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.

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].”

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!

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 Cybercab uses a unique strategy for picking up the right rider

Published

on

Credit: ARTSIMAGE | X

Tesla Cybercab is using a unique strategy for picking up the correct rider, which is a crucial part of ride-hailing to ensure people end up in the right place and are charged the correct price.

Cybercab will utilize an RGB strip in its front light bar that will illuminate in a variety of different colors to mark itself.

This identifying mark will also appear in the Robotaxi app, giving riders in the same location a notable distinction in an effort to avoid any confusion regarding who should get in each vehicle.

Other ride-hailing services use similar strategies: Lyft and Uber rides are recognizable through driver identity, vehicle type and color, as well as license plate. Waymo will display the rider’s initials on top of the vehicle, letting them know that the specific vehicle for them has arrived.

Tesla’s strategy is unique and interesting, but there are some flaws. Cybercab’s main purpose is aimed toward being an autonomous ride for all, including those who have disabilities like being blind or even color blind.

Tesla will likely have something in the pipeline for those who cannot see colors or have limited vision. There will definitely be multiple ways to identify which vehicle is the one that “you” specifically ordered.

Cybercab is set to start giving public rides next Thursday, September 3, in Austin, as it announced a dedicated event last week and invited many members of the Tesla community.

Advertisement
-

Tesla will launch Cybercab on September 3

Additionally, members of the public will be invited as well. Tesla has been offering employee rides in Cybercab for nearly two months.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla ends in-house wrap service that always seemed like a short-term program

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla has said goodbye to one customization option for its vehicles: the wrap service it launched several years ago.

After launching an in-house wrap service in August 2020 for the first time in China. In the U.S., it launched in October 2023. Tesla continued to expand the program and adjust it with better pricing and fewer options for the Cybertruck.

By December 2023, it was giving owners of the Model 3, Model Y, and the Cybertruck the opportunity to give their vehicle a fresh look with a vinyl wrap.

Tesla revamps in-house vinyl wrap service with better pricing

It was only available in five locations: Costa Mesa, Oceanside, Santa Clara, West Covina, all in California, and Seattle, Washington.

However, Tesla made some big adjustments to its shop, and the wrap service is officially gone:

Advertisement
-

Wraps are very popular across the Tesla lineup, especially since the company offers relatively few colors. Many choose to wrap their Teslas with interesting colors, patterns, or even finishes, turning their cars from glossy to satin or matte.

However, Tesla’s wrap service was so limited geographically that it never really had a chance to get off the ground or compete with local shops. Every area in the United States is now overflowing with detailing shops, mobile detailers, and other automotive specialists, many of whom perform wrap services.

Tesla’s service was confined to the Pacific time zone and only spanned across two states. It was never going to be something Tesla was a major competitor in, nor was it going to disrupt the wrapping industry. Now that the program has ended, it seems pretty ideal to believe it was always going to be a short-term thing.

Along with the wrap service, Tesla removed several other products, but nothing too crazy. The Model 3 Door Pocket and Cupholder Liners, the Model S 19″ Magnetite Wheel and Winter Tire Package, Model X/Y Ski/Snowboard Carrier for Hitch Rack, Tesla’s Electric Summer Party Tee, and the Electric Summer Tee were the other items the company totally eliminated from its online shop.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Robotaxi fleet gets a brain upgrade ahead of Cybercab launch event

Tesla’s Robotaxi service now runs longer hours nationwide as its unsupervised fleet quietly grows larger.

Published

on

By

Tesla’s Robotaxi service just got easier to catch, with the company’s official Robotaxi account noting that rides are now available from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., seven days a week, across its operating footprint. The account also said its unsupervised fleet is “a lot bigger” than before, though without specifics. The bigger change is what Tesla says upgraded intelligence in vehicle distribution and routing is what’s actually cutting wait times, not a new Full Self-Driving version.

While Tesla did not name the team behind the upgrade, the language points to its AI and fleet software group rather than the driving stack itself. Vehicle distribution and routing in Robotaxi has functioned mostly as a dispatch problem with the software deciding which idle car goes to which rider, and how far it has to travel to get there. “Upgraded intelligence” suggests a smarter version of that dispatch logic, likely using demand forecasting to position idle cars near where riders are about to request them rather than reacting once a request comes in. Tesla’s AI division has built similar prediction systems for other parts of the business, including the neural networks that power FSD itself, so applying that same approach to fleet logistics would be a natural extension rather than a new discipline for the team.

Tesla is also about a week away from a separate robotaxi milestone. The company plans to launch Cybercab, its purpose built two seat robotaxi with no steering wheel or pedals, in Austin on September 3. Cybercab has been giving employees rides on public and private roads for weeks, and the September event is expected to fold those vehicles into the existing Robotaxi fleet within days of the launch.


Austin previously ran Robotaxi from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m. as of last September, a schedule set before the service expanded into Dallas, Houston, Miami, Tampa, Orlando and the Bay Area. Wednesday’s post did not specify whether that extended overnight window still applies in Austin specifically or whether 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. is now the standard across every market. Tesla’s post, visible on its official Robotaxi account, framed the change simply as fewer riders waiting around for a car.

Whether the wider hours hold once Cybercab enters the fleet next week is the next thing worth watching. Tesla has tended to expand Robotaxi in increments, first geofence, then hours, then fleet size, and each step so far has arrived without much advance notice.

Advertisement
-
Continue Reading