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
NASA sends humans to the Moon for the first time since 1972 – Here’s what’s next
NASA’s Artemis II launched four astronauts toward the Moon on the first crewed lunar mission since 1972.
NASA’s Space Launch System rocket launches carrying the Orion spacecraft with NASA astronauts Reid Wiseman, commander; Victor Glover, pilot; Christina Koch, mission specialist; and CSA (Canadian Space Agency) astronaut Jeremy Hansen, mission specialist on NASA’s Artemis II mission, Wednesday, April 1, 2026, from Operations and Support Building II at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. NASA’s Artemis II mission will take Wiseman, Glover, Koch, and Hansen on a 10-day journey around the Moon and back aboard SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft launched at 6:35pm EDT from Launch Complex 39B. (NASA/Bill Ingalls)
NASA launched four astronauts toward the Moon on April 1, 2026, marking the first crewed lunar mission since Apollo 17 in December 1972. The Artemis II mission lifted off from Kennedy Space Center aboard the Space Launch System rocket at 6:35 p.m. EDT, sending commander Reid Wiseman, pilot Victor Glover, mission specialist Christina Koch, and Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen on a 10-day journey around the far side of the Moon and back.
The mission does not include a lunar landing. It is a test flight designed to validate the Orion spacecraft’s life support systems, navigation, and communications in deep space with a crew aboard for the first time. If the crew reaches the planned distance of 252,000 miles from Earth, they will set a new record for the farthest any human has ever traveled, surpassing even the Apollo 13 distance record.
As Teslarati reported, SpaceX holds a central role in what comes next. The Starship Human Landing System is under contract to carry astronauts to the lunar surface for Artemis IV, now targeting 2028, after NASA restructured its mission sequence due to delays in Starship’s orbital refueling demonstration. Before any Moon landing happens, SpaceX must prove it can transfer propellant between two Starships in orbit, something no rocket program has done at this scale.
The last time humans left Earth’s orbit was 53 years ago. Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt of Apollo 17 were the final people to walk on the Moon, a record that stands to this day. Elon Musk has long argued that returning is not optional. “It’s been now almost half a century since humans were last on the Moon,” Musk said. “That’s too long, we need to get back there and have a permanent base on the Moon.”
The Artemis program involves 60 countries signed onto the Artemis Accords, and this mission sets several firsts beyond distance. Glover becomes the first person of color to travel beyond low Earth orbit, Koch the first woman, and Hansen the first non-American astronaut to reach the Moon’s vicinity. According to NASA’s live mission updates, the spacecraft’s solar arrays deployed successfully after liftoff and the crew completed a proximity operations demonstration within the first hours of flight.
Artemis II is step one. The Moon landing and the permanent lunar base come later. But after more than five decades, humans are heading back.
News
Tesla removes Model S and X custom orders as sunset officially begins
In a significant development that marks the beginning of the end for two of its longest-running models, Tesla has removed the custom order configurator for the Model S sedan and Model X SUV from its website.
Tesla has officially started the “honorable discharge” of the Model S and Model X with a massive move, removing the two vehicles from Custom Orders and only offering inventory options.
It is the latest move Tesla has made to pull the Model S and Model X from its lineup, a decision CEO Elon Musk announced during its last quarterly earnings call.
Tesla brings closure to flagship ‘sentimental’ models, Musk confirms
In a significant development that marks the beginning of the end for two of its longest-running models, Tesla has removed the custom order configurator for the Model S sedan and Model X SUV from its website.
As of April 1, visitors to tesla.com/model-s and tesla.com/modelx are now redirected exclusively to limited inventory listings rather than a design studio, allowing buyers to select paint, wheels, interior options, or performance upgrades. Only pre-built vehicles currently in stock are available for purchase or lease.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk confirmed the change directly on X, posting: “Custom orders of the Tesla Model S & X have come to an end. All that’s left are some in inventory.”
Custom orders of the Tesla Model S & X have come to an end. All that’s left are some in inventory.
We will have an official ceremony to mark the ending of an era. I love those cars.
This was me at production launch 14 years ago: pic.twitter.com/6kvCf9HTHc
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 1, 2026
We will have an official ceremony to mark the end of an era.” Accompanying the statement was a throwback photo from the Model S production launch in 2012, underscoring the emotional weight of the decision.
Musk had first signaled the phase-out during the company’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, describing it as time for an “honorable discharge” of the programs to free up resources at the Fremont factory for Optimus humanoid robot production and autonomous vehicle initiatives.
The Model S, introduced in 2012, and the Model X, which followed in 2015, were instrumental in establishing Tesla as a premium electric vehicle leader.
The sedan offered class-leading range and acceleration, while the SUV’s signature falcon-wing doors became an iconic feature. Together, they proved EVs could compete in the luxury segment. Yet sales volumes have dwindled in recent years as Tesla prioritized higher-volume Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The flagships now represent a tiny fraction of overall deliveries, making continued custom production inefficient as the company accelerates toward robotaxis and next-generation platforms.
Prospective buyers are urged to act quickly. Remaining U.S. inventory vehicles—some nearly new—may include incentives such as lifetime free Supercharging, Full Self-Driving (Supervised) capability, and premium connectivity, depending on configuration.
Leasing options start around $1,699 per month for select Model X units, though exact pricing and availability fluctuate. International markets, including Europe and China, have already seen similar restrictions in recent months.
The move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategy to streamline its lineup and redirect manufacturing capacity toward autonomy and AI-driven products. While some enthusiasts lament the loss of personalization, the company views the transition as necessary progress.
Tesla has indicated that once the current inventory sells out, new Model S and Model X vehicles will no longer be offered.
For loyal owners and fans, the promised “official ceremony” may provide a fitting send-off. In the meantime, the website change serves as a clear signal: the era of bespoke flagship Teslas has quietly concluded, and the focus has fully shifted to the future.
Elon Musk
SpaceX files confidentially for IPO that will rewrite the record books
SpaceX files confidentially for a record-breaking IPO targeting a $1.75T valuation and $80B raise, driven by Starlink growth and its xAI merger.
Elon Musk’s rocket and satellite company submitted its draft registration to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission today for an initial public offering, targeting June at a $1.75 trillion valuation. This would be the largest in history.
SpaceX has filed confidentially with the SEC, first reported by Bloomberg. SpaceX would be valued above every S&P 500 company except Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Amazon.
The filing uses a confidential process that allows companies to work through SEC disclosures privately before initiating a public roadshow. With a June target, official details through a formal prospectus is expected to go public in April or early May, after which SpaceX must wait at least 15 days before beginning investor marketing.
While SpaceX is best known for its Falcon 9 and Starship rockets, the $1.75 trillion valuation is anchored by Starlink, its satellite internet service. Starlink ended 2025 with 9.2 million subscribers and over $10 billion in revenue, which is a figure analysts project could reach a staggering $24 billion by the end of 2026. A February all-stock merger with xAI, Musk’s artificial intelligence venture, further boosted the valuation.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley are lined up as senior underwriters. SpaceX is also considering a dual-class share structure to preserve insider voting control, and plans to allocate up to 30% of shares to retail investors, which is roughly three times the typical norm.
NASA sends humans to the Moon for the first time since 1972 – Here’s what’s next
Tesla removes Model S and X custom orders as sunset officially begins
SpaceX files confidentially for IPO that will rewrite the record books
Elon Musk says Tesla is developing a new vehicle: ‘Way cooler than a minivan’
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
