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.
Tesla Full Self-Driving has warranted a huge switch-up on an essential company strategy as the automaker is hoping to increase the take rate of the ADAS suite.
Unlike other automotive companies, Tesla has long been an outlier, as it has famously ditched a traditional advertising strategy in favor of organic buzz, natural word-of-mouth through its production innovation, and utilizing CEO Elon Musk’s huge social media presence to push its products.
Tesla has taken the money that it would normally spend on advertising and utilized it for R&D purposes. For a long time, it yielded great results, and ironically, Tesla saw benefits from other EV makers running ads.
Tesla counters jab at lack of advertising with perfect response
However, in recent years, Tesla has decided to adjust this strategy, showing a need to expand beyond its core enthusiast base, which is large, but does not span over millions and millions as it would need to fend off global EV competitors, which have become more well-rounded and a better threat to the company.
In 2024 and 2025, Tesla started utilizing ads to spread knowledge about its products. This is continuing, as Full Self-Driving ads are now being spotted on social media platforms, most notably, X, which is owned by Musk:
NEWS: Tesla is running paid advertisements on X about FSD (Supervised). Here’s an ad they started running yesterday: pic.twitter.com/IHVywLMyTd
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) November 25, 2025
Interestingly, Tesla’s strategy on FSD advertising is present in Musk’s new compensation package, as the eleventh tranche describes a goal of achieving 10 million active paid FSD subscriptions.
Full Self-Driving is truly Tesla’s primary focus moving forward, although it could be argued that it also has a special type of dedication toward its Optimus robot project. However, FSD will ultimately become the basis for the Robotaxi, which will enable autonomous ride-sharing across the globe as it is permitted in more locations.
Tesla has been adjusting its advertising strategy over the past couple of years, and it seems it is focused on more ways to spread awareness about its products. It will be interesting to see if the company will expand its spending even further, as it has yet to put on a commercial during live television.
We wouldn’t put it out of the question, at least not yet.
Tesla was nice enough to hook us up with the new Model Y “Standard” trim for a few days, and while we’ll be sure to fill you in on the full experience in the coming days, there are a lot of differences we noticed right off the bat, which make the ownership experience different from the “Premium” configuration level.
I purchased a Model Y Long Range All-Wheel-Drive back in August and took delivery just two weeks later. Through the first three months of owning my car, I’ve come to love so many things about the Tesla experience.
I traded my ICE vehicle for a Tesla Model Y: here’s how it went
However, I was interested in experiencing the affordable trim and seeing whether I would miss any of the voided features of the “Premium” Model Y.
Through the first 24 hours, here are my first impressions of the Model Y Standard as a Premium trim level owner:
Overall Aesthetic
The lack of a light bar is not something that is a dealbreaker. In fact, I would argue that the Model Y Standard’s more traditional headlight design is just as pleasing from an aesthetic standpoint.
The car is great looking from top to bottom; there are not a substantial number of differences besides the lack of a lightbar on both the front and the back of the car.
Overall, it is a very sleek vehicle, but the major changes are obviously with the interior.
Interior Changes
This is where the big differences are, and some of the things I’ve gotten used to in the Premium are not included. If I didn’t have a Premium Model Y already, I’m not sure I’d miss some of the things that are not present in the Standard trim, but I believe I’d get annoyed with it.
First impressions:
✅ Interior is excellent. I definitely miss the additional storage already that is available in my Premium. I could definitely get over it though
✅ Noticeable step down in sound system. Long Time by Boston absolutely cranks in the Premium; it’s still very… https://t.co/JNWvxTd8p1
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 25, 2025
Storage
The Premium has a large storage compartment between the cupholders and the wireless charger, which is not present in the Standard trim. Instead, it is more like the Cybertruck, as there is a pass-through and floor storage.
I think that the pass-through is nice, but the additional storage is something I take advantage of, especially as someone who films Full Self-Driving videos, which requires hauling mounts, GoPros, and other accessories.
The sleekness of the Premium trim is also something I prefer; I really enjoy having the ability to close those compartments and cover the cupholders.
Obviously, this is a really trivial issue and not something that is substantially impactful from an ownership experience. If I weren’t already an owner, I am not sure I’d even have something to complain about.
