national road conditions and public perception.
Nevertheless, the Ireland talks underscore a clear trajectory: one national approval at a time, Europe is inching closer to widespread FSD access. If the Dutch model gains traction, Summer 2026 could mark the beginning of a transformative chapter for autonomous driving on European roads.
Tesla’s persistent engagement with regulators is starting to pay off, and it suggests the company is still heavily committed to the expansion efforts across Europe, despite the red tape it has had to persist through.
Tesla Optimus is already benefiting investors, top Wall Street firm says
Tesla Giga Texas buzzing as new Cybertruck appears to enter production
