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.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk is now a remote DOGE worker: White House Chief of Staff
The Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is no longer working from the West Wing.
In a conversation with the New York Post, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles stated that Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is no longer working from the West Wing.
As per the Chief of Staff, Musk is still working for DOGE—as a remote worker, at least.
Remote Musk
In her conversation with the publication, Wiles stated that she still talks with Musk. And while the CEO is now working remotely, his contributions still have the same net effect.
“Instead of meeting with him in person, I’m talking to him on the phone, but it’s the same net effect,” Wiles stated, adding that “it really doesn’t matter much” that the CEO “hasn’t been here physically.” She also noted that Musk’s team will not be leaving.
“He’s not out of it altogether. He’s just not physically present as much as he was. The people that are doing this work are here doing good things and paying attention to the details. He’ll be stepping back a little, but he’s certainly not abandoning it. And his people are definitely not,” Wiles stated.
Back to Tesla
Musk has been a frequent presence in the White House during the Trump administration’s first 100 days in office. But during the Q1 2025 Tesla earnings call, Musk stated that he would be spending substantially less time with DOGE and substantially more time with Tesla. Musk did emphasize, however, that DOGE’s work is extremely valuable and critical.
“I think I’ll continue to spend a day or two per week on government matters for as long as the President would like me to do so and as long as it is useful. But starting next month, I’ll be allocating probably more of my time to Tesla and now that the major work of establishing the Department of Government Efficiency is done,” Musk stated.
Elon Musk
Tariff reprieve might be ‘Tesla-friendly,’ but it’s also an encouragement to others
Tesla stands to benefit from the tariff reprieve, but it has some work cut out for it as well.
After Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick made adjustments to the automotive tariff program that was initially announced, many quickly pointed to the reprieve as “Tesla-friendly.”
While that may be the case right now, it was also a nudge of encouragement to other companies, Tesla included, to source parts from the U.S. in an effort to strengthen domestic manufacturing. Many companies are close, and it will only take a handful of improvements to save themselves from tariffs on their cars as well.
Yesterday, Sec. Lutnick confirmed that cars manufactured with at least 85 percent of domestic content will face zero tariffs. Additionally, U.S. automakers would receive credit up to 15 percent of the value of vehicles to offset the cost of imported parts.
Big Tesla win? Sec Lutnick says cars with 85% domestic content will face zero tariffs
“This is ‘finish your cars in America and you win’,” Lutnick said.
Many were quick to point out that only three vehicles currently qualify for this zero-tariff threshold: all three are Teslas.
However, according to Kelley Blue Book’s most recent study that revealed who makes the most American cars, there are a lot of vehicles that are extremely close to also qualifying for these tariff reductions.
Tesla has three vehicles that are within five percent, while Ford, Honda, Jeep, Chevrolet, GMC, and Volkswagen have many within just ten percent of the threshold.
Tesla completely dominates Kogod School’s 2024 Made in America Auto Index
It is within reach for many.
Right now, it is easy to see why some people might think this is a benefit for Tesla and Tesla only.
But it’s not, because Tesla has its Cybertruck, Model S, and Model X just a few percentage points outside of that 85 percent cutoff. They, too, will feel the effects of the broader strategy that the Trump administration is using to prioritize domestic manufacturing and employment. More building in America means more jobs for Americans.
Credit: Tesla
However, other companies that are very close to the 85 percent cutoff are only a few components away from also saving themselves the hassle of the tariffs.
Ford has the following vehicles within just five percent of the 85 percent threshold:
- Ford Mustang GT automatic (80%)
- Ford Mustang GT 5.0 (80%)
- Ford Mustang GT Coupe Premium (80%)
Honda has several within ten percent:
- Honda Passport All-Wheel-Drive (76.5%)
- Honda Passport Trailsport (76.5)
Jeep has two cars:
- Jeep Wrangler Rubicon (76%)
- Jeep Wrangler Sahara (76%)
Volkswagen has one with the ID.4 AWD 82-kWh (75.5%). GMC has two at 75.5% with the Canyon AT4 Crew Cab 4WD and the Canyon Denali Crew Cab 4WD.
