News
Elon Musk pegs SpaceX BFR program at $5B as NASA’s rocket booster nears $5B in cost overruns
At the same time as NASA’s overrun-stricken Space Launch System (SLS) continues to limp towards its continuously delayed launch debut, now tentatively expected no earlier than (NET) 2021, SpaceX is forging ahead with the development of an equivalently capable launch vehicle known as BFR, comprised of a spaceship (BFS) and booster (BFB).
During a September 17th update to the next-gen SpaceX rocket’s steady progress, CEO Elon Musk offered a rough cost estimate of $5B to complete its development – no less than $2B and no more than $10B. According to NASA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Boeing – primary contractor for NASA’s SLS “Core Stage” or booster – is all but guaranteed to burn through a minimum of $8.9B between 2012 and the rocket’s tentative 2021 launch debut.
NASA is finally (officially) acknowledging that EM-1, the maiden launch of SLS, will slip until at least June 2020. Sources tell us to expect another slip to 2021, official or not.https://t.co/CYf9SqbhBY
— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) October 3, 2018
Originally contracted in 2014 to complete SLS booster development, production, and preparation by 2018 at a cost of $4.2B, Boeing has overrun its budget by a bit less than 50% (up to $6.2B) and overshot its scheduled launch debut by more than 2.5 years. Per an October 10th audit of the SLS booster program, NASA OIG has reasonably concluded that Boeing will pass that $6.2B expenditure estimate – meant to last until 2021 – in December 2018, meaning that at least an additional $2.7B will be required from NASA between now and 2021 if SLS is to have a chance at launching that year.
In other words, compared to Boeing’s first serious 2014 contract for the SLS Core Stages – $4.2B to complete Core Stages 1 and 2 and launch EM-1 in Nov. 2017 – the company will ultimately end up 215% over-budget ($4.2B to $8.9B) and ~40 months behind schedule (42 months to 80+ months from contract award to completion). Meanwhile, as OIG notes, NASA has continued to give Boeing impossibly effusive and glowing performance reviews to the tune of $323 million in “award fees”, with grades that would – under the contracting book NASA itself wrote – imply that Boeing SLS Core Stage work has been reliably under budget and ahead of schedule (it’s not).
-
- SLS Block 1. (NASA)
-
- An overview of SLS. (NASA)
-
- Rockets are perhaps even more capital intensive. (SpaceX)
-
- BFR 2018’s Spaceship, BFS. (SpaceX)
The “Satisfactory” Stuff
In reality, Boeing has not once been under budget or ahead of schedule during any of 6+ NASA performance reviews.
“Boeing should have received a “satisfactory” rating for [two review periods]; a “good” rating for [one review period]; and an “unsatisfactory” rating (no award fee) for [the 2017 review period].”
Instead, NASA has given Boeing three “Very Good” (nearly perfect) reviews and three “Excellent” (perfect) reviews over the last 6 years, ultimately dispersing $323M of pure-profit “award fees” thanks to those grades, while the OIG firmly disputes Boing’s worthiness for at least $65M of that sum.
It is pretty pathetic when the only response that @BoeingSpace can muster via @BKingDC at its #politicospace PR effort in response to a damning @NASA_SLS report by @NASAOIG is to dump on the Saturn V – a rocket that actually flew – and worked – half a century ago. https://t.co/daN91bzwpC
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) October 12, 2018
Boeing – recently brought to light as the likely source of a spate of egregiously counterfactual op-eds published with the intention of dirtying SpaceX’s image – also took it upon itself to sponsor what could be described as responses to NASA OIG’s scathing October 10th SLS audit. Hilariously, a Politico newsletter sponsored by Boeing managed to explicitly demean and belittle the Apollo-era Saturn V rocket as a “rickety metal bucket built with 1960s technology”, of which Boeing was the core stage’s prime contractor.
At the same time, that newsletter described SLS as a rocket that will be “light years ahead of thespacecraft [sic] that NASA astronauts used to get to the moon 50 years ago.” At present, the only clear way SLS is or will be “light years” ahead – as much a measure of time as it is of distance – of Saturn V is by continuing the rocket’s trend of endless delays. Perhaps NASA astronomers will soon be able to judge exactly how many “light years ahead” SLS is by measuring the program’s redshift or blueshift with one of several ground- and space-based telescopes.
Ultimately, this is a particularly effective bit of self-mockery in the context of rationale lately used by Boeing and NASA to shrug off the jaw-dropping Core Stage contract’s underperformance, missteps, schedule slips, and budget overruns, namely that building big, complex rockets is hard. NASA and Boeing, neither of which have any meaningful experience building big, complex rockets – aside from Saturn IB, Saturn V, and the Space Shuttle – thus should be given a break for reliably and dramatically underestimating the difficulties of doing so in the 21st century.
One of the most breathtaking things about the new SLS report is the response by NASA's Gerstenmaier. Essentially, he says, this a is a big, complex rocket. And it's hard to build this stuff.https://t.co/ou8SFhji6a
— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) October 10, 2018
Simultaneously, Boeing and NASA still continue to act as if they are the foremost global experts of building extremely large rockets and continue to throw pile upon pile of taxpayer billions at overpromised attempts to prove as much. It’s no more than a masochistic dream to imagine what could have been or might be if NASA instead redirected those billions towards US aerospace companies with track records of success through fixed-cost contracts or straight-up private funding (SpaceX and Blue Origin, primarily), but it’s often hard not to at least think about the possibilities.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
News
Tesla is not sparing any expense in ensuring the Cybercab is safe
Images shared by the longtime watcher showed 16 Cybercab prototypes parked near Giga Texas’ dedicated crash test facility.
