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 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.
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.
Robotaxi now runs 6am to 10pm, 7 days/week
Unsupervised fleet is a lot bigger
Also, upgraded intelligence in vehicle distribution & routing means you wait less pic.twitter.com/UFZ4bqg2dZ
— Tesla Robotaxi (@robotaxi) August 26, 2026
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.
Thank you so much @Tesla for inviting us to the Cybercab launch in Austin! 🤠 pic.twitter.com/F1rAR8zd5O
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 22, 2026
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.
Tesla Cybertruck’s three configurations are all the same on the outside from an appearance perspective, but they differ slightly in price, range, performance, and other features. After yesterday’s price adjustment, Tesla’s Base All-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck is now priced at $74,990, a far cry from the $59,990 it started at several months ago.
At $60,000, the Cybertruck All-Wheel-Drive is a steal: no pickup, electric or gas-powered, comes close in terms of overall driving capability thanks to Steer-by-Wire; no truck is more fun to drive at that price, and add in Full Self-Driving for $99 per month, and you truly have the best possible pickup on the market, at least if you’re planning to use it for driving.
I unfortunately didn’t have the equipment to test towing and payload and how it impacts the truck.
But at $75,000, is it still worth it? Obviously, the question gets to be more difficult because of the $15,000 difference. But there’s still an argument.
I spent the last week with this awesome truck, and when I took it back, I was sad because it truly is the best Tesla in the lineup. I formerly said the Model S was my favorite Tesla, but after a week with Cybertruck, I can easily say it would be my choice over the now-defunct all-electric sedan.
What makes it so great? Well, a lot of things, and there are some things that I’d like to see change. However, this is a truck that truly has a serious argument for those who are thinking of trying something completely different.
Exterior and Interior
This build comes with 18″ Molten Wheels as the standard offering, but 20″ Core Wheels with 35″ tires are also available. The standard wheel option on this affordable model is not my favorite, but it can be easily swapped for something more attractive.
Overall, this particular build did have some panel gap issues that were especially noticeable between the hood and both front quarter panels. This is obviously not an “across the board” issue, as the Cyberbeast I took home for comparative reasons was significantly better overall.
It’s 📐 week. Cybertruck AWD!!! pic.twitter.com/0hkmTQDQYk
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 19, 2026
The interior is different, with its textile material instead of the vegan leather. Personally, I missed the leather due to the ventilated seats, but I prefer the textile as I personally felt like they were more comfortable. This is something I’d definitely consider if I were between the three trim levels and money was not really an issue.
After 610 miles on Monday in this thing, I did not feel any different than I did when I left my house that morning. It feels like a living room on wheels; after a long drive, you truly do not feel as if you’ve been in a car all day long.
My biggest interior complaints were that I’d like at least two USB-C ports in the front; you are confined to just one, and it’s hidden in the center console. The rear row has two ports. Additionally, the windshield is super difficult to clean, so if you end up buying one of these, save your back and get something that extends.
Driving Performance and Comfort
One of the most surprising things about Cybertruck is the fact that it is perhaps the smoothest ride of any Tesla available. Most believe it might be rough, stiff, and rugged like most trucks, maybe not as forgiving on the back and bottom as you sit in it for an extended period of time.
I’m here to tell you, you won’t regret sitting in a Cybertruck for a long drive.
I put as many people who dislike EVs, don’t like Cybertrucks, or use trucks for work, and judge the Cybertruck in this thing in the past week. Every single person who got in this truck loved it: they loved the speed, the handling, FSD, the space, the capability, and the feel.
As previously noted, even after hundreds of miles and 14 hours spent driving around Pennsylvania, I didn’t feel tired, exhausted, or in any hurry to come home. I would have driven another 300 miles without question.
Final Thoughts
If I had my choice of the three Cybertruck trims, I think I’d take the All-Wheel-Drive for a few reasons. Initially, the price is more attractive, it is not that stripped of features, and it has everything I need.
Is it worth it at $75,000? I believe it is. I’ve driven trucks that are at a higher price point and consider this to be a better product from a driving and experience perspective. However, other pickups on the market have more towing capacity, payload capacity, and range. They do not have FSD or steer-by-wire, the two things that truly make the Cybertruck in a league of its own.
I can’t think of a time in recent memory that I’ve been this excited to drive a vehicle each day, and I literally look for excuses to drive my Model Y on a daily basis. This Cybertruck just blows the Model Y out of the water in every possible way, at least in my opinion. With the size, performance, and driving experience, there is no better Tesla out there.
You can check out the full video review below. If you have any questions about the Cybertruck AWD, be sure to reach out and let me know:
🚨FULL REVIEW of the unbelievable Tesla Cybertruck AWD 📐 pic.twitter.com/S0wHALl87K
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 26, 2026
Elon Musk
County vote hands Elon Musk’s Vegas tunnel network a huge new target
Clark County approved 19 more Vegas Loop stations, pushing Boring Company’s entitled total to 123.
The Boring Company just got permission to nearly double how far Vegas Loop can reach. Clark County commissioners approved 19 additional stations for the underground transit system, bringing the total entitled to 123, the company said in a post on X thanking the county for the vote. Elon Musk’s tunneling company also flagged the direction it sees the project heading long term. “Because Loop is point-to-point with no intermediate stops, in the limit, one could have a Loop station in every driveway,” the company wrote.
That framing captures how far the ambitions have moved. The Vegas Loop opened its first stretch of tunnel in 2021 and has grown its footprint through a string of county approvals since. In 2023, commissioners signed off on 18 additional stations, part of a plan that later doubled the system’s target to 69 stations across 65 miles. By the end of that year the company was describing a build out closer to 93 planned stations. Last year the long term design called for 104 stations across 68 miles of tunnel. The new approval pushes that number to 123, another jump in a project that keeps outgrowing its own blueprints.
The Boring Company gets approval for more stations in Las Vegas
Station count on paper is still well ahead of what riders can actually use. As Teslarati reported earlier this month, the network has about 11 open stations and has carried more than 4 million passengers since it began running, with newer stops at Fontainebleau and Sahara among the latest additions to the Strip corridor. A tunnel connection to Harry Reid International Airport remains under construction and has already slipped past its original first quarter target. The company is also racing to finish a Westgate to Paradise Road segment that Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority CEO Steve Hill has said it hopes to have running in time for November’s Formula 1 race.
The gap between entitled stations and operating ones is where the real story sits. Regulatory approval gives Boring Company the legal runway to keep tunneling toward new resorts, residential pockets and eventually the airport, but building each connection still comes down to boring machines, fire safety sign offs and construction timelines that have slipped before. The company’s Prufrock series machines set an internal record in March with a 2.28 mile tunnel near Westgate, evidence that construction has been picking up even as the list of approved destinations grows faster than the tunnels themselves.
Musk’s driveway comment reads as aspirational rather than a near term plan, but it fits how Boring Company has talked about Vegas Loop from the start: treat every approval as a floor, not a ceiling, and keep pushing county officials for room to dig.
Tesla Robotaxi fleet gets a brain upgrade ahead of Cybercab launch event
Tesla Cybertruck AWD is a steal at $60k, is it still at $75k? Full Review
