Connect with us

News

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

Published

7 years ago

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.

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.

Advertisement

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].”

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.

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.

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!

Related Topics:

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.

Comments

News

Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised) v14.1.7 real-world drive and review

On an hour-long drive, we tested v14.1.7 and tested its new capabilities, which are mostly overall performance and smoothness fixes rather than integrations of new features that are unknown to routine FSD users.

Published

6 hours ago

on

November 13, 2025

By

tesla interior operating on full self driving
Credit: TESLARATI

Tesla started rolling out its Full Self-Driving (Supervised) v14.1.7 suite last night to owners, and there are several improvements to note within the new update that are at least the start of fixes to highly-mentioned issues.

On an hour-long drive, we tested v14.1.7 and tested its new capabilities, which are mostly overall performance and smoothness fixes rather than integrations of new features that are unknown to routine FSD users. However, there are a handful of shortcomings that are still present within the suite, which are not something that will be fixed within the span of a single update.

For what it is, Full Self-Driving does an excellent job of navigating — once you get it on its correct path. Our issues tend to be confined to navigation, routing, and the decision-making process that has to do with the way the car wants to get you to your destination. There were five things that happened on our first drive with v14.1.7 that are worth mentioning. The full drive will be available at the bottom of this article.

Navigation and Routing Still Seems to Be a Major Challenge

In past content, we’ve discussed the issues with routing and navigation, and how a Tesla chooses its path. Most noticeably, these issues occur in the same areas; for me, it’s my local Supercharger. My 2026 Model Y with AI4 continues to pick less-than-optimal routes out of the Supercharger, and in this instance, it actually chose to turn down a road, pull over, and give me the wheel, essentially asking, “Hey, can you get me on the right track here?”

This is still my biggest bone to pick with FSD, even more so than some of the bonehead moves it’s made in tougher scenarios (mostly parking lots with very limited visibility due to shrubs being planted in the worst possible locations). It’s rare that it happens, but this particular Supercharger has been a true thorn in the side of my Tesla.

Advertisement

This is not an issue that is confined to v14.1.7, or even v14 in general. Unfortunately, it is an issue that has persisted throughout my ownership experience, as well as during Demo Drives.

Stuttering and Hesitation at Intersections was Non-Existent

There was some confusion regarding my language in a recent article where I stated Tesla is confronting the issues that have been reported regarding the “stabbing” with braking.

Advertisement

“Tesla began the v14.1.4 launch last night, which included minor improvements and addressed brake-stabbing issues many owners have reported. In my personal experience, the stabbing has been awful on v14.1.3, and is a major concern.

However, many things have improved, and only a couple of minor issues have been recurring. Many of the issues v13 addressed are no longer an issue, so Tesla has made significant progress.”

It has undoubtedly improved, but it is not resolved.

With that being said, I did not feel a single example of hesitation, stabbing, or stuttering at a single intersection or instance when it has been present in the past. CEO Elon Musk said it would be fixed with v14.2, so it seems like Tesla is well on its way to resolving it.

Proper Handling of Crosswalks

It’s crazy how many people still do not stop for pedestrians at clearly-marked crosswalks. I had two instances of it happen during the drive, with FSD stopping for those pedestrians both times.

Advertisement

Human drivers did not stop either time:

Handled Merging onto a Highway with an Inconsiderate Driver Well

Routinely, drivers will get over into the left lane, if they are able, to allow merging traffic to safely enter the freeway. It does not always happen this way, and it’s not required by law.

Not exclusive to v14.1.7, as many past iterations would have done this as well, but it was nice to watch the vehicle slow down to let that traffic pass. It then entered the freeway safely, and the entire maneuver was well done.

Advertisement

Took an Appropriate Move with Oncoming Foot Traffic and Debris in a Tight Alleyway

This was probably the most on-edge I was during the drive because: 1) FSD chose to take an unnecessary alleyway, and 2) there was a box and oncoming pedestrians.

The car was aware of everything that was going on. In order to avoid the box, it would have had to turn toward the pedestrians, and in order to avoid the pedestrians, it would have had to turn into the box.

