Connect with us

News

Elon Musk pegs SpaceX BFR program at $5B as NASA’s rocket booster nears $5B in cost overruns

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

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).

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].”

Advertisement

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.

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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!

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.2.5 might be the most confusing release ever

With each Full Self-Driving release, I am realistic. I know some things are going to get better, and I know some things will regress slightly. However, these instances of improvements are relatively mild, as are the regressions. Yet, this version has shown me that it contains extremes of both.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.2.5 hit my car back on Valentine’s Day, February 14, and since I’ve had it, it has become, in my opinion, the most confusing release I’ve ever had.

With each Full Self-Driving release, I am realistic. I know some things are going to get better, and I know some things will regress slightly. However, these instances of improvements are relatively mild, as are the regressions. Yet, this version has shown me that it contains extremes of both.

It has been about three weeks of driving on v14.2.2.5; I’ve used it for nearly every mile traveled since it hit my car. I’ve taken short trips of 10 minutes or less, I’ve taken medium trips of an hour or less, and I’ve taken longer trips that are over 100 miles per leg and are over two hours of driving time one way.

These are my thoughts on it thus far:

Advertisement

Speed Profiles Are a Mixed Bag

Speed Profiles are something Tesla seems to tinker with quite frequently, and each version tends to show a drastic difference in how each one behaves compared to the previous version.

I do a vast majority of my FSD travel using Standard and Hurry modes, although in bad weather, I will scale it back to Chill, and when it’s a congested city on a weekend or during rush hour, I’ll throw it into Mad Max so it takes what it needs.

Early on, Speed Profiles really felt great. This is one of those really subjective parts of the FSD where someone might think one mode travels too quickly, whereas another person might see the identical performance as too slow or just right.

To me, I would like to see more consistency from release to release on them, but overall, things are pretty good. There are no real complaints on my end, as I had with previous releases.

Advertisement

In a past release, Mad Max traveled under the speed limit quite frequently, and I only had that experience because Hurry was acting the same way. I’ve had no instances of that with v14.2.2.5.

Strange Turn Signal Behavior

This is the first Full Self-Driving version where I’ve had so many weird things happen with the turn signals.

Two things come to mind: Using a turn signal on a sharp turn, and ignoring the navigation while putting the wrong turn signal on. I’ve encountered both things on v14.2.2.5.

On my way to the Supercharger, I take a road that has one semi-sharp right-hand turn with a driveway entrance right at the beginning of the turn.

Advertisement

Only recently, with the introduction of v14.2.2.5, have I had FSD put on the right turn signal when going around this turn. It’s obviously a minor issue, but it still happens, and it’s not standard practice:

Advertisement

When sharing this on X, I had Tesla fans (the ones who refuse to acknowledge that the company can make mistakes) tell me that it’s a “valid” behavior that would be taught to anyone who has been “professionally trained” to drive.

Apparently, if you complain about this turn signal, you are also claiming you know more than Tesla engineers…okay.

Nobody in their right mind has ever gone around a sharp turn when driving their car and put on a signal when continuing on the same road. You would put a left turn signal on to indicate you were turning into that driveway if that’s what your intention was.

Like I said, it’s a totally minor issue. However, it’s not really needed, and nor is it normal. If I were in the car with someone who was taking a simple turn on a road they were traveling, and they signaled because the turn was sharp, I’d be scratching my head.

Advertisement

I’ve also had three separate instances of the car completely ignoring the navigation and putting on a signal that is opposite to what the routing says. Really quite strange.

Parking Performance is Still Underwhelming

Parking has been a complaint of mine with FSD for a long time, so much so that it is pretty rare that I allow the vehicle to park itself. More often than not, it is because I want to pick a spot that is relatively isolated.

However, in the times I allow it to pull into a spot, it still does some pretty head-scratching things.

Recently, it tried to back into a spot that was ~60% covered in plowed snow. The snow was piled about six feet high in a Target parking lot.

Advertisement

Tesla ends Full Self-Driving purchase option in the U.S.

A few days later, it tried backing into a spot where someone failed the universal litmus test of returning their shopping cart. Both choices were baffling and required me to manually move the car to a different portion of the lot.

I used Autopark on both occasions, and it did a great job of getting into the spot. I notice that the parking performance when I manually choose the spot is much better than when the car does the entire parking process, meaning choosing the spot and parking in it.

It’s Doing Things (For Me) It’s Never Done Before

Two things that FSD has never done before, at least for me, are slow down in School Zones and avoid deer. The first is something I usually take over manually, and the second I surprisingly have not had to deal with yet.

Advertisement

I had my Tesla slow down at a school zone yesterday for the first time, traveling at 20 MPH and not 15 MPH as the sign suggested, but at the speed of other cars in the School Zone. This was impressive and the first time I experienced it.

I would like to see this more consistently, and I think School Zones should be one of those areas where, no matter what, FSD will only travel the speed limit.

Last night, FSD v14.2.2.5 recognized a deer in a roadside field and slowed down for it:

Navigation Still SUCKS

Navigation will be a complaint until Tesla proves it can fix it. For now, it’s just terrible.

It still has not figured out how to leave my neighborhood. I give it the opportunity to prove me wrong each time I leave my house, and it just can’t do it.

