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

4 years ago

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.

Related Topics:

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 plant manager tips off affordable model production

Published

3 hours ago

on

October 6, 2025

By

Credit: @Gf4Tesla/X

A plant manager at a Tesla factory just tipped off the fact that the company will begin production of an affordable model in the coming weeks, all but confirming that a new car will be unveiled tomorrow.

Tesla has been teasing some kind of product unveiling for October 7 on its social media accounts. It has now dropped two separate indications that a new product is coming on its X account.

Fans have been anticipating two things: either the company’s planned affordable model, which has been codenamed “E41,” or the Roadster, a long-awaited vehicle that Tesla has kept under wraps for much longer than it would likely care to admit.

Tesla all but confirms that affordable Model Y is coming Tuesday

André Thierig, Tesla’s plant manager at the German production plant Gigafactory Berlin, tipped off what is likely coming tomorrow at the product unveiling as he revealed during an internal event today that a light version of the Model Y will begin series production and deliveries “in a few weeks.”

Thierig’s revealing of plans was reported by Handelsblatt, a German media outlet.

The description of a “light version of the Model Y” aligns with what CEO Elon Musk said earlier this year, as well as what we have seen on public roads, both covered and uncovered.

Last week, we finally saw an uncovered version of what the affordable model likely is, as it was cruising around near Gigafactory Texas, just outside of Austin.

Tesla coding shows affordable model details, including potential price

Musk said earlier this year, candidly during an Earnings Call, that the affordable model Tesla planned to release was a Model Y.

“It’s just a Model Y. Let the cat out of the bag there,” Musk said.

The images of what we assumed to be the affordable model lined up with Musk’s candid statement:

Tesla is expected to unveil its affordable model tomorrow during the planned event, which has been teased twice. Pricing and other details are still pending, but the company is expected to reveal this information tomorrow.

Continue Reading

News

Three things Tesla needs to improve with Full Self-Driving v14 release

These are the three things I’d like to see Tesla Full Self-Driving v14 improve.

Published

8 hours ago

on

October 6, 2025

By

As Tesla plans to release Full Self-Driving version 14 this week after CEO Elon Musk detailed a short delay in its rollout, there are several things that continue to plague what are extremely well-done drives by the suite.

Tesla Full Self-Driving has truly revolutionized the way I travel, and I use it for the majority of my driving. However, it does a few things really poorly, and these issues are consistent across many drives, not just one.

Tesla Full Self-Driving impressions after three weeks of ownership

Musk has called FSD v14 “sentient” and hinted that it would demonstrate drastic improvements from v13. The current version is very good, and it commonly performs some of the more difficult driving tasks well. I have found that it does simple, yet crucial things, somewhat poorly.

These are the three things I’d like to see Tesla Full Self-Driving v14 improve.

Navigation, Routing, and Logical Departure

My biggest complaint is how poorly the navigation system chooses its route of departure. I’ve noticed this specifically from where I Supercharge. The car routinely takes the most illogical route to leave the Supercharger, a path that would require an illegal U-turn to get on the correct route.

I managed to capture this yesterday when leaving the Supercharger to go on a lengthy ride using Full Self-Driving:

You’ll see I overrode the attempt to turn right out of the lot by pushing the turn signal to turn left instead. If you go right, you’ll go around the entire convenience store and end up approaching a traffic light with a “No U-Turn” sign. The car has tried to initiate a U-turn at this light before.

If you’re attempting to get on the highway, you simply have to leave the convenience store on a different route (the one I made the vehicle go in).

It then attempted to enter the right lane when the car needed to remain in the left lane to turn left and access the highway. I manually took over and then reactivated Full Self-Driving when it was in the correct lane.

To achieve Unsupervised Full Self-Driving, such as navigating out of a parking lot and taking the logical route, while also avoiding illegal maneuvers, is incredibly crucial.

