News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains why Blue Origin’s Starship lawsuit makes no sense
For the first time since SpaceX competitor Blue Origin took NASA to federal court after losing a Moon lander contract to Starship and a protest over that loss, unsealed documents have finally revealed the argument Jeff Bezos’ space startup is focusing on in court.
After the details broke in new court documents filed on Wednesday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk weighed in on Twitter to offer his take on why the arguments Blue Origin has hinged its lawsuit on make very little sense.
While one seemingly significant portion of the main complaint claiming to reveal “additional substantial errors” in SpaceX’s Starship HLS proposal was almost fully redacted, most of the opening argument is legible. In short, Blue Origin appears to have abandoned the vast majority of arguments it threw about prior to suing NASA and the US government and is now almost exclusively hinging its case on the claim that SpaceX violated NASA’s procurement process by failing to account for a specific kind of prelaunch review before every HLS-related Starship launch.
For NASA’s HLS competition, SpaceX proposed to create a custom variant of Starship capable of serving as a single-stage-to-orbit crewed Moon lander with the help of the rest of the Starship fleet – including Super Heavy boosters, cargo/tanker Starships, and a depot or storage ship. SpaceX would begin a Moon landing campaign by launching a (likely heavily modified) depot Starship into a stable Earth orbit. Anywhere from 8 to 14 Starship tanker missions – each carrying around 100-150 tons of propellant – would then gradually fill that depot ship over the course of no more than six or so months. Once filled, an HLS lander would launch to orbit, refill its tanks from the depot ship, and make its way to an eccentric lunar orbit to rendezvous with NASA’s Orion spacecraft and three Artemis astronauts.
As Blue Origin has exhaustively reminded anyone within earshot for the last five months, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander proposal is extremely complex and NASA is taking an undeniable risk (of delays, not for astronauts) by choosing SpaceX. Nevertheless, NASA’s Kathy Lueders and a source evaluation panel made it abundantly clear in public selection statement that SpaceX’s proposal was by far the most competent, offering far a far superior management approach and technical risk no worse than Blue Origin’s far smaller, drastically less capable lander.
The bulk of Blue Origin’s argument appears to be that its National Team Lander proposal was drastically disadvantaged by the fact that SpaceX may or may not have incorrectly planned for just three ‘flight readiness reviews’ (FRRs) for each 16-launch HLS Starship mission. While heavily redacted, Blue Origin wants a judge to believe that contrary to the US Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) fair assessment that such a small issue is incredibly unlikely to have changed the competition’s outcome, it would have “been able to propose a substantially lower price” for its lander. To be clear, a flight readiness review is an admittedly important part of NASA’s safety culture, but it ultimately amounts to paperwork and doublechecks over the course of a day or two of meetings.
All else equal, the need to complete an FRR before a launch is incredibly unlikely to cause more than a few days of delays in a worst-case scenario and would have next to no cost impact. There is no reasonable way to argue that being allowed to complete some launches without an FRR would have singlehandedly allowed Blue Origin to “[engineer] and [propose] an entirely different architecture.” Nevertheless, that’s exactly what the company attempts to argue – that it would have radically and completely changed the design it spent more than half a billion dollars sketching out if it had only been able to skip a few reviews.
Curiously, Blue Origin nevertheless does make a few coherent and seemingly fact-based arguments in the document. Perhaps most notably, it claims that when NASA ultimately concluded that it didn’t have funds for even a single award (a known fact) and asked SpaceX – its first choice – to make slight contract modifications to make the financial side of things work, NASA consciously chose to waive the need for an FRR before every HLS Starship launch. Only via purported cost savings from those waived reviews, Blue Origin claims, was NASA able to afford SpaceX’s proposal – which, it’s worth noting, was more than twice as cheap as the next cheapest option (Blue Origin).
