News
NASA snubbed SpaceX, common sense to overpay Boeing for astronaut launches, says audit
A detailed government audit has revealed that NASA went out of its way to overpay Boeing for its Commercial Crew Program (CCP) astronaut launch services, making a mockery of its fixed-price contract with the company and blatantly snubbing SpaceX throughout the process.
Over the last several years, the NASA inspector general has published a number of increasingly discouraging reports about Boeing’s behavior and track-record as a NASA contractor, and November 14th’s report is possibly the most concerning yet. On November 14th, NASA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) published a damning audit titled “NASA’s Management of Crew Transportation to the International Space Station [ISS]” (PDF).
Offering more than 50 pages of detailed analysis of behavior that was at best inept and at worst deeply corrupt, OIG’s analysis uncovered some uncomfortable revelations about NASA’s relationship with Boeing in a different realm than usual: NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP). Begun in the 2010s in an effort to develop multiple redundant commercial alternatives to the Space Shuttle, prematurely canceled before a US alternative was even on the horizon, the CCP ultimately awarded SpaceX and Boeing major development contracts in September 2014.
NASA awarded fixed-cost contracts worth $4.2 billion and $2.6 billion to Boeing and SpaceX, respectively, to essentially accomplish the same goals: design, build, test, and fly new spacecraft capable of transporting NASA astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS). The intention behind fixed-price contracts was to hold contractors responsible for any delays they might incur over the development of human-rated spacecraft, a task NASA acknowledged as challenging but far from unprecedented.
Off the rails
The most likely trigger of the bizarre events that would unfold a few years down the road began in part on June 28th, 2015 and culminated on September 1st, 2016, the dates of the two catastrophic failures SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket has suffered since its 2010 debut. In the most generous possible interpretation of the OIG’s findings, NASA headquarters and CCP managers may have been shaken and not thinking on an even keel after SpaceX’s second major failure in a little over a year.
Under this stress, the agency may have ignored common sense and basic contracting due-diligence, leading “numerous officials” to sign off on a plan that would subvert Boeing’s fixed-price contract, paying the company an additional $287 million (~7%) to prevent a perceived gap in NASA astronaut access to the ISS. This likely arose because NASA briefly believed that SpaceX’s failures could cause multiple years of delays, making Boeing the only available crew transport provider for a significant period of time. Starliner was already delayed by more than a year, making it increasingly unlikely that Boeing alone would be able to ensure continuous NASA access to the ISS.
As NASA attempted to argue in its response to the audit, “the final price [increase] was agreed to by NASA and Boeing and was reviewed and approved by numerous NASA officials at the Kennedy Space Center and Headquarters”. In the heat of the moment, perhaps those officials forgot that Boeing had already purchased several Russian Soyuz seats to sell to NASA or tourists, and perhaps those officials missed the simple fact that those seats and some elementary schedule tweaks could have almost entirely alleviated the perceived “access gap” with minimal cost and effort.
The OIG audit further implied that the timing of a Boeing proposal – submitted just days after NASA agreed to pay the company extra to prevent that access gap – was suspect.
“Five days after NASA committed to pay $287.2 million in price increases for four commercial crew missions, Boeing submitted an official proposal to sell NASA up to five Soyuz seats for $373.5 million for missions during the same time period. In total, Boeing received $660.7 million above the fixed prices set in the CCtCap pricing tables to pay for an accelerated production timetable for four crew missions and five Soyuz seats.”
NASA OIG — November 14th, 2019 [PDF]
In other words, NASA officials somehow failed to realize or remember that Boeing owned multiple Soyuz seats during “prolonged negotiations” (p. 24) with Boeing and subsequently awarded Boeing an additional $287M to expedite Starliner production and preparations, thus averting an access gap. The very next week, Boeing asked NASA if it wanted to buy five Soyuz seats it had already acquired to send NASA astronauts to the ISS.
Bluntly speaking, this series of events has three obvious explanations, none of them particularly reassuring.
- Boeing intentionally withheld an obvious (partial) solution to a perceived gap in astronaut access to the ISS, exploiting NASA’s panic to extract a ~7% premium from its otherwise fixed-price Starliner development contract.
- Through gross negligence and a lack of basic contracting due-diligence, NASA ignored obvious (and cheaper) possible solutions at hand, taking Boeing’s word for granted and opening up the piggy bank.
- A farcical ‘crew access analysis’ study ignored multiple obvious and preferable solutions to give “numerous NASA officials” an excuse to violate fixed-price contracting principles and pay Boeing a substantial premium.