Chevrolet has several:
- Chevrolet Colorado 2.7-liter (75.5%)
- Chevrolet Colorado LT Crew Cab 2WD 2.7-liter (75.5%)
- Chevrolet Colorado Z71 Crew Cab 4WD 2.7-liter (75.5%)
These companies are close to reaching the 85% threshold, but adjustments need to be made to work toward that number.
Anything from seats to fabric to glass can be swapped out for American-made products, making these cars more domestically sourced and thus qualifying them for the zero-tariff boundary.
Frank DuBois of American University said that manufacturers like to see stability in their relationships with suppliers and major trade partners. He said that Trump’s tariff plan could cause “a period of real instability,” but it will only be temporary.
Now is the time to push American manufacturing forward, solidifying a future with more U.S.-made vehicles and creating more domestic jobs. Tesla will also need to scramble to make adjustments to its vehicles that are below 85%.
News
Tesla Cybertruck RWD production in full swing at Giga Texas
Videos of several freshly produced Cybertruck LR RWD units were shared on social media platform X.
It appears that Tesla is indeed ramping the production of the Cybertruck Long Range Rear Wheel Drive (LR RWD), the most affordable variant of the brutalist all-electric pickup truck.
Videos of several freshly produced Cybertruck LR RWD units were shared on social media platform X.
Giga Texas Footage
As per longtime Tesla watcher Joe Tegtmeyer, Giga, Texas, was a hotbed of activity when he conducted his recent drone flyover. Apart from what seemed to be Cybercab castings being gathered in the complex, a good number of Cybertruck LR RWD units could also be seen in the facility’s staging area. The Cybertruck LR RWD units are quite easy to spot since they are not equipped with the motorized tonneau cover that is standard on the Cybertruck AWD and Cyberbeast.
The presence of the Cybertruck LR RWD units in Giga Texas’ staging area suggests that Tesla is ramping the production of the base all-electric pickup truck. This bodes well for the vehicle, which is still premium priced despite missing a good number of features that are standard in the Cybertruck AWD and Cyberbeast.
Cybertruck Long Range RWD Specs
The Cybertruck LR RWD is priced at $69,990 before incentives, making it $10,000 more affordable than the Cybertruck AWD. For its price, the Cybertruck Long Range RWD offers a range of 350 miles per charge if equipped with its 18” standard Wheels. It can also add up to 147 miles of range in 15 minutes using a Tesla Supercharger.
Much of the cost-cutting measures taken by Tesla are evident in the cabin of the Cybertruck LR RWD. This could be seen in its textile seats, standard console, seven-speaker audio system with no active noise cancellation, and lack of a 9.4” second-row display. It is also missing the motorized tonneau cover, the 2x 120V and 1x 240V power outlets on the bed, and the 2x 120V power outlets in the cabin. It is also equipped with an adaptive coil spring suspension instead of the adaptive air suspension in the Cybertruck AWD and Cyberbeast.
Elon Musk is now a remote DOGE worker: White House Chief of Staff
Tariff reprieve might be ‘Tesla-friendly,’ but it’s also an encouragement to others
Tesla Cybertruck RWD production in full swing at Giga Texas
-
News1 week agoTesla’s Hollywood Diner is finally getting close to opening
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoTesla doubles down on Robotaxi launch date, putting a big bet on its timeline
-
News5 days agoTesla is trying to make a statement with its Q2 delivery numbers
-
Investor's Corner1 week agoLIVE BLOG: Tesla (TSLA) Q1 2025 Company Update and earnings call
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoTesla reportedly suspended Cybercab and Semi parts order amid tariff war: Reuters
-
SpaceX2 weeks agoSpaceX pitches subscription model for Trump’s Golden Dome
-
News2 weeks agoDriverless Teslas using FSD Unsupervised are starting to look common in Giga Texas
-
News3 days agoNY Democrats are taking aim at Tesla direct sales licenses in New York