Ultimately, it thus appears that Blue Origin may have a case to make that NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Option A contract despite a handful of errors that violated contracting rules and the HLS solicitation. Relative to just about any other possible issue, though, it’s hard not to perceive the problems Blue Origin may or may have correctly pointed out as anything more than marginal and extraordinarily unlikely to have changed the outcome in Blue’s favor had they been rectified before the award. Most importantly, even if Blue Origin’s argument is somehow received favorably and a judge orders NASA to overturn its SpaceX HLS award and reconsider all three proposals, it’s virtually inconceivable that even that best-case outcome would result in Blue Origin receiving a contract of any kind.
News
Tesla opens Supercharging Network to other EVs in new country
Tesla’s Supercharging infrastructure is the most robust in the world, and it has done a wonderful job of keeping things up and running for the millions of owners out there. As it expanded access to non-Tesla EVs a couple years back, it has still managed to keep things pretty steady, although the need for more charging is apparent.
Tesla has started opening its Supercharging Network, which is the most expansive in the world, to other EVs in a new country for the first time.
After expanding its Supercharging offerings to other car companies in the United States a few years ago, Tesla is still making the move in other markets, as it aims to make EV ownership easier for everyone, regardless of what manufacturer a consumer chose to purchase from.
Tesla’s Supercharging infrastructure is the most robust in the world, and it has done a wonderful job of keeping things up and running for the millions of owners out there. As it expanded access to non-Tesla EVs a couple years back, it has still managed to keep things pretty steady, although the need for more charging is apparent.
Tesla just added a cool new feature for leaving your charger at home or even leaving the Supercharger pic.twitter.com/iw0SDrWuX6
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 10, 2026
Now, Tesla is expanding access to the Supercharger Network to non-Tesla EVs in Malaysia. The automaker just opened up a charging stie at the Pavilion KL Mall in Kuala Lumpur to non-Tesla owners, giving them eight additional Superchargers to utilize with a charging speed of up to 250 kW.
Tesla is also opening up the four-Supercharger site in Shah Alam, a four-Supercharger site at the IOI City Mall, and a six-Supercharger site in Gamuda Cove Township.
Electrive first reported the opening of these Superchargers in Malaysia.
The initiative from Tesla helps make EV ownership much simpler for those who only have access to third-party charging solutions or at-home charging. While at-home charging is the most advantageous, it is not an end-all solution as every driver will eventually need to grab some range on the road.
Tesla has been offering its Superchargers to non-Tesla EVs in the United States since 2024, as Ford became the first company to gain access to the massive network early that year when CEO Elon Musk and Ford frontman Jim Farley announced it together. Since then, Tesla has offered its chargers to nearly every EV maker, as companies like Rivian and Lucid, and even legacy car companies like General Motors have gained access.
It’s best for everyone to have the ability to use Tesla Superchargers, but there are of course some growing pains.
Charging cables are built to cater to Tesla owners, so pull-in Superchargers are most advantageous for non-Tesla EVs currently, but the company’s V4 Superchargers, which are not as plentiful in the U.S. quite yet, do enable easier reach for those vehicles.
News
Tesla Semi expands pilot program to Texas logistics firm: here’s what they said
Mone said the Tesla Semi it put into its fleet for this test recorded 1.64 kWh per mile efficiency, beating Tesla’s official 1.7 kWh per mile target and delivering a massive leap over conventional diesel trucks.
Tesla has expanded its Semi pilot program to a new region, as it has made it to Texas to be tested by logistics from Mone Transport. With the Semi entering production this year, Tesla is getting even more valuable data regarding the vehicle and its efficiency, which will help companies cut expenditures.
Mone Transport operates in Texas and on the Southern border, and it specializes in cross-border U.S.-Mexico freight operations. After completing some rigorous testing, Mone shared public results, which stand out when compared to efficiency metrics offered by diesel vehicles.
“Mone Transport recently had the opportunity to put the Tesla Semi to the test, and we’re thrilled with the results! Over 4,700 miles of operations at 1.64 kWh/mile in our Texas operation. We’re committed to providing zero-emission transportation to our customers!” the company said in a post on X.
