News
NASA snubbed SpaceX, common sense to overpay Boeing for astronaut launches, says audit
A detailed government audit has revealed that NASA went out of its way to overpay Boeing for its Commercial Crew Program (CCP) astronaut launch services, making a mockery of its fixed-price contract with the company and blatantly snubbing SpaceX throughout the process.
Over the last several years, the NASA inspector general has published a number of increasingly discouraging reports about Boeing’s behavior and track-record as a NASA contractor, and November 14th’s report is possibly the most concerning yet. On November 14th, NASA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) published a damning audit titled “NASA’s Management of Crew Transportation to the International Space Station [ISS]” (PDF).
Offering more than 50 pages of detailed analysis of behavior that was at best inept and at worst deeply corrupt, OIG’s analysis uncovered some uncomfortable revelations about NASA’s relationship with Boeing in a different realm than usual: NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP). Begun in the 2010s in an effort to develop multiple redundant commercial alternatives to the Space Shuttle, prematurely canceled before a US alternative was even on the horizon, the CCP ultimately awarded SpaceX and Boeing major development contracts in September 2014.
NASA awarded fixed-cost contracts worth $4.2 billion and $2.6 billion to Boeing and SpaceX, respectively, to essentially accomplish the same goals: design, build, test, and fly new spacecraft capable of transporting NASA astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS). The intention behind fixed-price contracts was to hold contractors responsible for any delays they might incur over the development of human-rated spacecraft, a task NASA acknowledged as challenging but far from unprecedented.
Off the rails
The most likely trigger of the bizarre events that would unfold a few years down the road began in part on June 28th, 2015 and culminated on September 1st, 2016, the dates of the two catastrophic failures SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket has suffered since its 2010 debut. In the most generous possible interpretation of the OIG’s findings, NASA headquarters and CCP managers may have been shaken and not thinking on an even keel after SpaceX’s second major failure in a little over a year.
Under this stress, the agency may have ignored common sense and basic contracting due-diligence, leading “numerous officials” to sign off on a plan that would subvert Boeing’s fixed-price contract, paying the company an additional $287 million (~7%) to prevent a perceived gap in NASA astronaut access to the ISS. This likely arose because NASA briefly believed that SpaceX’s failures could cause multiple years of delays, making Boeing the only available crew transport provider for a significant period of time. Starliner was already delayed by more than a year, making it increasingly unlikely that Boeing alone would be able to ensure continuous NASA access to the ISS.
As NASA attempted to argue in its response to the audit, “the final price [increase] was agreed to by NASA and Boeing and was reviewed and approved by numerous NASA officials at the Kennedy Space Center and Headquarters”. In the heat of the moment, perhaps those officials forgot that Boeing had already purchased several Russian Soyuz seats to sell to NASA or tourists, and perhaps those officials missed the simple fact that those seats and some elementary schedule tweaks could have almost entirely alleviated the perceived “access gap” with minimal cost and effort.
The OIG audit further implied that the timing of a Boeing proposal – submitted just days after NASA agreed to pay the company extra to prevent that access gap – was suspect.
“Five days after NASA committed to pay $287.2 million in price increases for four commercial crew missions, Boeing submitted an official proposal to sell NASA up to five Soyuz seats for $373.5 million for missions during the same time period. In total, Boeing received $660.7 million above the fixed prices set in the CCtCap pricing tables to pay for an accelerated production timetable for four crew missions and five Soyuz seats.”
NASA OIG — November 14th, 2019 [PDF]
In other words, NASA officials somehow failed to realize or remember that Boeing owned multiple Soyuz seats during “prolonged negotiations” (p. 24) with Boeing and subsequently awarded Boeing an additional $287M to expedite Starliner production and preparations, thus averting an access gap. The very next week, Boeing asked NASA if it wanted to buy five Soyuz seats it had already acquired to send NASA astronauts to the ISS.
Bluntly speaking, this series of events has three obvious explanations, none of them particularly reassuring.
- Boeing intentionally withheld an obvious (partial) solution to a perceived gap in astronaut access to the ISS, exploiting NASA’s panic to extract a ~7% premium from its otherwise fixed-price Starliner development contract.