Too Much Time in the Left Lane on the Highway

It is illegal to cruise in the left lane on highways in all 50 U.S. states, although certain states enforce it more than others. Colorado, for example, has a law that makes it illegal to drive in the left lane on highways with a speed limit of 65 MPH or greater unless you are passing.

In Florida, it is generally prohibited to use the left lane unless you are passing a slower vehicle.

In Pennsylvania, where I live, cruising in the left lane is illegal on limited-access highways with two or more lanes. Left lanes are designed for passing, while right lanes are intended for cruising.

Full Self-Driving, especially on the “Hurry” drive mode, which drives most realistically, cruises in the left lane, making it in violation of these cruising laws. There are many instances when it has a drastic amount of space between cars in the right lane, and it simply chooses to stay in the left lane:

The clip above is nearly 12 minutes in length without being sped up. In real-time, it had plenty of opportunities to get over and cruise in the left lane. It did not do this until the end of the video.

Tesla should implement a “Preferred Highway Cruising Lane” option for two and three-lane highways, allowing drivers to choose the lane that FSD cruises in.

It also tends to pass vehicles in the slow lane at a speed that is only a mile an hour or two higher than that other car.

This holds up traffic in the left lane; if it is going to overtake a vehicle in the right lane, it needs to do it faster and with more assertiveness. It should not take more than 5-10 seconds to pass a car. Anything longer is disrupting the flow of highway traffic.

Parking

Full Self-Driving does a great job of getting you to your destination, but parking automatically once you’re there has been a pain point.

As I was arriving at my destination, it pulled in directly on top of the line separating two parking spots. It does this frequently when I arrive at my house as well.

Here’s what it looked like yesterday:

Parking is one of the easier tasks Full Self-Driving performs, and Autopark does extremely well when the driver manually chooses the spot. I use Autopark on an almost daily basis.

However, if I do not assist the vehicle in choosing a spot, its performance pulling into spaces is pretty lackluster.

With a lot of hype surrounding v14, Tesla has built up considerable anticipation among owners who want to see FSD perform the easy tasks well. As of now, I believe it does the harder things better than the easy things.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk teases previously unknown Tesla Optimus capability

Elon Musk revealed over the weekend that the humanoid robot should be able to utilize Tesla’s dataset for Full Self-Driving (FSD) to operate cars not manufactured by Tesla.

Published

10 hours ago

on

October 6, 2025

By

Credit: @heydave7/X

Elon Musk revealed a new capability that Tesla Optimus should have, and it is one that will surely surprise many people, as it falls outside the CEO’s scope of his several companies.

Tesla Optimus is likely going to be the biggest product the company ever develops, and Musk has even predicted that it could make up about 80 percent of the company’s value in the coming years.

Teasing the potential to eliminate any trivial and monotonous tasks from human life, Optimus surely has its appeal.

However, Musk revealed over the weekend that the humanoid robot should be able to utilize Tesla’s dataset for Full Self-Driving (FSD) to operate cars not manufactured by Tesla:

FSD would essentially translate from operation in Tesla vehicles from a driverless perspective to Optimus, allowing FSD to basically be present in any vehicle ever made. Optimus could be similar to a personal chauffeur, as well as an assistant.

Optimus has significant hype behind it, as Tesla has been meticulously refining its capabilities. Along with Musk’s and other executives’ comments about its potential, it’s clear that there is genuine excitement internally.

This past weekend, the company continued to stoke hype behind Optimus by showing a new video of the humanoid robot learning Kung Fu and training with a teacher:

Tesla plans to launch its Gen 3 version of Optimus in the coming months, and although we saw a new-look robot just last month, thanks to a video from Salesforce CEO and Musk’s friend Marc Benioff, we have been told that this was not a look at the company’s new iteration.

Instead, Gen 3’s true design remains a mystery for the general public, but with the improvements between the first two iterations already displayed, we are sure the newest version will be something special.

Continue Reading

Trending