News
SpaceX wins NASA funds to study a Falcon Heavy-launched Moon lander
NASA has announced a series of awards as part of its 2024 Moon return ambitions, providing up to $45.5M for 11 companies to study lunar landers, spacecraft, and in-space refueling technologies.
Among those selected for studies are SpaceX, Blue Origin, Masten Space, and the Sierra Nevada Corporation, alongside usual suspects like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The chances of NASA actually achieving a crewed return to the surface of the Moon by 2024 are admittedly minuscule. However, with the space agency’s relatively quick three-month turnaround from accepting proposals to awarding studies, those chances of success will at least be able to continue skirting the realm of impossibility for now. In fact, SpaceX believes its Moon lander could be ready for a lunar debut as early as 2023.
Do the OldSpace Limbo!
Almost exactly 90 days (three months) since NASA released its lunar lander request for proposal (RFP), the 11 US companies selected for awards can now begin mature their designs, concepts of operations, and even build prototypes in a select few cases. At least based on the volume of awards and prototypes funded, the bulk of the $45.5M available for these studies unsurprisingly appears to have gone to Boeing and Lockheed. The duo of military-industrial complex heavyweights have maintained a decades-old stranglehold over NASA’s human spaceflight procurement.
In the last 13 years, the companies – combined – have carefully extracted no less than $35B from NASA, all of which has thus far produced a single launch of a half-finished prototype spacecraft (Orion) on a contextually irrelevant rocket (Delta IV Heavy) in 2014. The SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft remain almost perpetually delayed and are unlikely to complete their uncrewed launch debut until 2021, if not later.
SpaceX enters the lunar lander fray
“SpaceX was founded with the goal of helping humanity become a spacefaring civilization. We are excited to extend our long-standing partnership with NASA to help return humans to the Moon, and ultimately to venture beyond.”
– SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell
SpaceX was one of the 11 companies to receive NASA funding for a lunar lander-related design study. By all appearances, the company has been analyzing this potential use-case for some time. What they offer is significantly more complex than what NASA’s press release described as “one descent element study”. First and foremost, however, it must be stressed that these NASA funded studies – particularly those relegated to design, with no prototype builds – are really just concepts on paper. The NASA funding will help motivate companies to at least analyze and flesh out their actual capabilities relative to the task and time frame at hand, but there is no guarantee that more than one or two of the 11 studies will translate into serious hardware contracts.
Regardless of the many qualifications, SpaceX’s proposed descent module (i.e. Moon lander) is undeniably impressive. If SpaceX were to win a development contract, the lander would be based on flight-proven Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon subsystems wherever possible, translating into a vehicle that would have significant flight heritage even before its first launch. That first Moon landing attempt could come as early as 2023 and would utilize the performance of SpaceX’s own Falcon Heavy, currently the most powerful rocket in operation.
No renders have been released at this stage but it’s safe to assume that a SpaceX Moon lander would be somewhat comparable to Blue Origin’s just-announced Blue Moon lander, capable of delivering ~6.5t (14,300 lb) to the lunar surface. Rather than hydrogen and oxygen, SpaceX would instead use either Crew Dragon’s NTO/MMH propulsion or base the lander on Falcon 9’s extremely mature liquid kerosene/oxygen upper stage and Merlin Vacuum (MVac) engine.
Impressively, the SpaceX lander would aim for nearly double Blue Moon’s 6.5t payload capability, delivering as much as 12t (26,500 lb) to the surface of the Moon. That payload could either enable an unprecedentedly large crew capsule/ascent vehicle or permit the delivery of truly massive robotic or cargo payloads. Additionally, SpaceX believes that a descent stage with the aforementioned capabilities could potentially double as an excellent orbital transfer stage, refueling tug, and more. The lander would also serve as a full-up testbed for all the advanced technologies SpaceX needs to enable its goals of sustainable, reliable, and affordable solar system colonization.
Time will tell if NASA is actually serious about upsetting the status quo and getting to the Moon quickly and affordably, or if they will instead fall back on well-worn habits shown to minimize results and maximize cost. The White House recently proposed an additional $1.6B be added to NASA’s FY2020 budget, inexplicably choosing to take those funds from the federal Pell Grant system, which helps more than five million underprivileged Americans afford higher education. Regardless of the sheer political ineptitude involved in the proposed funding increase, even $1.6B annually (the WH proposal is for one year only) would be a pittance in the face of the spectacular inefficiencies of usual contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
The telltale sign of which direction NASA’s lunar ambitions are headed will come when the agency begins to award actual development and hardware production contracts to one or several of the proposals to be studied. Stay tuned!
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
News
Tesla FSD (Supervised) fleet passes 8.4 billion cumulative miles
The figure appears on Tesla’s official safety page, which tracks performance data for FSD (Supervised) and other safety technologies.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) system has now surpassed 8.4 billion cumulative miles.
The figure appears on Tesla’s official safety page, which tracks performance data for FSD (Supervised) and other safety technologies.
Tesla has long emphasized that large-scale real-world data is central to improving its neural network-based approach to autonomy. Each mile driven with FSD (Supervised) engaged contributes additional edge cases and scenario training for the system.
The milestone also brings Tesla closer to a benchmark previously outlined by CEO Elon Musk. Musk has stated that roughly 10 billion miles of training data may be needed to achieve safe unsupervised self-driving at scale, citing the “long tail” of rare but complex driving situations that must be learned through experience.