- Through gross negligence and a lack of basic contracting due-diligence, NASA ignored obvious (and cheaper) possible solutions at hand, taking Boeing’s word for granted and opening up the piggy bank.
- A farcical ‘crew access analysis’ study ignored multiple obvious and preferable solutions to give “numerous NASA officials” an excuse to violate fixed-price contracting principles and pay Boeing a substantial premium.
Extortion with a friendly smile
The latter explanation, while possibly the worst and most corruption-laden, is arguably the likeliest choice based on the history of NASA’s relationship with Boeing. In fact, a July 2019 report from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) revealed that NASA was consistently paying Boeing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of “award fees” as part of the company’s SLS booster (core stage) production contract, which is no less than four years behind schedule and $1.8 billion over budget. From 2014 to 2018, NASA awarded Boeing a total of $271M in award fees, a practice meant to award a given contractor’s excellent performance.
In several of those years, NASA reviews reportedly described Boeing’s performance as “good”, “very good”, and “excellent”, all while Boeing repeatedly fumbled SLS core stage production, adding years of delays to the SLS rocket’s launch debut. This is to say that “numerous NASA officials” were also presumably more than happy to give Boeing hundreds of millions of dollars in awards even as the company was and is clearly a big reason why the SLS program continues to fail to deliver.
Ultimately, although NASA’s concern about SpaceX’s back-to-back Falcon 9 failures and some combination of ineptitude, ignorance, and corruption all clearly played a role, the fact remains that NASA – according to the inspector general – never approached SpaceX as part of their 2016/2017 efforts to prevent a ‘crew access gap’. Given that the CCP has two partners, that decision was highly improper regardless of the circumstances and is made even more inexplicable by the fact that NASA was apparently well aware that SpaceX’s Crew Dragon had significantly shorter lead times and far lower costs compared to Starliner.
This would have meant that had NASA approached SpaceX to attempt to mitigate the access gap, SpaceX could have almost certainly done it significantly cheaper and faster, or at minimum injected a bit of good-faith competition into the endeavor.
Finally and perhaps most disturbingly of all, NASA OIG investigators were told by “several NASA officials” that – in spite of several preferable alternatives – they ultimately chose to sign off Boeing’s demanded price increases because they were worried that Boeing would quit the Commercial Crew Program entirely without it. Boeing and NASA unsurprisingly denied this in their official responses to the OIG audit, but a US government inspector generally would never publish such a claim without substantial confidence and plenty of evidence to support it.
According to OIG sources, “senior CCP officials believed that due to financial considerations, Boeing could not continue as a commercial crew provider unless the contractor received the higher prices.” A lot remains unsaid, like why those officials believed that Boeing’s full withdrawal from CCP was a serious possibility and how they came to that conclusion, enough to make it impossible to conclude that Boeing legitimately threatened to quit in lieu of NASA payments.
All things considered, these fairly damning revelations should by no means take away from the excellent work Boeing engineers and technicians are trying to do to design, build, and launch Starliner. However, they do serve to draw a fine line between the mindsets and motivations of Boeing and SpaceX. One puts profit, shareholders, and itself above all else, while the other is trying hard to lower the cost of spaceflight and enable a sustainable human presence on the Moon, Mars, and beyond.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
News
Tesla gets a massive order for the Semi: 370 units and $100M
WattEV, a leading provider of electric freight operations and charging infrastructure in the United States, has announced one of the largest deployments of electric Class 8 trucks in California history: an order for 370 Tesla Semi vehicles.
Tesla just got a massive order for the Semi, and it is its largest by a long shot.
WattEV, a leading provider of electric freight operations and charging infrastructure in the United States, has announced one of the largest deployments of electric Class 8 trucks in California history: an order for 370 Tesla Semis.
Valued at approximately $100 million, this marks the state’s biggest single electric truck order to date and signals accelerating momentum for zero-emission long-haul freight.
Credit: Tesla
Deliveries are set to begin with the first 50 Tesla Semis in 2026, with the full fleet operational by the end of 2027. More than 300 of these trucks will support a joint program with the Port of Oakland, helping electrify drayage and regional freight routes. The initiative aligns with California’s ambitious goals to transition to carbon-neutral freight operations.
