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!
Tesla rolled out Full Self-Driving version 14.2 yesterday to members of the Early Access Program (EAP). Expectations were high, and Tesla surely delivered.
With the rollout of Tesla FSD v14.2, there were major benchmarks for improvement from the v14.1 suite, which spanned across seven improvements. Our final experience with v14.1 was with v14.1.7, and to be honest, things were good, but it felt like there were a handful of regressions from previous iterations.
While there were improvements in brake stabbing and hesitation, we did experience a few small interventions related to navigation and just overall performance. It was nothing major; there were no critical takeovers that required any major publicity, as they were more or less subjective things that I was not particularly comfortable with. Other drivers might have been more relaxed.
With v14.2 hitting our cars yesterday, there were a handful of things we truly noticed in terms of improvement, most notably the lack of brake stabbing and hesitation, a major complaint with v14.1.x.
However, in a 62-minute drive that was fully recorded, there were a lot of positives, and only one true complaint, which was something we haven’t had issues with in the past.
The Good
Lack of Brake Stabbing and Hesitation
Perhaps the most notable and publicized issue with v14.1.x was the presence of brake stabbing and hesitation. Arriving at intersections was particularly nerve-racking on the previous version simply because of this. At four-way stops, the car would not be assertive enough to take its turn, especially when other vehicles at the same intersection would inch forward or start to move.
This was a major problem.
However, there were no instances of this yesterday on our lengthy drive. It was much more assertive when arriving at these types of scenarios, but was also more patient when FSD knew it was not the car’s turn to proceed.
Can report on v14.2 today there were ZERO instances of break stabbing or hesitation at intersections today
It was a significant improvement from v14.1.x
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 21, 2025
This improvement was the most noticeable throughout the drive, along with fixes in overall smoothness.
Speed Profiles Seem to Be More Reasonable
There were a handful of FSD v14 users who felt as if the loss of a Max Speed setting was a negative. However, these complaints will, in our opinion, begin to subside, especially as things have seemed to be refined quite nicely with v14.2.
Freeway driving is where this is especially noticeable. If it’s traveling too slow, just switch to a faster profile. If it’s too fast, switch to a slower profile. However, the speeds seem to be much more defined with each Speed Profile, which is something that I really find to be a huge advantage. Previously, you could tell the difference in speeds, but not in driving styles. At times, Standard felt a lot like Hurry. Now, you can clearly tell the difference between the two.
It seems as if Tesla made a goal that drivers should be able to tell which Speed Profile is active if it was not shown on the screen. With v14.1.x, this was not necessarily something that could be done. With v14.2, if someone tested me on which Speed Profile was being used, I’m fairly certain I could pick each one.
Better Overall Operation
I felt, at times, especially with v14.1.7, there were some jerky movements. Nothing that was super alarming, but there were times when things just felt a little more finicky than others.
v14.2 feels much smoother overall, with really great decision-making, lane changes that feel second nature, and a great speed of travel. It was a very comfortable ride.
The Bad
Parking
It feels as if there was a slight regression in parking quality, as both times v14.2 pulled into parking spots, I would have felt compelled to adjust manually if I were staying at my destinations. For the sake of testing, at my first destination, I arrived, allowed the car to park, and then left. At the tail-end of testing, I walked inside the store that FSD v14.2 drove me to, so I had to adjust the parking manually.
This was pretty disappointing. Apart from parking at Superchargers, which is always flawless, parking performance is something that needs some attention. The release notes for v14.2. state that parking spot selection and parking quality will improve with future versions.
Any issues with parking on your end? 14.1.7 didn’t have this trouble with parking pic.twitter.com/JPLRO2obUj
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 21, 2025
However, this was truly my only complaint about v14.2.
You can check out our full 62-minute ride-along below:
Elon Musk
SpaceX issues statement on Starship V3 Booster 18 anomaly
The incident unfolded during gas-system pressure testing at the company’s Massey facility in Starbase, Texas.
SpaceX has issued an initial statement about Starship Booster 18’s anomaly early Friday. The incident unfolded during gas-system pressure testing at the company’s Massey facility in Starbase, Texas.
SpaceX’s initial comment
As per SpaceX in a post on its official account on social media platform X, Booster 18 was undergoing gas system pressure tests when the anomaly happened. Despite the nature of the incident, the company emphasized that no propellant was loaded, no engines were installed, and personnel were kept at a safe distance from the booster, resulting in zero injuries.
“Booster 18 suffered an anomaly during gas system pressure testing that we were conducting in advance of structural proof testing. No propellant was on the vehicle, and engines were not yet installed. The teams need time to investigate before we are confident of the cause. No one was injured as we maintain a safe distance for personnel during this type of testing. The site remains clear and we are working plans to safely reenter the site,” SpaceX wrote in its post on X.
Incident and aftermath
Livestream footage from LabPadre showed Booster 18’s lower half crumpling around the liquid oxygen tank area at approximately 4:04 a.m. CT. Subsequent images posted by on-site observers revealed extensive deformation across the booster’s lower structure. Needless to say, spaceflight observers have noted that Booster 18 would likely be a complete loss due to its anomaly.
Booster 18 had rolled out only a day earlier and was one of the first vehicles in the Starship V3 program. The V3 series incorporates structural reinforcements and reliability upgrades intended to prepare Starship for rapid-reuse testing and eventual tower-catch operations. Elon Musk has been optimistic about Starship V3, previously noting on X that the spacecraft might be able to complete initial missions to Mars.
Investor's Corner
Tesla analyst maintains $500 PT, says FSD drives better than humans now
The team also met with Tesla leaders for more than an hour to discuss autonomy, chip development, and upcoming deployment plans.
Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) received fresh support from Piper Sandler this week after analysts toured the Fremont Factory and tested the company’s latest Full Self-Driving software. The firm reaffirmed its $500 price target, stating that FSD V14 delivered a notably smooth robotaxi demonstration and may already perform at levels comparable to, if not better than, average human drivers.
The team also met with Tesla leaders for more than an hour to discuss autonomy, chip development, and upcoming deployment plans.
Analysts highlight autonomy progress
During more than 75 minutes of focused discussions, analysts reportedly focused on FSD v14’s updates. Piper Sandler’s team pointed to meaningful strides in perception, object handling, and overall ride smoothness during the robotaxi demo.
The visit also included discussions on updates to Tesla’s in-house chip initiatives, its Optimus program, and the growth of the company’s battery storage business. Analysts noted that Tesla continues refining cost structures and capital expenditure expectations, which are key elements in future margin recovery, as noted in a Yahoo Finance report.
Analyst Alexander Potter noted that “we think FSD is a truly impressive product that is (probably) already better at driving than the average American.” This conclusion was strengthened by what he described as a “flawless robotaxi ride to the hotel.”
Street targets diverge on TSLA
While Piper Sandler stands by its $500 target, it is not the highest estimate on the Street. Wedbush, for one, has a $600 per share price target for TSLA stock.
Other institutions have also weighed in on TSLA stock as of late. HSBC reiterated a Reduce rating with a $131 target, citing a gap between earnings fundamentals and the company’s market value. By contrast, TD Cowen maintained a Buy rating and a $509 target, pointing to strong autonomous driving demonstrations in Austin and the pace of software-driven improvements.
Stifel analysts also lifted their price target for Tesla to $508 per share over the company’s ongoing robotaxi and FSD programs.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2 – Full Review, the Good and the Bad
SpaceX issues statement on Starship V3 Booster 18 anomaly