The growth curve of FSD Supervised’s cumulative miles over the past five years has been notable.
As noted in data shared by Tesla watcher Sawyer Merritt, annual FSD (Supervised) miles have increased from roughly 6 million in 2021 to 80 million in 2022, 670 million in 2023, 2.25 billion in 2024, and 4.25 billion in 2025. In just the first 50 days of 2026, Tesla owners logged another 1 billion miles.
At the current pace, the fleet is trending towards hitting about 10 billion FSD Supervised miles this year. The increase has been driven by Tesla’s growing vehicle fleet, periodic free trials, and expanding Robotaxi operations, among others.
With the fleet now past 8.4 billion cumulative miles, Tesla’s supervised system is approaching that threshold, even as regulatory approval for fully unsupervised deployment remains subject to further validation and oversight.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk fires back after Wikipedia co-founder claims neutrality and dubs Grokipedia “ridiculous”
Musk’s response to Wales’ comments, which were posted on social media platform X, was short and direct: “Famous last words.”
Elon Musk fired back at Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales after the longtime online encyclopedia leader dismissed xAI’s new AI-powered alternative, Grokipedia, as a “ridiculous” idea that is bound to fail.
Musk’s response to Wales’ comments, which were posted on social media platform X, was short and direct: “Famous last words.”
Wales made the comments while answering questions about Wikipedia’s neutrality. According to Wales, Wikipedia prides itself on neutrality.
“One of our core values at Wikipedia is neutrality. A neutral point of view is non-negotiable. It’s in the community, unquestioned… The idea that we’ve become somehow ‘Wokepidea’ is just not true,” Wales said.
When asked about potential competition from Grokipedia, Wales downplayed the situation. “There is no competition. I don’t know if anyone uses Grokipedia. I think it is a ridiculous idea that will never work,” Wales wrote.
After Grokipedia went live, Larry Sanger, also a co-founder of Wikipedia, wrote on X that his initial impression of the AI-powered Wikipedia alternative was “very OK.”
“My initial impression, looking at my own article and poking around here and there, is that Grokipedia is very OK. The jury’s still out as to whether it’s actually better than Wikipedia. But at this point I would have to say ‘maybe!’” Sanger stated.
Musk responded to Sanger’s assessment by saying it was “accurate.” In a separate post, he added that even in its V0.1 form, Grokipedia was already better than Wikipedia.
During a past appearance on the Tucker Carlson Show, Sanger argued that Wikipedia has drifted from its original vision, citing concerns about how its “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” framework categorizes publications by perceived credibility. As per Sanger, Wikipedia’s “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” list leans heavily left, with conservative publications getting effectively blacklisted in favor of their more liberal counterparts.
As of writing, Grokipedia has reportedly surpassed 80% of English Wikipedia’s article count.
News
Tesla Sweden appeals after grid company refuses to restore existing Supercharger due to union strike
The charging site was previously functioning before it was temporarily disconnected in April last year for electrical safety reasons.
Tesla Sweden is seeking regulatory intervention after a Swedish power grid company refused to reconnect an already operational Supercharger station in Åre due to ongoing union sympathy actions.
The charging site was previously functioning before it was temporarily disconnected in April last year for electrical safety reasons. A temporary construction power cabinet supplying the station had fallen over, described by Tesla as occurring “under unclear circumstances.” The power was then cut at the request of Tesla’s installation contractor to allow safe repair work.
While the safety issue was resolved, the station has not been brought back online. Stefan Sedin, CEO of Jämtkraft elnät, told Dagens Arbete (DA) that power will not be restored to the existing Supercharger station as long as the electric vehicle maker’s union issues are ongoing.
“One of our installers noticed that the construction power had been backed up and was on the ground. We asked Tesla to fix the system, and their installation company in turn asked us to cut the power so that they could do the work safely.
“When everything was restored, the question arose: ‘Wait a minute, can we reconnect the station to the electricity grid? Or what does the notice actually say?’ We consulted with our employer organization, who were clear that as long as sympathy measures are in place, we cannot reconnect this facility,” Sedin said.
The union’s sympathy actions, which began in March 2024, apply to work involving “planning, preparation, new connections, grid expansion, service, maintenance and repairs” of Tesla’s charging infrastructure in Sweden.
Tesla Sweden has argued that reconnecting an existing facility is not equivalent to establishing a new grid connection. In a filing to the Swedish Energy Market Inspectorate, the company stated that reconnecting the installation “is therefore not covered by the sympathy measures and cannot therefore constitute a reason for not reconnecting the facility to the electricity grid.”
Sedin, for his part, noted that Tesla’s issue with the Supercharger is quite unique. And while Jämtkraft elnät itself has no issue with Tesla, its actions are based on the unions’ sympathy measures against the electric vehicle maker.
“This is absolutely the first time that I have been involved in matters relating to union conflicts or sympathy measures. That is why we have relied entirely on the assessment of our employer organization. This is not something that we have made any decisions about ourselves at all.
“It is not that Jämtkraft elnät has a conflict with Tesla, but our actions are based on these sympathy measures. Should it turn out that we have made an incorrect assessment, we will correct ourselves. It is no more difficult than that for us,” the executive said.
Tesla FSD (Supervised) fleet passes 8.4 billion cumulative miles
Elon Musk fires back after Wikipedia co-founder claims neutrality and dubs Grokipedia “ridiculous”