Salim Youssefzadeh, CEO of WattEV, said at the annual ACT Expo industry event that the Semi was the easiest choice:
“We selected the Tesla Semi based on cost, performance, and availability after issuing a public request for proposals…With the Tesla Semi now entering mass production and drawing strong reviews from fleet operators nationwide, WattEV’s vertically integrated model – combining vehicle deployment, megawatt-class charging infrastructure, and full-service leasing – offers a turn-key path for carriers without any capital risk.”
Critical to the rollout are new Megawatt Charging System (MCS) hubs in Oakland, Fresno, Stockton, and Sacramento. These stations will deliver up to 300 miles of range in roughly 30 minutes—comparable to a traditional diesel fill-up. The Oakland depot, where WattEV recently broke ground, will serve as a cornerstone for northern and central California corridors, connecting ports to inland hubs and beyond.
This deployment builds on WattEV’s existing experience. The company has already logged millions of electric miles in Southern California, including early Tesla Semi deployments at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. By combining high-efficiency electric trucks with strategically placed fast-charging depots, WattEV aims to prove that battery-electric long-haul trucking can match—or exceed—diesel economics while slashing emissions.
The order arrives as Tesla ramps up Semi production at its Nevada factory, targeting higher volumes in 2026. Fleet operators nationwide have praised the Semi’s real-world performance, including strong torque, low operating costs, and advanced safety features. For California, the project supports air quality improvements around ports and highways while demonstrating scalable infrastructure for heavy-duty electrification.
Industry observers see this as a pivotal step toward broader adoption. With diesel trucks facing rising fuel and regulatory costs, turnkey electric solutions like WattEV’s could accelerate the shift. As the first 50 Semis hit the road in 2026, they will not only move freight but also help build the charging network that paves the way for even larger fleets.
This landmark order underscores Tesla’s growing footprint in commercial trucking and California’s leadership in sustainable transportation. For WattEV and its partners, it’s more than a vehicle purchase—it’s the foundation of a zero-emission freight network connecting Northern and Central California.
News
Tesla begins factoring international designs in Full Self-Driving visualization
Tesla has begun incorporating region-specific vehicle designs into its Full Self-Driving (FSD) visualization system, marking a quiet but meaningful step toward global readiness. In software update 2026.14, released as part of the Spring Update, European Tesla owners are now seeing flat-fronted, cab-over European-style semi-trucks rendered accurately on their center displays.
Tesla has begun factoring international designs into its Full Self-Driving (Supervised) visualizations, marking a tremendous step in how the company plans to roll out its driver assistance tech in areas outside North America.
Tesla has begun incorporating region-specific vehicle designs into its Full Self-Driving (FSD) visualization system, marking a quiet but meaningful step toward global readiness. In software update 2026.14, released as part of the Spring Update, European Tesla owners are now seeing flat-fronted, cab-over European-style semi-trucks rendered accurately on their center displays.
The change, first spotted by Not a Tesla App, adds a second 3D model alongside the traditional North American long-nose semi-trucks that have been standard until now. Vehicles can detect and display both styles depending on what’s in front of them, and the feature requires no FSD subscription—every Tesla owner in Europe sees it immediately.
The European semi-truck visualization was actually added to the vehicle software back in October alongside roughly fifteen new visual assets.
Tesla held it in reserve, activating it only once fleet data confirmed the AI could recognize these trucks with high confidence. This mirrors recent rollouts for horses and golf carts, where Tesla similarly waited for reliable detection before enabling the graphics. The result is a more realistic on-screen representation tailored to local roads, where cab-over designs dominate heavy transport.
The significance of this update extends far beyond a simple graphics tweak, which is really what people need to be paying attention to. These small, incremental steps forward continue to show Tesla’s intent for global expansion.
For the first time, Tesla is explicitly factoring international vehicle designs into its visualization engine, signaling a deliberate push to make FSD feel native in international markets.
