News
SpaceX sues US government to protest mystery launch or rocket R&D contracts
SpaceX has filed a lawsuit – technically a “Bid Protest Complaint” – against the United States government and successfully petitioned for the file to remain sealed, restricting access to additional case details for the time being.
This development follows a quiet series of bid protests SpaceX filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in February 2019, shortly after NASA announced that it had awarded ULA a ~$150M launch contract for Lucy (a robotic Trojan asteroid explorer). SpaceX believed that it could perform the mission at a “dramatically lower” price, potentially saving the federal government tens of millions of dollars. SpaceX withdrew both of its GAO bid protests without comment on April 4th. Whether those prior protests are related to SpaceX’s May 2019 lawsuit is unclear.
Adding even more complexity and uncertainty to the series of events, NASA awarded SpaceX the launch contract for its Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) spacecraft on April 20th, about two weeks after SpaceX retracted its Lucy protests. The cause-and-effect relationship between both events is wholly ambiguous. Perhaps SpaceX withdrew before the company was made aware of their DART win. Perhaps they withdrew their protest because they learned of NASA’s award.
Regardless of what did or did not trigger the contract award, the fact remains that SpaceX’s DART launch will cost NASA ~$70M, less than half the price of ULA’s ~$150M Lucy launch contract. As such, it seems likely that launching Lucy on Falcon 9 could have saved the US government as much as $50M, assuming an expendable profile (~$100M per SpaceX’s latest GPS III launch contracts).
Returning to the topic at hand, the simplest explanation is that SpaceX’s GAO bid protests and May 2019 lawsuit are in some way related. Although SpaceX was clearly correct when it insinuated that it could launch Lucy far more affordably than ULA, the company was criticized for its GAO protests because they effectively froze – or at least complicated – work on the NASA spacecraft. In the event that the withdrawals and lawsuit are related, SpaceX would have backed down after entering into the slow GAO protest process, essentially conceding the contract to ULA and allowing spacecraft work to continue without disruption.
Replaced with a lawsuit against the US government, SpaceX could instead be attempting to change the processes that lead NASA to award ULA the Lucy launch contract in spite of potential savings on the order of ~$50M. SpaceX has done something similar once before when it sued the US Air Force for its uncompetitive launch procurement processes, a largely successful endeavor that has helped force some competition back into USAF/DoD launch contracts.
However, there are several additional possibilities for the actual subject of SpaceX’s latest sealed suit. Most recently, NASA distributed ~$46M among 11 companies for studies and prototypes of lunar landers, transfer vehicles, and in-space refueling technology. SpaceX tied with Aerojet Rocketdyne for the least substantial awards out of those 11 companies, each receiving funds for a single study, while most other awardees were contracted for multiple studies and/or prototypes. This is a stretch, however.
The most likely alternative to a continuation of SpaceX’s Lucy protest is a lawsuit focused on the USAF’s latest EELV/NSSL development contracts and its proposed continuation of block-buy launch procurement. Of the four companies involved, Blue Origin and SpaceX have both criticized the USAF for a variety of reasons. Both did agree, however, in their dislike of the USAF’s inexplicable desire to award all launch contracts to two victors, despite there being as many as four different launch vehicles that could feasibly compete for those several-dozen contracts.
For now, details of SpaceX’s latest lawsuit will remain sealed, leaving the company’s motivations veiled in mystery. SpaceX’s next USAF mission could occur as early as June 22nd. Known as STP-2, it will mark Falcon Heavy’s third flight, the rocket’s first defense-related launch, and the USAF’s first use of flight-proven SpaceX boosters. If successful, SpaceX will effectively be able to compete with ULA for all conceivable future launch contracts.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