It chose to wait patiently, and after the pedestrians were past the car, FSD chose to proceed.

Advertisement

Closing Thoughts

Overall, we’re very impressed with v14.1.7, and we think this is Tesla’s best iteration of the FSD suite yet, as it should be since it’s the newest version available. Tesla’s attention to detail regarding the brake stabbing is really well done, and it seems evident that a complete fix is on its way.

Other than the navigation issue at the very beginning, which was not an intervention, at least in my opinion, this was a really successful drive.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk debunks report claiming xAI raised $15 billion in funding round

xAI also responded with what appeared to be an automated reply, stating, “Legacy Media Lies.”

Published

7 hours ago

on

November 13, 2025

By

Credit: xAI

Elon Musk has debunked a report claiming his AI startup xAI had raised $15 billion from a funding round. Reports of the alleged funding round were initially reported by CNBC, which cited sources reportedly familiar with the matter.

CNBC’s report

The CNBC story cited unnamed sources that claimed that the new capital injection would help fund GPUs that xAI needs to train its large language model, Grok. The news outlet noted that following the funding round, xAI was valued at $200 billion. 

Artificial intelligence startups have been raising funds from investors as of late. OpenAI raised $6.6 billion in October, valuing the startup at a staggering $500 billion. Reuters also reported last month that OpenAI was preparing for an IPO with a valuation of $1 trillion. Elon Musk’s xAI is looking to catch up and disrupt OpenAI, as well as its large language model, ChatGPT, which has become ubiquitous.

Elon Musk and xAI’s responses

In his response on X, Elon Musk simply stated that the CNBC story was “false.” He did not, however, explain if the whole premise of the publication’s article was fallacious, or if only parts of it were inaccurate. 

Amusingly enough, xAI also issued a response when asked about the matter by Reuters, which also reported on the story. The artificial intelligence startup responded with what appeared to be an automated reply, which read, “Legacy Media Lies.”

Advertisement

xAI, founded in July 2023 as an alternative to OpenAI and Anthropic, has aggressively built out infrastructure to support its flagship products, including Grok and its recently launched Grokipedia platform. The company is developing its Colossus supercomputer in Memphis, which is heralded as one of the world’s largest supercomputer clusters.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla reportedly testing Apple CarPlay integration: report

Citing insiders reportedly familiar with the matter, Bloomberg News claimed that CarPlay is being trialed by the EV maker internally.

Published

11 hours ago

on

November 13, 2025

By

Credit: Tesla

Tesla is reportedly testing Apple’s CarPlay software for its vehicles, marking a major shift after years of resisting the tech giant’s ecosystem. 

Citing insiders reportedly familiar with the matter, Bloomberg News claimed that CarPlay is being trialed by the EV maker internally. The move could help Tesla gain more market share, as surveys have shown many buyers consider CarPlay as an essential feature when choosing a car.

Not the usual CarPlay experience

Bloomberg claimed that Tesla’s tests involve a rather unique way to integrate CarPlay. Instead of replacing the vehicle’s entire infotainment display, Tesla’s integration will reportedly feature a CarPlay window on the infotainment system. This limited approach will ensure that Tesla’s own software, such as Full Self-Driving’s visuals, remains dominant. 

The feature is expected to support wireless connectivity as well, bringing Tesla in line with other luxury automakers that already offer CarPlay. While plans remain fluid and may change before public release, the publication’s sources claimed that the rollout could happen within months. 

A change of heart

Tesla has been reluctant to grant Apple access to its in-car systems, partly due to Elon Musk’s past criticism of the tech giant’s App Store policies and its poaching of Tesla engineers during the failed Apple Car project. Tesla’s in-house software is also deemed by numerous owners as a superior option to CarPlay, thanks to its sleek design and rich feature set.

Advertisement

With Apple’s retreat from building cars and Elon Musk’s relationship with Apple for X and Grok, however, the CEO’s stance on the tech giant seems to be improving. Overall, Tesla’s potential CarPlay integration would likely be appreciated by owners, as a McKinsey & Co. survey last year found that roughly one-third of buyers considered the lack of such systems a deal-breaker.

Continue Reading

Trending