🚨 Mone Transport just recorded an extremely impressive Tesla Semi test:
1.64 kWh per mile over 4,700 miles! https://t.co/xwS2dDeomP pic.twitter.com/oLZHoQgXsu
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 10, 2026
Mone said the Tesla Semi it put into its fleet for this test recorded 1.64 kWh per mile efficiency, beating Tesla’s official 1.7 kWh per mile target and delivering a massive leap over conventional diesel trucks.
Comparable Class 8 diesel semis, typically achieving 6-7 miles per gallon, consume roughly 5.5 kWh per mile in energy-equivalent terms, meaning the Semi uses three to four times less energy while also producing zero tailpipe emissions.
Tesla Semi undergoes major redesign as dedicated factory preps for deliveries
The performance of the Tesla Semi in Mone Transport’s testing aligns with data from other participants in the pilot program. ArcBest’s ABF Freight Division logged 4,494 miles over three weeks in 2025, averaging 1.55 kWh per mile across varied routes, including a grueling 7,200-foot Donner Pass climb. The truck “generally matched the performance of its diesel counterparts,” the carrier said.
PepsiCo, which operates the largest known Semi fleet, recorded 1.7 kWh per mile in North American Council for Freight Efficiency testing. Additional pilots showed similar gains: DHL hit 1.72 kWh per mile, and Saia achieved 1.73 kWh per mile.
These metrics underscore the Semi’s ability to slash operating costs through superior efficiency, lower maintenance, and zero-emission operation. As charging infrastructure scales and production ramps toward 2026 targets, participants like Mone Transport are proving electric semis can seamlessly integrate into freight networks, accelerating the industry’s shift to sustainable, high-performance trucking.
Tesla continues to prep for a more widespread presence of the Semi in the coming months as it recently launched the first public Semi Megacharger site in Los Angeles. It is working on building out infrastructure for regional runs on the West Coast initially, with plans to expand this to the other end of the country in the coming years.
Elon Musk
SpaceX weighs Nasdaq listing as company explores early index entry: report
The company is reportedly seeking early inclusion in the Nasdaq-100 index.
Elon Musk’s SpaceX is reportedly leaning toward listing its shares on the Nasdaq for a potential initial public offering (IPO) that could become the largest in history.
As per a recent report, the company is reportedly seeking early inclusion in the Nasdaq-100 index. The update was reported by Reuters, citing people familiar with the matter.
According to the publication, SpaceX is considering Nasdaq as the venue for its eventual IPO, though the New York Stock Exchange is also competing for the listing. Neither exchange has reportedly been informed of a final decision.
Reuters has previously reported that SpaceX could pursue an IPO as early as June, though the company’s plans could still change.
One of the publication’s sources also suggested that SpaceX is targeting a valuation of about $1.75 trillion for its IPO. At that level, the company would rank among the largest publicly traded firms in the United States by market capitalization.
Nasdaq has proposed a rule change that could accelerate the inclusion of newly listed megacap companies into the Nasdaq-100 index.
Under the proposed “Fast Entry” rule, a newly listed company could qualify for the index in less than a month if its market capitalization ranks among the top 40 companies already included in the Nasdaq-100.
If SpaceX is successful in achieving its target valuation of $1.75 trillion, it would become the sixth-largest company by market value in the United States, at least based on recent share prices.
Newly listed companies typically have to wait up to a year before becoming eligible for major indexes such as the Nasdaq-100 or S&P 500.
Inclusion in a major index can significantly broaden a company’s shareholder base because many institutional investors purchase shares through index-tracking funds.
According to Reuters, Nasdaq’s proposed fast-track rule is partly intended to attract highly valued private companies such as SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic to list on the exchange.
Tesla opens Supercharging Network to other EVs in new country
Tesla Semi expands pilot program to Texas logistics firm: here’s what they said