In Europe, where cab-over semis are commonplace, seeing an accurate rendering builds immediate driver trust—the critical bridge between the car’s AI perception and the human behind the wheel. Accurate visualizations reinforce that the system truly understands its surroundings, reducing range anxiety and skepticism that have slowed autonomous adoption abroad.
Regulators in the EU have repeatedly emphasized human-AI transparency; by customizing visuals to match local reality, Tesla strengthens its case for broader FSD approvals and smoother regulatory reviews.
This move also highlights Tesla’s data-driven engineering philosophy. Rather than rushing generic models worldwide, the company is leveraging its global fleet to learn regional nuances before flipping the switch.
It accelerates FSD’s international expansion while improving safety—misidentified vehicles could erode confidence or, in edge cases, affect decision-making. For a company aiming to deploy robotaxis and unsupervised FSD globally, tailoring visualizations to European, Asian, or other markets is no longer optional; it’s foundational.
Early European owners report the change feels more intuitive, making the car’s “mind” easier to read in daily traffic.
As Tesla continues enabling the remaining visual assets added last year, the pattern is clear: localization is now baked into the FSD roadmap. What began as a small graphics update in Europe could soon appear in other regions, turning the visualization display into a truly worldwide language of autonomy.
With this step, Tesla isn’t just showing trucks differently—it’s proving it’s serious about making FSD work everywhere, one culturally accurate pixel at a time.
Tesla has quietly rolled out one of its most practical software updates yet — and it could add real dollars to every used Model 3, Y, S, and X on the road.
Starting with the latest Tesla app version, owners now receive an official “Certification of Repaired HV Battery” whenever Tesla performs a major high-voltage battery repair or full replacement. The digital certificate appears directly in the vehicle’s Service History tab inside the Tesla app.
It’s permanent, verifiable, and downloadable as a PDF, so sellers can hand it over to buyers in seconds.
For years, the used EV market has suffered from one glaring problem: nobody could prove what happened to the battery.
Service invoices often vanish when a car changes hands. Third-party battery-health scans are expensive and inconsistent. Buyers, staring at a car with 80,000 miles and an 8-year warranty ticking down, would negotiate hard — or walk away entirely — because the battery is the single most expensive part of any Tesla.
That uncertainty routinely shaved thousands off resale values and slowed the entire secondhand market.
Now Tesla has eliminated the guesswork. The new certificate, which was spotted by Tesla App Updates, logs exactly what work was done, when, and by whom. It lives inside the car’s digital profile forever, exactly where any future owner will look. No more digging through old emails or hoping the previous owner kept paperwork.
— Tesla App Updates (iOS) (@Tesla_App_iOS) May 5, 2026
The outlet describes why the update is so important:
-
Official Digital Certificates: The string “Certification of Repaired HV Battery” confirms that if your vehicle undergoes a major battery repair or replacement, Tesla will now issue an official, verifiable digital certificate documenting the work.
-
Service History Integration: Strings such as viewRepairedBatteryCert and repairedBatteryCertId indicate that this document won’t be lost in an old email thread. It will be permanently anchored to your vehicle’s profile inside the app’s Service History tab.
-
Easy Exporting: The service_history_repaired_battery_cert_download_fail error state indicates you will be able to download this certificate directly to your phone as a file (likely a PDF) to share with others.
Sellers who have already replaced packs under warranty are especially excited; they can now prove the vehicle received a fresh Tesla battery without any gray-area questions.
The timing couldn’t be better. As more Teslas roll off 8-year/100,000- or 120,000-mile battery warranties, the used market is exploding. Lenders, insurers, and even auction houses have quietly asked for better battery documentation for years. Tesla’s certificate hands it to them on a silver platter.
For current owners, the feature adds peace of mind and protects long-term value. For buyers, it removes the single biggest risk in any used EV purchase. And for Tesla itself, it quietly strengthens the entire ownership ecosystem — making vehicles more liquid, more desirable, and more valuable over time.
In an industry obsessed with range numbers and 0-60 times, Tesla just proved that sometimes the biggest innovation is a simple line in the Service History tab. One small certificate, one giant step for used-EV confidence.
Tesla gets a massive order for the Semi: 370 units and $100M
Tesla begins factoring international designs in Full Self-Driving visualization
