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.
Cybertruck
Tesla Cybertruck gets long-awaited safety feature
Tesla has announced the rollout of its innovative anti-dooring protection feature to the Cybertruck via the 2026.8 software update.
Tesla is rolling out a new and long-awaited feature to the Cybertruck all-electric pickup, and it is a safety addition geared toward pedestrian and cyclist safety, as well as accidents with other vehicles.
Tesla has announced the rollout of its innovative anti-dooring protection feature to the Cybertruck via the 2026.8 software update.
This safety enhancement uses the vehicle’s existing cameras to detect approaching cyclists, pedestrians, or vehicles in the blind spot while parked. Upon attempting to open a door, if a hazard is detected, the system activates: the blind spot indicator light flashes, an audible chime sounds, and the door will not open on the initial button press.
Drivers must wait briefly and press the button again to override, providing crucial seconds to avoid an accident.
Anti-dooring protection now rolling out to @Cybertruck
This feature comes standard on every new Model 3, Model Y & Cybertruck – using cameras to delay door opening if a cyclist, pedestrian or other vehicle is detected approaching in your blind spot
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) March 17, 2026
The feature, also known as Blind Spot Warning While Parked, comes standard on every new Model 3 and Model Y, and is now extending to the Cybertruck. Leveraging Tesla’s vision-based system without requiring new hardware, it represents a cost-effective software solution that builds on community suggestions dating back to 2018.
This technology addresses the persistent danger of “dooring,” where a driver opens a car door into the path of a passing cyclist or pedestrian.
Tesla implemented this little-known feature to make its cars even safer
Dooring incidents are alarmingly common in urban environments.
According to Chicago data, in 2011 alone, there were 344 reported dooring crashes, accounting for approximately 20 percent of all bicycle crashes in the city, nearly one incident per day.
While numbers have fluctuated (dropping to 11 percent in 2014 before rising again), dooring consistently represents 10-20 percent of bike-related crashes in major cities.
A national analysis of emergency department data estimates over 17,000 dooring-related injuries treated in the U.S. over a decade, with many involving fractures, contusions, and head trauma, particularly affecting upper extremities.
By automatically intervening, Tesla’s system not only protects vulnerable road users but also safeguards its owners from potential liability and enhances overall road safety.
As cities promote cycling for sustainable transport, features like this demonstrate how advanced driver assistance and camera systems can evolve beyond highway driving to everyday urban scenarios.
Enthusiastic responses on social media highlight appreciation for the proactive safety measure, with some calling for broader rollout to older models where hardware permits. Tesla continues to push the boundaries of vehicle safety through over-the-air updates, making its fleet smarter and safer over time.
Elon Musk
Tesla Roadster is ‘sorcery and magic’ and might be worth the wait, Uber founder says
Perhaps the wait will be worth it, especially according to Uber founder Travis Kalanick, who recently teased the Roadster’s potential capabilities based on what he has heard from internal Tesla sources.
Tesla is planning to unveil the Roadster in late April after years of waiting. But the wait might be worth it, according to Travis Kalanick, the founder of Uber, who recently shed some light on his expectations for the all-electric supercar.
We all know the Roadster is supposed to have some serious capability. CEO Elon Musk has said on numerous occasions that the Roadster will be unlike anything else ever produced. It might go from 0-60 MPH in about a second, it might hover, it might have SpaceX cold gas thrusters.
However, the constant delays in the Roadster program and its unveiling event continue to send Tesla fans into confusion because they’re just not sure when, or if, they’ll ever see the finished product.
Perhaps the wait will be worth it, especially according to Uber founder Travis Kalanick, who recently teased the Roadster’s potential capabilities based on what he has heard from internal Tesla sources.
Kalanick said on X:
When I’ve run into people who are in the know, I inquire, they tell me nothing, but their eyebrows raise and their eyes widen in a way that can only mean something of sorcery and magic is coming…
— travis kalanick (@travisk) March 17, 2026
Musk has said this vehicle is not going to be geared for safety, and that, “If safety is your number one goal, do not buy the Roadster.”
There has been so much hype regarding the Roadster that it is hard to believe the company could not come through on some kind of crazy features for the vehicle.
However, the latest delay that Tesla put on the unveiling event is definitely eye-opening, especially considering it is the latest in a series of pushbacks the company has put on the vehicle for the past several years.
Tesla has made several jumps in the Roadster project over the past few months, as it has ramped up hiring for the vehicle and also applied for a patent for a new seat design.
The car has been a back-burner project for Tesla, as it has been focusing primarily on autonomy and the rollout of Robotaxi and Cybercab. Additionally, its other vehicle projects, like the Model 3 and Model Y refreshes, took precedence.
Tesla still plans to unveil the Roadster next month, so we can hope the company can stick to this timeframe.
Cybertruck
Elon Musk clarifies viral Tesla Cybertruck accident with driver logs
Musk has come out to say that the driver logs have already shown that the driver “disengaged Autopilot four seconds before crashing,” in a post on X.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has clarified some details regarding the viral Tesla Cybertruck accident with company driver logs, which show various metrics at the time of an incident.
The logs have been used in the past to pull responsibility off of Tesla when the automaker’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) or Autopilot platforms are blamed for a collision or accident. It appears this will be no different.
On Tuesday, a video of a Cybertruck crashing into an overpass barrier in August 2025 was shared by Fox Business in a story that reported a woman was suing the automaker for $1 million in a liability and negligence case.
In the suit, Justine Saint Amour said that, “Something terrifying happened, without warning, the vehicle attempted to drive straight off an overpass.” Her attorney, Bob Hilliard, said Amour “tried to take control, but crashed into the barrier and was seriously injured (mostly her shoulder, neck, and back).”
The Tesla Model Y is leading China’s electric SUV segment by a wide margin
Tesla vehicle crashes are widely popular to report by mainstream media outlets because of the sensationalism of the event. Oftentimes, these outlets will include Tesla in the headline, especially because it will pique the interest of the masses, as most who read the story are waiting to see the claim that Autopilot or Full Self-Driving was the culprit of the accident.
However, Tesla has access to the logs of every vehicle in its fleet, which will show the various metrics, like whether either FSD or Autopilot was active, if the accelerator was pressed, the speed, and other important factors.
Musk has come out to say that the driver logs have already shown that the driver “disengaged Autopilot four seconds before crashing,” in a post on X.
Logs show driver disengaged Autopilot four seconds before crashing
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 18, 2026
If the logs do show this, which Tesla will likely have to prove in court, the real question would be why did the Amour disengage the suite?
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite is still not fully autonomous, meaning the driver cannot pull attention away from the road and must be ready to take over the vehicle at all times.
It will be interesting to see how this particular case pans out, especially considering the clip that was released by the law firm starts at about four seconds before the collision. Tesla logs have dispelled media reports in the past that have accused the company’s suite of being responsible for an accident, so there will be some major attention on what is proven in this particular case.
Tesla Cybertruck gets long-awaited safety feature
Tesla Roadster is ‘sorcery and magic’ and might be worth the wait, Uber founder says
