News
SpaceX’s Starship to return humanity to the Moon in stunning NASA decision
In one of the biggest NASA contracting surprises in years, the space agency has chosen SpaceX – and only SpaceX – to return humans to the surface of the Moon with its next-generation Starship rocket.
The Washington Post’s Christian Davenport broke the news a few hours before NASA’s scheduled announcement and teleconference, revealing that SpaceX beat out Dynetics and a Blue Origin-led “National Team” for a sole-source contract to build, launch, and land a custom version of Starship on the Moon for $2.89 billion. If that uncrewed testing is successful, SpaceX and Starship will be tasked with landing the first astronauts on the Moon in half a century as early as the in the mid-2020s.
While a Human Landing System (HLS) announcement was fully planned and expected to happen this month, virtually everyone following the process believed that NASA would continue to lean on the rationale behind selecting multiple providers for its Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) and Commercial Crew (CCP) programs. Having multiple distinct providers, spacecraft, and rockets available to accomplish the same tasks fundamentally insulates NASA (and the International Space Station that depends on those programs) from losing the ability to transport crew or cargo in the event that any one provider is delayed or suffers a major failure.
With a goal as complex as landing humans back on the Moon for the first time since the 1970s, redundancy and multiple distinct solutions would obviously be even more desirable. Entirely contrary to expectations, NASA instead announced that it had exclusively contracted with SpaceX alone for next phase of HLS development. Though SpaceX may have been the only competitor already testing something approximating real integrated flight hardware, NASA’s decision to sole-source HLS to Starship represents a significant gamble.
Simultaneously, though, the move is also extraordinarily pragmatic and indicates that one or several major decisionmakers at NASA have taken less positive lessons from its commercial cargo and crew programs to heart. Crucially, over the first several years of the Commercial Crew Program (CCP), Congress systematically underfunded the development of two commercial crew spacecraft – one from Boeing and the other from SpaceX. As a direct result, the launch debuts of both spacecraft were delayed by several years, forcing NASA to to continue relying on Russian Soyuz launches well into the 2020s to get its astronauts to the ISS.
Additionally, SpaceX – an unequivocal underdog and newbie next to Boeing in the mid-2010s – has drastically outperformed its traditional aerospace counterpart, beating Boeing to the punch and launching astronauts first. Boeing’s Starliner is now at least 18 months behind Crew Dragon despite costing almost 60% more.
In its first year on the books, almost mirroring NASA’s Commercial Crew experience, Congress aggressively underfunded the HLS program, allotting $850M – just 25% – of the $3.4B NASA requested. In other words, NASA seems to be proceeding with HLS under the assumption that Congress – as it did with CCP – will continue to chronically underfund the lunar lander program for years to come. If that’s the case, NASA appears to have made an uncharacteristically astute decision to structure HLS not on its preferred budget – but on what the agency believes Congress will pony up.
Put in a slightly different way, NASA is basically telling Congress that its lack of commitment has forced the agency to sole-source its lunar lander contract to SpaceX, putting the impetus on Congress to properly fund the HLS program if it wants redundant providers. All told, while NASA is undoubtedly taking a risk selecting SpaceX and Starship to return both it and humanity to the Moon, the space agency has now made it abundantly clear that it’s fully committed to the program and goal, whether or not Congress is willing to do its job.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) is set to hold its Earnings Call for the first quarter of 2026 on Wednesday, and there are a lot of interesting things that are swirling around in terms of speculation from investors.
With the company’s executives, including CEO Elon Musk, answering a handful of questions that investors submit through the Say platform, fans want to know a lot of things about a lot of things.
These five questions come from Retail Investors, who are normal, everyday shareholders:
- When will we have the Optimus v3 reveal? When will Optimus production start, since we ended the Model S and Model X production earlier than mid-year? What’s the expected Optimus production rate exiting this year? What are the initial targeted skills?
- What milestones are you targeting for unsupervised FSD and Robotaxi expansion beyond Austin this year, and how will that drive recurring revenue?
- How will Hardware 3 cars reach Unsupervised Full Self-Driving?
- When do you expect Unsupervised Full Self-Driving to reach customer cars?
- When will Robotaxi expand past its current limited rollout?
Additionally, these are currently the three questions that are slated to be answered by Institutional Firms, which also answer a handful of questions during the call:
- Now that FSD has been approved in the Netherlands and is expected to launch across Europe this summer, can you discuss your Robotaxi strategy for the region?