Advertisement

It always tries to go out of the primary entrance/exit of the neighborhood when the route needs to take me left, even though that exit is a right turn only. I always leave a voice prompt for Tesla about it.

It still picks incredibly baffling routes for simple navigation. It’s the one thing I still really want Tesla to fix.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla gets tip of the hat from major Wall Street firm on self-driving prowess

“Tesla is at the forefront of autonomous driving, supported by a camera-only approach that is technically harder but much cheaper than the multi-sensor systems widely used in the industry. This strategy should allow Tesla to scale more profitably compared to Robotaxi competitors, helped by a growing data engine from its existing fleet,” BoA wrote.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla received a tip of the hat from major Wall Street firm Bank of America on Wednesday, as it reinitiated coverage on Tesla shares with a bullish stance that comes with a ‘Buy’ rating and a $460 price target.

In a new note that marks a sharp reversal from its neutral position earlier in 2025, the bank declared Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology the “leading consumer autonomy solution.”

Analysts highlighted Tesla’s camera-only architecture, known as Tesla Vision, as a strategic masterstroke. While technically more challenging than the multi-sensor setups favored by rivals, the vision-based approach is dramatically cheaper to produce and maintain.

This cost edge, combined with Tesla’s rapidly expanding real-world data engine, positions the company to scale robotaxis far more profitably than competitors, BofA argues in the new note:

Advertisement

“Tesla is at the forefront of autonomous driving, supported by a camera-only approach that is technically harder but much cheaper than the multi-sensor systems widely used in the industry. This strategy should allow Tesla to scale more profitably compared to Robotaxi competitors, helped by a growing data engine from its existing fleet.”

The bank now attributes roughly 52% of Tesla’s total valuation to its Robotaxi ambitions. It also flagged meaningful upside from the Optimus humanoid robot program and the fast-growing energy storage business, suggesting the auto segment’s recent headwinds, including expired incentives, are being eclipsed by these higher-margin opportunities.

Tesla’s own data underscores exactly why Wall Street is waking up to FSD’s potential. According to Tesla’s official safety reporting page, the FSD Supervised fleet has now surpassed 8.4 billion cumulative miles driven.

Tesla FSD (Supervised) fleet passes 8.4 billion cumulative miles

Advertisement

That total ballooned from just 6 million miles in 2021 to 80 million in 2022, 670 million in 2023, 2.25 billion in 2024, and a staggering 4.25 billion in 2025 alone. In the first 50 days of 2026, owners added another 1 billion miles — averaging more than 20 million miles per day.

This avalanche of real-world, camera-captured footage, much of it on complex city streets, gives Tesla an unmatched training dataset. Every mile feeds its neural networks, accelerating improvement cycles that lidar-dependent rivals simply cannot match at scale.

Tesla owners themselves will tell you the suite gets better with every release, bringing new features and improvements to its self-driving project.

The $460 target implies roughly 15 percent upside from recent trading levels around $400. While regulatory and safety hurdles remain, BofA’s endorsement signals growing institutional conviction that Tesla’s data advantage is not hype; it’s a tangible moat already delivering billions of miles of proof.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla to discuss expansion of Samsung AI6 production plans: report

Tesla has reportedly requested an additional 24,000 wafers per month, which would bring total production capacity to around 40,000 wafers if finalized.

Published

on

Tesla-Chips-HW3-1
Credit: Tom Cross

Tesla is reportedly discussing an expansion of its next-generation AI chip supply deal with Samsung Electronics. 

As per a report from Korean industry outlet The Elec, Tesla purchasing executives are reportedly scheduled to meet Samsung officials this week to negotiate additional production volume for the company’s upcoming AI6 chip.

Industry sources cited in the report stated that Tesla is pushing to increase the production volume of its AI6 chip, which will be manufactured using Samsung’s 2-nanometer process.

Tesla previously signed a long-term foundry agreement with Samsung covering AI6 production through December 31, 2033. The deal was reportedly valued at about 22.8 trillion won (roughly $16–17 billion).

Advertisement

Under the existing agreement, Tesla secured approximately 16,000 wafers per month from the facility. The company has reportedly requested an additional 24,000 wafers per month, which would bring total production capacity to around 40,000 wafers if finalized.

Tesla purchasing executives are expected to discuss detailed supply terms during their visit to Samsung this week.

The AI6 chip is expected to support several Tesla technologies. Industry sources stated that the chip could be used for the company’s Full Self-Driving system, the Optimus humanoid robot, and Tesla’s internal AI data centers.

The report also indicated that AI6 clusters could replace the role previously planned for Tesla’s Dojo AI supercomputer. Instead of a single system, multiple AI6 chips would be combined into server-level clusters.

Advertisement

Tesla’s semiconductor collaboration with Samsung dates back several years. Samsung participated in the design of Tesla’s HW3 (AI3) chip and manufactured it using a 14-nanometer process. The HW4 chip currently used in Tesla vehicles was also produced by Samsung using a 5-nanometer node.

Tesla previously planned to split production of its AI5 chip between Samsung and TSMC. However, the company reportedly chose Samsung as the primary partner for the newer AI6 chip.

Continue Reading