Extortion with a friendly smile
The latter explanation, while possibly the worst and most corruption-laden, is arguably the likeliest choice based on the history of NASA’s relationship with Boeing. In fact, a July 2019 report from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) revealed that NASA was consistently paying Boeing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of “award fees” as part of the company’s SLS booster (core stage) production contract, which is no less than four years behind schedule and $1.8 billion over budget. From 2014 to 2018, NASA awarded Boeing a total of $271M in award fees, a practice meant to award a given contractor’s excellent performance.
In several of those years, NASA reviews reportedly described Boeing’s performance as “good”, “very good”, and “excellent”, all while Boeing repeatedly fumbled SLS core stage production, adding years of delays to the SLS rocket’s launch debut. This is to say that “numerous NASA officials” were also presumably more than happy to give Boeing hundreds of millions of dollars in awards even as the company was and is clearly a big reason why the SLS program continues to fail to deliver.
Ultimately, although NASA’s concern about SpaceX’s back-to-back Falcon 9 failures and some combination of ineptitude, ignorance, and corruption all clearly played a role, the fact remains that NASA – according to the inspector general – never approached SpaceX as part of their 2016/2017 efforts to prevent a ‘crew access gap’. Given that the CCP has two partners, that decision was highly improper regardless of the circumstances and is made even more inexplicable by the fact that NASA was apparently well aware that SpaceX’s Crew Dragon had significantly shorter lead times and far lower costs compared to Starliner.
This would have meant that had NASA approached SpaceX to attempt to mitigate the access gap, SpaceX could have almost certainly done it significantly cheaper and faster, or at minimum injected a bit of good-faith competition into the endeavor.
Finally and perhaps most disturbingly of all, NASA OIG investigators were told by “several NASA officials” that – in spite of several preferable alternatives – they ultimately chose to sign off Boeing’s demanded price increases because they were worried that Boeing would quit the Commercial Crew Program entirely without it. Boeing and NASA unsurprisingly denied this in their official responses to the OIG audit, but a US government inspector generally would never publish such a claim without substantial confidence and plenty of evidence to support it.
According to OIG sources, “senior CCP officials believed that due to financial considerations, Boeing could not continue as a commercial crew provider unless the contractor received the higher prices.” A lot remains unsaid, like why those officials believed that Boeing’s full withdrawal from CCP was a serious possibility and how they came to that conclusion, enough to make it impossible to conclude that Boeing legitimately threatened to quit in lieu of NASA payments.
All things considered, these fairly damning revelations should by no means take away from the excellent work Boeing engineers and technicians are trying to do to design, build, and launch Starliner. However, they do serve to draw a fine line between the mindsets and motivations of Boeing and SpaceX. One puts profit, shareholders, and itself above all else, while the other is trying hard to lower the cost of spaceflight and enable a sustainable human presence on the Moon, Mars, and beyond.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Investor's Corner
Tesla stock gets hit with shock move from Wall Street analysts
Despite Tesla not being an automotive company exclusively, the Wall Street firms and analysts covering its shares are widely dialed in on its performance regarding quarterly deliveries. While it holds some importance, Tesla, from an internal perspective, is more focused on end-to-end AI, Robotaxi, self-driving, and its Optimus robot.
Tesla price targets (NASDAQ: TSLA) have received several cuts over the past few days as Wall Street firms are adjusting their forecast for the company’s stock following a miss in quarterly delivery figures for the first quarter.
Despite Tesla not being an automotive company exclusively, the Wall Street firms and analysts covering its shares are widely dialed in on its performance regarding quarterly deliveries. While it holds some importance, Tesla, from an internal perspective, is more focused on end-to-end AI, Robotaxi, self-driving, and its Optimus robot.
In a notable shift underscoring mounting caution on Wall Street, three prominent investment banks slashed their price targets on Tesla Inc. shares over the past two weeks following the electric-vehicle giant’s disappointing first-quarter 2026 delivery numbers. The revisions highlight softening EV sales figures and, according to some, execution challenges.
Tesla delivered 358,023 vehicles in the January-to-March period, a 14 percent sequential decline and a miss versus consensus forecasts of roughly 365,000 to 370,000 units.
Production hit 408,000 vehicles, yet the delivery shortfall, paired with limited updates on autonomous-driving progress and new-model timelines, rattled investors. Shares fell about 8.7 percent since April 1.
Wall Street analysts are now adjusting their forecasts accordingly, as several firms have made adjustments to price targets.
Goldman Sachs
Goldman Sachs cut its target from $405 to $375 while maintaining a Hold rating. Analyst Mark Delaney pointed to soft EV sales trends and margin pressures.
Truist Financial followed on April 2, lowering its target from $438 to $400 (Hold unchanged), with analyst William Stein citing misses in both auto deliveries and energy-storage deployments, plus a lack of fresh details on AI initiatives and upcoming vehicles.
