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’s lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft is heading to jury trial
The ruling keeps alive claims that OpenAI misled the Tesla CEO about its charitable purpose while accepting billions of dollars in funding.
OpenAI Inc. and Microsoft will face a jury trial this spring after a federal judge rejected their efforts to dismiss Elon Musk’s lawsuit, which accuses the artificial intelligence startup of abandoning its original nonprofit mission. The ruling keeps alive claims that OpenAI misled the Tesla CEO about its charitable purpose while accepting billions of dollars in funding.
As noted in a report from Bloomberg News, a federal judge in Oakland, California, ruled that OpenAI Inc. and Microsoft failed to show that Musk’s claims should be dismissed. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers stated that while the evidence remains unclear, Musk has maintained that OpenAI “had a specific charitable purpose and that he attached two fundamental terms to it: that OpenAI be open source and that it would remain a nonprofit — purposes consistent with OpenAI’s charter and mission.”
Judge Gonzalez Rogers also rejected an argument by OpenAI suggesting that Musk’s use of an intermediary to donate $38 million in seed money to the company stripped him of legal standing. “Holding otherwise would significantly reduce the enforcement of a large swath of charitable trusts, contrary to the modern trend,” Judge Gonzalez Rogers wrote.
The judge also declined to dismiss Musk’s fraud allegations, citing internal OpenAI communications from 2017 involving co-founder Greg Brockman. In an email cited by the judge, fellow OpenAI board member Shivon Zilis informed Musk that Brockman would “like to continue with the non-profit structure.”
Just two months later, however, Brockman wrote in a private note that he “cannot say that we are committed to the non-profit. don’t want to say that we’re committed. if three months later we’re doing b-corp then it was a lie.”
Marc Toberoff, a member of Musk’s legal team, said Judge Gonzalez Rogers’s ruling confirms that “there is substantial evidence that OpenAI’s leadership made knowingly false assurances to Mr. Musk about its charitable mission that they never honored in favor of their personal self-enrichment.”
OpenAI, for its part, maintained that Musk’s legal efforts are baseless. In a statement, the AI startup said it is looking forward to the upcoming trial. “Mr. Musk’s lawsuit continues to be baseless and a part of his ongoing pattern of harassment, and we look forward to demonstrating this at trial. We remain focused on empowering the OpenAI Foundation, which is already one of the best-resourced nonprofits ever,” OpenAI stated.
News
Tesla arsonist who burned Cybertruck sees end of FAFO journey
The man has now reached the “Find Out” stage.
A Mesa, Arizona man has been sentenced to five years in federal prison for setting fire to a Tesla location and vehicle in a politically motivated arson attack, federal prosecutors have stated.
The April 2025 incident destroyed a Tesla Cybertruck, endangered first responders, and triggered mandatory sentencing under federal arson laws.
A five-year sentence
U.S. District Judge Diane J. Humetewa sentenced Ian William Moses, 35, of Mesa, Arizona, to 5 years in prison followed by 3 years of supervised release for maliciously damaging property and vehicles by means of fire. Moses pleaded guilty in October to all five counts brought by a federal grand jury. Restitution will be determined at a hearing scheduled for April 13, 2026.
As per court records, surveillance footage showed Moses arriving at a Tesla store in Mesa shortly before 2 a.m. on April 28, 2025, carrying a gasoline can and backpack. Investigators stated that he placed fire starter logs near the building, poured gasoline on the structure and three vehicles, and ignited the fire. The blaze destroyed a Tesla Cybertruck. Moses fled the scene on a bicycle and was arrested by Mesa police about a quarter mile away, roughly an hour later.
Authorities said Moses was still wearing the same clothing seen on camera at the time of his arrest and was carrying a hand-drawn map marking the dealership’s location. Moses also painted the word “Theif” on the walls of the Tesla location, prompting jokes from social media users and Tesla community members.
The “Finding Out” stage
U.S. Attorney Timothy Courchaine noted that Moses’ sentence reflects the gravity of his crime. He also highlighted that arson is never acceptable.
“Arson can never be an acceptable part of American politics. Mr. Moses’ actions endangered the public and first responders and could have easily turned deadly. This five-year sentence reflects the gravity of these crimes and makes clear that politically fueled attacks on Arizona’s communities and businesses will be met with full accountability.”
Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell echoed the same sentiments, stating that regardless of Moses’ sentiments towards Elon Musk, his actions are not defensible.
“This sentence sends a clear message: violence and intimidation have no place in our community. Setting fire to a business in retaliation for political or personal grievances is not protest, it is a crime. Our community deserves to feel safe, and this sentence underscores that Maricopa County will not tolerate political violence in any form.”
News
Tesla says its Texas lithium refinery is now operational and unlike anything in North America
Elon Musk separately described the site as both the most advanced and the largest lithium refinery in the United States.
Tesla has confirmed that its Texas lithium refinery is now operational, marking a major milestone for the company’s U.S. battery supply chain. In a newly released video, Tesla staff detailed how the facility converts raw spodumene ore directly into battery-grade lithium hydroxide, making it the first refinery of its kind in North America.
Elon Musk separately described the site as both the most advanced and the largest lithium refinery in the United States.
A first-of-its-kind lithium refining process
In the video, Tesla staff at the Texas lithium refinery near Corpus Christi explained that the facility processes spodumene, a lithium-rich hard-rock ore, directly into battery-grade lithium hydroxide on site. The approach bypasses intermediate refining steps commonly used elsewhere in the industry.
According to the staff, spodumene is processed through kilns and cooling systems before undergoing alkaline leaching, purification, and crystallization. The resulting lithium hydroxide is suitable for use in batteries for energy storage and electric vehicles. Tesla employees noted that the process is simpler and less expensive than traditional refining methods.
Staff at the facility added that the process eliminates hazardous byproducts typically associated with lithium refining. “Our process is more sustainable than traditional methods and eliminates hazardous byproducts, and instead produces a co-product named anhydrite, used in concrete mixes,” an employee noted.
Musk calls the facility the largest lithium refinery in America
The refinery’s development timeline has been very impressive. The project moved from breaking ground in 2023 to integrated plant startup in 2025 by running feasibility studies, design, and construction in parallel. This compressed schedule enabled the fastest time-to-market for a refinery using this type of technology. This 2026, the facility has become operational.
Elon Musk echoed the significance of the project in posts on X, stating that “the largest Lithium refinery in America is now operational.” In a separate comment, Musk described the site as “the most advanced lithium refinery in the world” and emphasized that the facility is “very clean.”
By bringing large-scale lithium hydroxide production online in Texas, Tesla is positioning itself to reduce reliance on foreign refining capacity while supporting its growth in battery and vehicle production. The refinery also complements Tesla’s nascent domestic battery manufacturing efforts, which could very well be a difference maker in the market.
Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft is heading to jury trial
Tesla arsonist who burned Cybertruck sees end of FAFO journey