- What enabled you to finish the AI5 tapeout early and were there any changes to the original vision? Last week, Elon said AI5 will go into Optimus and the Supercomputer, but one month ago said it would go into the Robotaxi. Has AI5 been dropped from the vehicle roadmap?
- Given the recent NHTSA incident filings, can you update us on the Robotaxi safety data? If safety validation remains the primary bottleneck, why not deploy thousands of vehicles to accelerate the removal of the safety driver?
The questions range through every current Tesla project, including FSD expansion and Optimus. However, many of the answers we will get will likely be repetitive answers we’ve heard in the past.
This is especially pertinent when the questions about when Unsupervised FSD will reach customer cars: we know Musk will say that it will happen this year. Is Tesla capable of that? Maybe. But a more transparent answer that is more revealing of a true timeline would be appreciated.
Hardware 3 owners are anxiously awaiting the arrival of FSD v14 Lite, which was promised to them last year for a release sometime this year.
The Earnings Call is set to take place on Wednesday at market close.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk reveals shocking Tesla Optimus patent detail
What looked promising on paper and in simulations failed to deliver the reliability required for a robot expected to handle delicate tasks like folding laundry, assembling electronics, or assisting in factories and homes.
Elon Musk revealed a shocking detail on the Tesla Optimus patent that was revealed last week. Despite it being made public for the first time, Musk said the company has already moved on from the design, an incredible truth about the development of new technology: things move fast.
Musk dropped a bombshell about the Tesla Optimus humanoid robot hand patent that was released last week. Musk, candidly replying to a post late at night on X, revealed that what is a new technology to many fans and insiders is actually old news to those developing the tech directly.
“We already changed the design,” Musk said. “This one didn’t actually work.”
We already changed the design. This one didn’t actually work.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Patents, after all, are often viewed as blueprints for future products. Yet Musk revealed that the rolling contact mechanism—intended to provide smooth, low-friction articulation in the fingers—had already been scrapped after real-world testing exposed its shortcomings.
What looked promising on paper and in simulations failed to deliver the reliability required for a robot expected to handle delicate tasks like folding laundry, assembling electronics, or assisting in factories and homes.
The hand has been one of the biggest challenges for Tesla engineers since Optimus development started years ago. Musk has said that there is not enough recognition for how incredible and useful the human hand is, and designing one for a humanoid robot has been the biggest challenge of all.
Tesla is stumped on how to engineer this Optimus part, but they’re close
This moment underscores the persistent engineering hurdles in achieving reliable humanoid hand dexterity. Human fingers are marvels of evolution: 27 bones, intricate tendons, ligaments, and a network of sensors working in perfect harmony. Replicating that in metal and silicon is extraordinarily difficult.
Rolling contacts promised reduced wear and precise motion, but testing likely revealed issues with durability under repeated stress, grip stability on varied surfaces, or the micro-precision needed for fine motor skills.
These aren’t minor tweaks, but instead they represent fundamental challenges that have plagued robotics teams for decades. Even advanced competitors struggle here—hands remain the Achilles’ heel of most humanoids because the margin for error is razor-thin.
A fraction of a millimeter off, and a robot drops a glass or fails to button a shirt.
What makes Musk’s reply remarkable is how it signals Tesla’s direct communication style on prototype limitations. While many companies guard failures behind glossy marketing and vague timelines, Tesla openly shares setbacks.
Musk was forthcoming about the failure of this recent design. This transparency builds trust with investors, engineers, and fans. It shows Tesla treats Optimus development like true science: rapid iteration, rigorous testing, and zero tolerance for hype that doesn’t match reality.
The disclosure from Musk also highlights Tesla’s blistering pace of development. By the time the patents are published, which is often over a year after the initial filing, the technology has already evolved.
Optimus is far from a static product, and it’s a living project advancing weekly.
In the high-stakes race for general-purpose robots, Tesla’s approach stands out. Admitting a finger-joint design “didn’t actually work” isn’t a weakness—it’s confidence.
True innovation demands confronting failure head-on, and Musk just reminded the world that Optimus is being engineered that way. The next version of those hands is already in testing, and it will be better because Tesla isn’t afraid to say what didn’t work.
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
Tesla Q1 Earnings: What Elon Musk and Co. will answer during the call