It is a strange drop if using AI initiatives and upcoming vehicles as a justification is the primary focus here. Tesla has one of the most optimistic outlooks in terms of AI, and CEO Elon Musk recently hinted that the company is developing something for the U.S. market that will be good for families.
Baird
Baird’s Ben Kallo made a very modest trim, reducing its target from $548 to $538, keeping and maintaining the ‘Outperform’ rating it holds on shares. Kallo said the price target adjustment was a prudent recalibration tied to near-term risks.
Truist
Truist analyst William Stein pointed to deliveries and energy storage missing expectations, and cut his price target to $400 from $438. He maintained the ‘Hold’ rating the firm held on the stock previously.
JPMorgan
Adding to the bearish tone on Monday, April 6, JPMorgan’s Ryan Brinkman reiterated an Underweight (Sell) rating and $145 price target, implying roughly 60 percent downside from recent levels.
Brinkman highlighted a “record surge in unsold vehicles” that adds to free-cash-flow woes, with inventory swelling to an estimated 164,000 units.
Tesla’s comfort level taking risks makes the stock a ‘must own,’ firm says
He lowered his Q1 2026 EPS estimate to $0.30 from $0.43 and full-year 2026 EPS to $1.80 from $2.00, both below consensus. Brinkman noted that expectations for Tesla’s performance have “collapsed” across financial and operating metrics through the end of the decade, yet the stock has risen 50 percent, and average price targets have increased 32 percent.
This disconnect, he argued, prices in an unrealistic sharp pivot to stronger results beyond the decade, while near-term realities remain materially weaker.
He advised investors to approach TSLA shares with a “high degree of caution,” citing elevated execution risk, competition, and valuation concerns in lower-price, higher-volume segments.
The revisions have pulled the overall consensus lower. Aggregators show the average 12-month price target now ranging from approximately $394 to $416 across roughly 32 analysts, with a prevailing Hold rating and a mixed split of Buy, Hold, and Sell recommendations.
Brinkman’s $145 target stands as a notable outlier on the bearish side.
Not Everyone Has Turned Bearish on Tesla Shares
Not all firms turned more pessimistic. Wedbush Securities held its bullish $600 target, stressing that AI and full self-driving technology represent the core value drivers, with current delivery softness viewed as temporary.
These moves reflect a broader Wall Street recalibration: near-term EV demand faces pressure from high interest rates, intensifying competition, especially from lower-cost Chinese rivals, and slower adoption.
At the same time, many analysts continue to see Tesla’s technology leadership in software-defined vehicles, autonomy, robotaxis, and energy storage as pathways to outsized long-term gains once macro conditions ease and new models launch.
With Tesla’s first-quarter earnings report due later this month, upcoming details on cost discipline, Cybertruck ramp-up, and AI roadmaps will likely shape whether these target adjustments prove prescient or overly cautious. Investors remain divided between immediate delivery realities and the company’s ambitious vision.
Tesla shares are trading at $348.82 at the time of publishing.
Elon Musk
Tesla Full Self-Driving feature probe closed by NHTSA
Actually Smart Summon allows owners to move their parked Tesla via a smartphone app remotely, directing the vehicle short distances in parking lots or private property while the driver supervises from the phone.
A probe into a popular Tesla self-driving feature has been closed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) after over a year of scrutiny from the government agency.
The NHTSA has officially closed its investigation into Tesla’s Actually Smart Summon (ASS) feature, marking a regulatory win for the electric vehicle maker after more than a year of scrutiny.
Here’s our coverage on the launch of the probe:
Tesla’s Actually Smart Summon feature under investigation by NHTSA
The preliminary investigation, opened last January, examined roughly 2.59 million Tesla vehicles equipped with the feature across the Model S, Model X, Model 3, and Model Y lineups. ASS is not available for Cybertruck currently.
Actually Smart Summon allows owners to move their parked Tesla via a smartphone app remotely, directing the vehicle short distances in parking lots or private property while the driver supervises from the phone.
Here’s a clip of us using it:
Summon has had some good performances for me in the past
This was in October: https://t.co/w69Zp2bqeg pic.twitter.com/PVXSRj19E0
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 5, 2026
Introduced as an upgrade to the original Smart Summon, the feature was designed to enhance convenience but drew attention after reports of low-speed incidents where vehicles bumped into stationary objects like posts, parked cars, or garage doors.
The NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation reviewed 159 incidents, including one formal Vehicle Owner’s Questionnaire complaint and media reports.
Notably, all events occurred at very low speeds, resulted only in minor property damage, and involved zero injuries or fatalities. The agency determined that the incidents were “extremely rare”, a fraction of one percent across millions of Summon sessions, and did not indicate a systemic safety-related defect.
A key factor in the closure was Tesla’s proactive response through over-the-air (OTA) software updates.