Material Differences
The Premium trim seats are completely Vegan Leather, which I really do like, even as someone who doesn’t really love leather seats due to their temperature dependency.
The Standard trim features a Textile and Vegan hybrid, which has half of the seat a different material than the other.
The material is very similar to what I had in my previous car, a Bronco Sport. It was very durable, easy to clean, dried quickly, and hid a lot of things that leather does not, like oils from your skin, which constantly require attention to keep your interior looking fresh.
The wireless charger is also a different material, as the Premium features an Alcantara material on that. The Standard has a rubberized and textured backing, which looks good, too. They’re both more than suitable.
Other Missing Features
The Standard lacks a few minor things, most noticeably is the ambient lighting. The biggest change, however, and something I really miss, is the glass roof.
A lot of people told me that when I got my Model Y, I wouldn’t even notice the glass roof after a few weeks. That could not be further from the truth. I look out of it all the time, and it’s one of my family’s favorite parts of the car.
My Fiancè and I really love parking and watching Netflix when we pick food up, especially when it’s raining, because the glass roof gives such a great view.
We also loved it as Fall arrived, because it was great to look at the foliage.
Buy the Tesla.
Enjoy the glass roof. pic.twitter.com/r2GDyOEEWu
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2025
Bigger Differences
There are also a handful of very noticeable differences from the overall cabin experience, especially with the sound system.
Much Weaker Sound System
The Model Y Standard has just 7 speakers and 1 amp, with no subwoofer. This is a significant step down from the 13-15 speakers in the Premium Long Range AWD Model Y, the 2 amps it comes with, and 1 subwoofer in the trunk.
I usually like to listen to Long Time by Boston to test out a sound system, and it was noticeably weaker in the Standard. It was missing a big portion of the umph that is provided by the Premium’s sound system.
Cabin Noise
It feels like the Cabin Noise is definitely more noticeable in the Standard, which is something I really love about my Model Y. It is able to dampen so much road noise from louder cars, and I don’t feel as if it is very quiet in the Standard.
This is perhaps the biggest make-or-break for me with this car. I truly have been spoiled by how quiet the cabin is in the Premium, and it’s due to the lack of acoustic-lined glass in the Standard.
I will be doing a more in-depth review of the Model Y Standard, especially with ride quality, later this week.
News
Tesla takes a step towards removal of Robotaxi service’s safety drivers
Tesla watchers are speculating that the implementation of in-camera data sharing could be a step towards the removal of the Robotaxi service’s safety drivers.
Tesla appears to be preparing for the eventual removal of its Robotaxi service’s safety drivers.
This was hinted at in a recent de-compile of the Robotaxi App’s version 25.11.5, which was shared on social media platform X.
In-cabin analytics
As per Tesla software tracker @Tesla_App_iOS, the latest update to the Robotaxi app featured several improvements. These include Live Screen Sharing, as well as a feature that would allow Tesla to access video and audio inside the vehicle.
According to the software tracker, a new prompt has been added to the Robotaxi App that requests user consent for enhanced in-cabin data sharing, which comprise Cabin Camera Analytics and Sound Detection Analytics. Once accepted, Tesla would be able to retrieve video and audio data from the Robotaxi’s cabin.
Video and audio sharing
A screenshot posted by the software tracker on X showed that Cabin Camera Analytics is used to improve the intelligence of features like request support. Tesla has not explained exactly how the feature will be implemented, though this might mean that the in-cabin camera may be used to view and analyze the status of passengers when remote agents are contacted.
-->Sound Detection Analytics is expected to be used to improve the intelligence of features like siren recognition. This suggests that Robotaxis will always be actively listening for emergency vehicle sirens to improve how the system responds to them. Tesla, however, also maintained that data collected by Robotaxis will be anonymous. In-cabin data will not be linked to users unless they are needed for a safety event or a support request.
Tesla watchers are speculating that the implementation of in-camera data sharing could be a step towards the removal of the Robotaxi service’s safety drivers. With Tesla able to access video and audio feeds from Robotaxis, after all, users can get assistance even if they are alone in the driverless vehicle.
Tesla Full Self-Driving warrants huge switch-up on essential company strategy
Tesla Model Y Standard: first impressions from a Premium owner
