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
Man credits Grok AI with saving his life after ER missed near-ruptured appendix
The AI flagged some of the man’s symptoms and urged him to return to the ER immediately and demand a CT scan.
A 49-year-old man has stated that xAI’s Grok ended up saving his life when the large language model identified a near-ruptured appendix that his first ER visit dismissed as acid reflux.
After being sent home from the ER, the man asked Grok to analyze his symptoms. The AI flagged some of the man’s symptoms and urged him to return immediately and demand a CT scan. The scan confirmed that something far worse than acid reflux was indeed going on.
Grok spotted what a doctor missed
In a post on Reddit, u/Tykjen noted that for 24 hours straight, he had a constant “razor-blade-level” abdominal pain that forced him into a fetal position. He had no fever or visible signs. He went to the ER, where a doctor pressed his soft belly, prescribed acid blockers, and sent him home.
The acid blockers didn’t work, and the man’s pain remained intense. He then decided to open a year-long chat he had with Grok and listed every detail that he was experiencing. The AI responded quickly. “Grok immediately flagged perforated ulcer or atypical appendicitis, told me the exact red-flag pattern I was describing, and basically said “go back right now and ask for a CT,” the man wrote in his post.
He copied Grok’s reasoning, returned to the ER, and insisted on the scan. The CT scan ultimately showed an inflamed appendix on the verge of rupture. Six hours later, the appendix was out. The man said the pain has completely vanished, and he woke up laughing under anesthesia. He was discharged the next day.
How a late-night conversation with Grok got me to demand the CT scan that saved my life from a ruptured appendix (December 2025)
byu/Tykjen ingrok
AI doctors could very well be welcomed
In the replies to his Reddit post, u/Tykjen further explained that he specifically avoided telling doctors that Grok, an AI, suggested he get a CT scan. “I did not tell them on the second visit that Grok recommended the CT scan. I had to lie. I told them my sister who’s a nurse told me to ask for the scan,” the man wrote.
One commenter noted that the use of AI in medicine will likely be welcomed, stating that “If AI could take doctors’ jobs one day, I will be happy. Doctors just don’t care anymore. It’s all a paycheck.” The Redditor replied with, “Sadly yes. That is what it felt like after the first visit. And the following night could have been my last.”
Elon Musk has been very optimistic about the potential of robots like Tesla Optimus in the medical field. Provided that they are able to achieve human-level articulation in their hands, and Tesla is able to bring down their cost through mass manufacturing, the era of AI-powered medical care could very well be closer than expected.
News
Tesla expands Model 3 lineup in Europe with most affordable variant yet
The Model 3 Standard still delivers more than 300 miles of range, potentially making it an attractive option for budget-conscious buyers.
Tesla has introduced a lower-priced Model 3 variant in Europe, expanding the lineup just two months after the vehicle’s U.S. debut. The Model 3 Standard still delivers more than 300 miles (480 km) of range, potentially making it an attractive option for budget-conscious buyers.
Tesla’s pricing strategy
The Model 3 Standard arrives as Tesla contends with declining registrations in several countries across Europe, where sales have not fully offset shifting consumer preferences. Many buyers have turned to options such as Volkswagen’s ID.3 and BYD’s Atto 3, both of which have benefited from aggressive pricing.
By removing select premium finishes and features, Tesla positioned the new Model 3 Standard as an “ultra-low cost of ownership” option of its all-electric sedan. Pricing comes in at €37,970 in Germany, NOK 330,056 in Norway, and SEK 449,990 in Sweden, depending on market. This places the Model 3 Standard well below the “premium” Model 3 trim, which starts at €45,970 in Germany.
Deliveries for the Standard model are expected to begin in the first quarter of 2026, giving Tesla an entry-level foothold in a segment that’s increasingly defined by sub-€40,000 offerings.
Tesla’s affordable vehicle push
The low-cost Model 3 follows October’s launch of a similarly positioned Model Y variant, signaling a broader shift in Tesla’s product strategy. While CEO Elon Musk has moved the company toward AI-driven initiatives such as robotaxis and humanoid robots, lower-priced vehicles remain necessary to support the company’s revenue in the near term.
Reports have indicated that Tesla previously abandoned plans for an all-new $25,000 EV, with the company opting to create cheaper versions of existing platforms instead. Analysts have flagged possible cannibalization of higher-margin models, but the move aims to counter an influx of aggressively priced entrants from China and Europe, many of which sell below $30,000. With the new Model 3 Standard, Tesla is reinforcing its volume strategy in Europe’s increasingly competitive EV landscape.
News
Tesla FSD (Supervised) stuns Germany’s biggest car magazine
FSD Supervised recognized construction zones, braked early for pedestrians, and yielded politely on narrow streets.
Tesla’s upcoming FSD Supervised system, set for a European debut pending regulatory approval, is showing notably refined behavior in real-world testing, including construction zones, pedestrian detection, and lane changes, as per a recent demonstration ride in Berlin.
While the system still required driver oversight, its smooth braking, steering, and decision-making illustrated how far Tesla’s driver-assistance technology has advanced ahead of a potential 2026 rollout.
FSD’s maturity in dense city driving
During the Berlin test ride with Auto Bild, Germany’s largest automotive publication, a Tesla Model 3 running FSD handled complex traffic with minimal intervention, autonomously managing braking, acceleration, steering, and overtaking up to 140 km/h. It recognized construction zones, braked early for pedestrians, and yielded politely on narrow streets.
Only one manual override was required when the system misread a converted one-way route, an example, Tesla stated, of the continuous learning baked into its vision-based architecture.
Robin Hornig of Auto Bild summed up his experience with FSD Supervised with a glowing review of the system. As per the reporter, FSD Supervised already exceeds humans with its all-around vision. “Tesla FSD Supervised sees more than I do. It doesn’t get distracted and never gets tired. I like to think I’m a good driver, but I can’t match this system’s all-around vision. It’s at its best when both work together: my experience and the Tesla’s constant attention,” the journalist wrote.
Tesla FSD in Europe
FSD Supervised is still a driver-assistance system rather than autonomous driving. Still, Auto Bild noted that Tesla’s 360-degree camera suite, constant monitoring, and high computing power mark a sizable leap from earlier iterations. Already active in the U.S., China, and several other regions, the system is currently navigating Europe’s approval pipeline. Tesla has applied for an exemption in the Netherlands, aiming to launch the feature through a free software update as early as February 2026.
What Tesla demonstrated in Berlin mirrors capabilities already common in China and the U.S., where rival automakers have rolled out hands-free or city-navigation systems. Europe, however, remains behind due to a stricter certification environment, though Tesla is currently hard at work pushing for FSD Supervised’s approval in several countries in the region.
Man credits Grok AI with saving his life after ER missed near-ruptured appendix
Tesla expands Model 3 lineup in Europe with most affordable variant yet