During the probe, Tesla deployed at least six updates that improved camera-based object detection, enhanced neural network performance for obstacle recognition, and refined the system’s response to potential hazards. These iterative improvements, delivered wirelessly to the entire fleet, addressed the primary concerns around detection reliability and operator reaction time.
Critics of Tesla’s autonomous features had initially pointed to the crashes as evidence of rushed deployment, especially given the feature’s reliance on the company’s vision-only Full Self-Driving (FSD) stack. However, NHTSA’s decision to close the case without seeking a recall underscores the low-severity nature of the events and the effectiveness of software-based fixes in modern vehicles.
It definitely has its flaws. I used ASS yesterday unsuccessfully:
It was pouring when I left the gym so I tried to Summon my Model Y
It turned the opposite way and drove out of range, stopping here and forcing me to walk even further across the lot in the rain for it 🤣
One day pic.twitter.com/iD10c8sriB
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 5, 2026
However, improvements will come, and I’m confident in that.
The closure comes as Tesla continues to push boundaries with its autonomous driving ambitions, including unsupervised FSD rollouts and robotaxi initiatives. For owners, the ruling reinforces confidence in Actually Smart Summon as a convenient, low-risk tool rather than a hazardous experiment.
While broader NHTSA reviews of Tesla’s higher-speed FSD capabilities remain ongoing, this outcome highlights how data-driven analysis and rapid OTA remediation can satisfy regulators in the evolving landscape of automated driving technology.
Tesla has not issued an official statement on the closure, but the move is widely viewed as bullish for the company’s autonomy roadmap, reducing one layer of regulatory overhang and allowing focus on further refinements.
Elon Musk
Tesla uses Model S and X ‘sentimental’ value to enforce massive pricing move
By slashing production and creating immediate scarcity, the company has transformed these remaining vehicles into limited-edition relics. The price hike is not driven by rising material costs or new features.
Tesla is using the “sentimental” value that CEO Elon Musk talked about with the Model S and Model X to enforce one of the most massive pricing moves it has ever applied as it begins to phase out the flagship vehicles.
Tesla quietly executed one of its most calculated pricing plays yet. After officially ending production of the Model S and Model X, the company raised prices on every remaining new and demo unit by roughly $15,000.
The refreshed starting prices now sit at:
- $109,990 for the Model S AWD
- $124,900 for the Model S Plaid
- $114,900 for the Model X AWD
- $129,900 for the Model X Plaid
NEWS: Tesla has raised the price on all remaining new (and demo) Model S and Model X vehicles left in inventory by $15,000.
New starting prices:
• Model S AWD: $109,990
• Model S Plaid: $124,900
• Model X AWD: $114,900
• Model X Plaid: $129,900 pic.twitter.com/qBEhsYAfXr— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) April 5, 2026
Every vehicle comes fully loaded with the Luxe Package, Full Self-Driving Supervised, four years of premium connectivity and service, and lifetime free Supercharging. What looks like a simple inventory adjustment is, in reality, a masterclass in monetizing nostalgia.
These are not ordinary cars. For many owners, the Model S and Model X represent the purest expression of Tesla’s original promise—the sleek, over-engineered flagships that proved electric vehicles could be faster, quieter, and more desirable than their gasoline counterparts.
Tesla removes Model S and X custom orders as sunset officially begins
They are the vehicles that carried Elon Musk’s vision from Silicon Valley startup to global automaker.
The final units rolling off the line carry an emotional weight that numbers alone cannot capture. Buyers are not simply purchasing transportation; they are acquiring a piece of Tesla history, the last examples of the very models that defined the brand’s first decade.
Tesla, with this move, understands this sentiment deeply.
By slashing production and creating immediate scarcity, the company has transformed these remaining vehicles into limited-edition relics. The price hike is not driven by rising material costs or new features.
It is driven by the knowledge that a certain segment of buyers, loyalists, collectors, and enthusiasts, will pay a premium precisely because these cars are about to disappear. The strategy converts emotional attachment into margin.
Where other automakers might discount outgoing models to clear lots, Tesla is betting that sentiment is worth more than volume.
The move also quietly rewards existing owners. Scarcity instantly boosts resale values for the hundreds of thousands of Model S and X already on the road, reinforcing brand loyalty among the very people who helped build Tesla’s reputation.
In the end, Tesla’s pricing decision reveals a sophisticated understanding of its audience. As the company pivots toward next-generation platforms, it has found a way to extract one final, lucrative chapter from its heritage.
For buyers willing to pay the new prices, the premium is not just for the car; it is for the feeling of owning the last true originals. Tesla has turned sentiment into strategy, and in the process, reminded everyone that even in the EV era, emotion remains a powerful line on the balance sheet.
Tesla stock gets hit with shock move from Wall Street analysts
Tesla Full Self-Driving feature probe closed by NHTSA
