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 is updating Cybertruck owners on its timeline of a massive feature that has yet to ship: Powershare with Powerwall.
Powershare is a bidirectional charging feature exclusive to Cybertruck, which allows the vehicle’s battery to act as a portable power source for homes, appliances, tools, other EVs, and more. It was announced in late 2023 as part of Tesla’s push into vehicle-to-everything energy sharing, and acting as a giant portable charger is the main advantage, as it can provide backup power during outages.
Cybertruck’s Powershare system supports both vehicle-to-load (V2L) and vehicle-to-home (V2H), making it flexible and well-rounded for a variety of applications.
However, even though the feature was promised with Cybertruck, it has yet to be shipped to vehicles. Tesla communicated with owners through email recently regarding Powershare with Powerwall, which essentially has the pickup act as an extended battery.
Powerwall discharge would be prioritized before tapping into the truck’s larger pack.
However, Tesla is still working on getting the feature out to owners, an email said:
“We’re writing to let you know that the Powershare with Powerwall feature is still in development and is now scheduled for release in mid-2026.
This new release date gives us additional time to design and test this feature, ensuring its ability to communicate and optimize energy sharing between your vehicle and many configurations and generations of Powerwall. We are also using this time to develop additional Powershare features that will help us continue to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.”
Owners have expressed some real disappointment in Tesla’s continuous delays in releasing the feature, as it was expected to be released by late 2024, but now has been pushed back several times to mid-2026, according to the email.
Foundation Series Cybertruck buyers paid extra, expecting the feature to be rolled out with their vehicle upon pickup.
Cybertruck’s Lead Engineer, Wes Morrill, even commented on the holdup:
As a Cybertruck owner who also has Powerwall, I empathize with the disappointed comments.
To their credit, the team has delivered powershare functionality to Cybertruck customers who otherwise have no backup with development of the powershare gateway. As well as those with solar…
— Wes (@wmorrill3) December 12, 2025
He said that “it turned out to be much harder than anticipated to make powershare work seamlessly with existing Powerwalls through existing wall connectors. Two grid-forming devices need to negotiate who will form and who will follow, depending on the state of charge of each, and they need to do this without a network and through multiple generations of hardware, and test and validate this process through rigorous certifications to ensure grid safety.”
It’s nice to see the transparency, but it is justified for some Cybertruck owners to feel like they’ve been bait-and-switched.
Tesla has opened its northernmost Supercharger in Fairbanks, Alaska, with eight V4 stalls located in one of the most frigid cities in the U.S.
Located just 196 miles from the Arctic Circle, Fairbanks’s average temperature for the week was around -12 degrees Fahrenheit. However, there are plenty of Tesla owners in Alaska who have been waiting for more charging options out in public.
There are only 36 total Supercharger stalls in Alaska, despite being the largest state in the U.S.
Eight Superchargers were added to Fairbanks, which will eventually be a 48-stall station. Tesla announced its activation today:
North America’s northernmost Supercharger Fairbanks, AK (8 stalls) opened to public. https://t.co/M4l04DZ6B5 pic.twitter.com/zyL6bDuA93
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) December 12, 2025
The base price per kWh is $0.43 at the Fairbanks Supercharger. Thanks to its V4 capabilities, it can charge at speeds up to 325 kW.
Despite being the northernmost Supercharger in North America, it is not even in the Top 5 northernmost Superchargers globally, because Alaska is south of Norway. The northernmost Supercharger is in Honningsvåg, Norway. All of the Top 5 are in the Scandanavian country.
Tesla’s Supercharger expansion in 2025 has been impressive, and although it experienced some early-quarter slowdowns due to V3-to-V4 hardware transitions, it has been the company’s strongest year for deployments.
🚨🚨 Tesla Supercharging had a HUGE year, and they deserve to be recognized.
🍔 Opened Tesla Diner, a drive-in movie theater with awesome, Chef-curated cuisine
🔌 Gave access to Superchargers to several EV makers, including Hyundai, Genesis, Mercedes-Benz, Kia, Lucid, Toyota,… pic.twitter.com/yYT2QEbqoW
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 10, 2025
Through the three quarters of 2025, the company has added 7,753 stations and 73,817 stalls across the world, a 16 percent increase in stations and an 18 percent increase in stalls compared to last year.
Tesla is on track to add over 12,000 stalls for the full year, achieving an average of one new stall every hour, an impressive statistic.
Recently, the company wrapped up construction at its Supercharger Oasis in Lost Hills, California, a 168-stall Supercharger that Tesla Solar Panels completely power. It is the largest Supercharger in the world.
News
Tesla shocks with latest Robotaxi testing move
Why Tesla has chosen to use a couple of Model S units must have a reason; the company is calculated in its engineering and data collection efforts, so this is definitely more than “we just felt like giving our drivers a change of scenery.”
Tesla Model S vehicles were spotted performing validation testing with LiDAR rigs in California today, a pretty big switch-up compared to what we are used to seeing on the roads.
Tesla utilizes the Model Y crossover for its Robotaxi fleet. It is adequately sized, the most popular vehicle in its lineup, and is suitable for a wide variety of applications. It provides enough luxury for a single rider, but enough room for several passengers, if needed.
However, the testing has seemingly expanded to one of Tesla’s premium flagship offerings, as the Model S was spotted with the validation equipment that is seen entirely with Model Y vehicles. We have written several articles on Robotaxi testing mules being spotted across the United States, but this is a first:
🚨 Tesla is using Model S vehicles fitted with LiDAR rigs to validate FSD and Robotaxi, differing from the Model Ys that it uses typically
Those Model Y vehicles have been on the East Coast for some time. These Model S cars were spotted in California https://t.co/CN9Bw5Wma8 pic.twitter.com/UE55hx5mdd
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 11, 2025
Why Tesla has chosen to use a couple of Model S units must have a reason; the company is calculated in its engineering and data collection efforts, so this is definitely more than “we just felt like giving our drivers a change of scenery.”
It seems to hint that Tesla could add a premium, more luxury offering to its Robotaxi platform eventually. Think about it: Uber has Uber Black, Lyft has Lyft Black. These vehicles and services are associated with a more premium cost as they combine luxury models with more catered transportation options.
Tesla could be testing the waters here, and it could be thinking of adding the Model S to its fleet of ride-hailing vehicles.
Reluctant to remove the Model S from its production plans completely despite its low volume contributions to the overall mission of transitioning the world to sustainable energy, the flagship sedan has always meant something. CEO Elon Musk referred to it, along with its sibling Model X, as continuing on production lines due to “sentimental reasons.”
However, its purpose might have been expanded to justify keeping it around, and why not? It is a cozy, premium offering, and it would be great for those who want a little more luxury and are willing to pay a few extra dollars.
Of course, none of this is even close to confirmed. However, it is reasonable to speculate that the Model S could be a potential addition to the Robotaxi fleet. It’s capable of all the same things the Model Y is, but with more luxuriousness, and it could be the perfect addition to the futuristic fleet.
Tesla updates Cybertruck owners on timeline of massive feature yet to ship
Tesla’s northernmost Supercharger in North America opens
