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.
Tesla has secured regulatory approval for its Full Self-Driving (Supervised) system in Denmark, marking a significant step in the technology’s expansion across Europe.
Announced on June 9, the approval positions Denmark as the fourth European country to greenlight FSD Supervised, following the Netherlands, Lithuania, and Estonia.
Rollout to Danish vehicle owners is expected to begin soon, the company said.
The Danish Road Traffic Authority granted provisional approval after reviewing the original type approval issued by the Dutch vehicle authority (RDW) on April 10, 2026.
FSD Supervised now approved in Denmark 🇩🇰
Rollout will begin soon pic.twitter.com/Xpxwcme10k
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) June 9, 2026
This national recognition approach allows individual countries to bypass slower EU-wide harmonization processes, accelerating deployment. Lithuania activated the system on May 20, with Estonia following on May 29, demonstrating a rapid domino effect across the region.
FSD Supervised enables advanced driver assistance capabilities, including automatic steering, acceleration, braking, lane changes, and navigation through complex urban and rural environments. The system is designed for supervised use, as its name states, meaning drivers must remain attentive and ready to intervene at all times.
It adapts to diverse conditions, such as rain, night driving, and varied road types common in Denmark, but it is important to note that the tech is not fully autonomous.
Following a launch in Europe just a few months ago, with its first approval coming in the Netherlands, Tesla is just now highlighting the successful start.
Early data from the Netherlands highlights strong safety performance. Between April 10 and June 5, vehicles using FSD Supervised recorded 3.5 times fewer collisions than manual driving overall, with zero crashes reported on highways across more than 16.6 million kilometers driven.
These results underscore the potential of the technology to enhance road safety when properly supervised.
Tesla’s European push builds on its global footprint, now reaching 12 countries with FSD Supervised availability. The software receives continuous over-the-air updates, improving performance based on real-world data from millions of miles.
In Denmark, owners with compatible hardware—particularly newer vehicles equipped with Hardware 4 (HW4)—are anticipated to gain access first, though exact timelines and eligibility details will be confirmed during rollout.
This approval reflects growing regulatory confidence in supervised autonomy across Europe. As more nations recognize the Dutch certification, Tesla continues to demonstrate how its AI-driven approach can navigate real-world driving scenarios effectively. Denmark’s addition strengthens Tesla’s position in the region, paving the way for broader adoption on a continent that his been surprisingly slow to adopt the technology.
With FSD Supervised now approved in four European markets in just two months, the technology is steadily advancing toward wider availability. Tesla aims to refine the system further through ongoing data collection and software iterations, supporting its vision for safer and more efficient transportation.
Tesla has apparently revised the policy it previously had listed for Full Self-Driving transfers on the newest All-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck that the company had sold for a steal price of just $59,000 earlier this year.
After initially stating that customers who bought the pickup would be able to transfer FSD purchases, Tesla recently changed the language in those terms and conditions to reflect that this would no longer be the case.
Tesla launches new Cybertruck trim with more features than ever for a low price
The adjustment in terminology has caused a handful of orderers to cancel their reservations due to the loss of FSD transfer:
Just cancelled my 59k CT order today. My screenshot from that day of order (feb 20th) clearly shows that it would be eligible.
Terms were retroactively modified. Our 2020 Y and 2023 S are just fine for now. pic.twitter.com/D9PFnId1B4
— Ryan Scanlan 👥 (@Xenius) June 8, 2026
Tesla said orders for the new Cybertruck AWD must be placed by March 31, 2026, to qualify for the FSD transfer. The language in the document from earlier this year explicitly states that they “may qualify” for the transfer program, but the date of March 31 is explicitly mentioned.
Additionally, Tesla Delivery Advisors reached out to some orderers of the AWD Cybertruck, who were told there was “an update to the eligibility of the Full Self-Driving (Supervised) transfer.” Tesla stated they could:
- proceed without the transfer,
- upgrade to a Premium or Cyberbeast trim and request an FSD Transfer
- cancel the order and be refunded the $250 order fee.
Tesla turning around and changing these terms will undoubtedly result in a handful of cancellations on the part of those who have placed an order for this truck. They could pay $99 per month for an FSD subscription, which is now the only option available, but having purchased the suite outright on another vehicle and being told the transfer policy would be upheld, only to have it cancelled, is a tough pill to swallow.
These moves were also made by Tesla just before deliveries were set to begin on the Cybertruck AWD configuration. Reservation holders have started receiving VINs for their trucks, and Tesla is preparing to hand over the first units.
It’s a disappointing move from Tesla that will undoubtedly make some of its fans who have bought the truck frustrated.
In the world of autonomous ride-hailing, there are only a handful of names. Among those few companies lies a strategy play by each to keep the opposition on their toes. Tesla, on the other hand, already tipped its hand at where it is headed next.
Tesla has signaled its next major push in the autonomous ride-hailing market by filing for an Autonomous Vehicle Network Company permit in Nevada (Docket 26-05015). Through Tesla Robotaxi, LLC, the company seeks approval to operate up to 5,000 robotaxis in Clark County, including high-traffic areas like Las Vegas and Henderson airports, within the first 12 months of launch.
This filing builds on Tesla’s earlier testing approvals from the Nevada DMV in September 2025 and preparations such as maintenance hubs in the Las Vegas area. Nevada represents a strategic expansion into a major tourist destination, where high visitor volumes could drive strong utilization and showcase the reliability of unsupervised autonomy to a broad audience.
We’d have to assume this means Tesla is targeting Las Vegas, and it’s a great move from a business perspective.
Vegas is such a melting pot of people from all around the country and the world. It will expose people from all corners of the globe to Tesla’s autonomy capabilities https://t.co/Qz3fQmhULF pic.twitter.com/Du5pj2RyWC
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 6, 2026
Approval would mark a significant step toward commercial operations in a new state, following progress in Texas.
Tesla’s shareholder decks and earnings calls have clearly outlined these ambitions. In the Q4 2025 shareholder deck, the company listed planned Robotaxi coverage for the first half of 2026, explicitly naming Las Vegas alongside Phoenix, Miami, Orlando, and Tampa, with Dallas and Houston already advancing. Austin was noted as “ramping unsupervised,” while the Bay Area remained in safety-driver mode.
By Q1 2026, the deck updated statuses to reflect launches in Dallas and Houston, with “preparations underway” for the remaining cities, including Las Vegas. Paid Robotaxi miles nearly doubled sequentially in Q1, underscoring momentum even as broader timelines adjusted slightly for regulatory and operational readiness.
On earnings calls, CEO Elon Musk and executives have emphasized a phased rollout prioritizing safety. Unsupervised operations in Texas have shown strong results with no reported accidents or injuries in the program. Tesla continues groundwork in additional major U.S. metros through testing and permitting, positioning it to scale quickly once approvals clear.
This Nevada move aligns with Tesla’s vision of transforming from an EV maker into an AI and robotics leader. The forthcoming Cybercab, which started production at Giga Texas in April, is expected to eventually dominate the fleet, replacing many Model Y vehicles and driving down costs to enable affordable rides.
For investors and the industry, this signals Tesla’s intent to dominate key Sun Belt and tourist markets where weather, regulations, and demand favor rapid scaling. Success in Las Vegas could validate the model for denser urban and high-tourism environments, accelerating the shift toward a future where robotaxis generate meaningful revenue.
Las Vegas will also expand knowledge among the general public at Tesla’s capabilities, helping people experience driverless ride-hailing from several companies during their time on The Strip.
Tesla Full Self-Driving is taking over Europe: fourth country gets FSD approval
Tesla revises FSD transfer policy on new Cybertruck trim, causing cancellations