The Tesla Cybercab could very well be the safest taxi on the road when it is released and deployed for public use. This was, at least, hinted at by the intensive safety tests that Tesla seems to be putting the autonomous two-seater through at its Giga Texas crash test facility.
Intensive crash tests
As per recent images from longtime Giga Texas watcher and drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer, Tesla seems to be very busy crash testing Cybercab units. Images shared by the longtime watcher showed 16 Cybercab prototypes parked near Giga Texas’ dedicated crash test facility just before the holidays.
Tegtmeyer’s aerial photos showed the prototypes clustered outside the factory’s testing building. Some uncovered Cybercabs showed notable damage and one even had its airbags engaged. With Cybercab production expected to start in about 130 days, it appears that Tesla is very busy ensuring that its autonomous two-seater ends up becoming the safest taxi on public roads.
Prioritizing safety
With no human driver controls, the Cybercab demands exceptional active and passive safety systems to protect occupants in any scenario. Considering Tesla’s reputation, it is then understandable that the company seems to be sparing no expense in ensuring that the Cybercab is as safe as possible.
Tesla’s focus on safety was recently highlighted when the Cybertruck achieved a Top Safety Pick+ rating from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). This was a notable victory for the Cybertruck as critics have long claimed that the vehicle will be one of, if not the, most unsafe truck on the road due to its appearance. The vehicle’s Top Safety Pick+ rating, if any, simply proved that Tesla never neglects to make its cars as safe as possible, and that definitely includes the Cybercab.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s Elon Musk gives timeframe for FSD’s release in UAE
Provided that Musk’s timeframe proves accurate, FSD would be able to start saturating the Middle East, starting with the UAE, next year.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk stated on Monday that Full Self-Driving (Supervised) could launch in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as soon as January 2026.
Provided that Musk’s timeframe proves accurate, FSD would be able to start saturating the Middle East, starting with the UAE, next year.
Musk’s estimate
In a post on X, UAE-based political analyst Ahmed Sharif Al Amiri asked Musk when FSD would arrive in the country, quoting an earlier post where the CEO encouraged users to try out FSD for themselves. Musk responded directly to the analyst’s inquiry.
“Hopefully, next month,” Musk wrote. The exchange attracted a lot of attention, with numerous X users sharing their excitement at the idea of FSD being brought to a new country. FSD (Supervised), after all, would likely allow hands-off highway driving, urban navigation, and parking under driver oversight in traffic-heavy cities such as Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
Musk’s comments about FSD’s arrival in the UAE were posted following his visit to the Middle Eastern country. Over the weekend, images were shared online of Musk meeting with UAE Defense Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and Dubai Crown Prince HH Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed. Musk also posted a supportive message about the country, posting “UAE rocks!” on X.
FSD recognition
FSD has been getting quite a lot of support from foreign media outlets. FSD (Supervised) earned high marks from Germany’s largest car magazine, Auto Bild, during a test in Berlin’s challenging urban environment. The demonstration highlighted the system’s ability to handle dense traffic, construction sites, pedestrian crossings, and narrow streets with smooth, confident decision-making.
Journalist Robin Hornig was particularly struck by FSD’s superior perception and tireless attention, stating: “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.” Only one intervention was needed when the system misread a route, showcasing its maturity while relying on vision-only sensors and over-the-air learning.
News
Tesla quietly flexes FSD’s reliability amid Waymo blackout in San Francisco
“Tesla Robotaxis were unaffected by the SF power outage,” Musk wrote in his post.
Tesla highlighted its Full Self-Driving (Supervised) system’s robustness this week by sharing dashcam footage of a vehicle in FSD navigating pitch-black San Francisco streets during the city’s widespread power outage.
While Waymo’s robotaxis stalled and caused traffic jams, Tesla’s vision-only approach kept operating seamlessly without remote intervention. Elon Musk amplified the clip, highlighting the contrast between the two systems.
Tesla FSD handles total darkness
The @Tesla_AI account posted a video from a Model Y operating on FSD during San Francisco’s blackout. As could be seen in the video, streetlights, traffic signals, and surrounding illumination were completely out, but the vehicle drove confidently and cautiously, just like a proficient human driver.
Musk reposted the clip, adding context to reports of Waymo vehicles struggling in the same conditions. “Tesla Robotaxis were unaffected by the SF power outage,” Musk wrote in his post.
Musk and the Tesla AI team’s posts highlight the idea that FSD operates a lot like any experienced human driver. Since the system does not rely on a variety of sensors and a complicated symphony of factors, vehicles could technically navigate challenging circumstances as they emerge. This definitely seemed to be the case in San Francisco.
Waymo’s blackout struggles
Waymo faced scrutiny after multiple self-driving Jaguar I-PACE taxis stopped functioning during the blackout, blocking lanes, causing traffic jams, and requiring manual retrieval. Videos shared during the power outage showed fleets of Waymo vehicles just stopping in the middle of the road, seemingly confused about what to do when the lights go out.
In a comment, Waymo stated that its vehicles treat nonfunctional signals as four-way stops, but “the sheer scale of the outage led to instances where vehicles remained stationary longer than usual to confirm the state of the affected intersections. This contributed to traffic friction during the height of the congestion.”
A company spokesperson also shared some thoughts about the incidents. “Yesterday’s power outage was a widespread event that caused gridlock across San Francisco, with non-functioning traffic signals and transit disruptions. While the failure of the utility infrastructure was significant, we are committed to ensuring our technology adjusts to traffic flow during such events,” the Waymo spokesperson stated, adding that it is “focused on rapidly integrating the lessons learned from this event, and are committed to earning and maintaining the trust of the communities we serve every day.”
Tesla is not sparing any expense in ensuring the Cybercab is safe
Tesla’s Elon Musk gives timeframe for FSD’s release in UAE
