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.
The Tesla Diner has been subject to many points of criticism since its launch in mid-2025, and skeptics and disbelievers claim the company’s latest novel concept is on its way down, but there’s a lot of evidence to state that is not the case.
The piece cites anecdotal evidence like empty parking lots, more staff than customers during a December visit, removed novelty items, like Optimus robot popcorn service and certain menu items, the departure of celebrity chef Eric Greenspan in November 2025, slow service, high prices, and a shift in recent Google/Yelp reviews toward disappointment.
The piece frames this as part of broader Tesla struggles, including sales figures and Elon Musk’s polarizing image, calling it a failed branding exercise rather than a sustainable restaurant.
This narrative is overstated and sensationalized, and is a good representation of coverage on Tesla by today’s media.
Novelty Fade is Normal, Not Failure
Any hyped launch, especially a unique Tesla-branded destination blending dining, Supercharging, and a drive-in theater, naturally sees initial crowds taper off after the “Instagram effect” wears down.
Tesla makes major change at Supercharger Diner amid epic demand
This is common for experiential spots in Los Angeles, especially pop-up attractions or celebrity-backed venues. The article admits early success with massive lines and social media buzz, but treats the return to normal operations as “dying down.”
In reality, this stabilization is a healthy sign of transitioning from hype-driven traffic to steady patronage.
Actual Performance Metrics Contradict “Ghost Town” Claims
- In Q4 2025, the Diner generated over $1 million in revenue, exceeding the average McDonald’s location
- It sold over 30,000 burgers and 83,000 fries in that quarter alone. These figures indicate a strong ongoing business, especially for a single-location prototype focused on enhancing Supercharger experiences rather than competing as a mass-market chain
It’s not a ghost town lol. The @Tesla Diner still had over 30,000 burger orders and 83,000 fries orders in Q4. The diner generated over $1M in revenue in Q4, a $4M annual run rate, which is more than the average McDonald’s…. pic.twitter.com/XvAGLUqxej
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) January 4, 2026
Conflicting On-the-Ground Reports
While the article, and other similar pieces, describe a half-full parking lot and sparse customers during specific off-peak visits, other recent accounts push back:
- A January 2026 X post noted 50 of 80 Supercharger stalls were busy at 11 a.m., calling it “the busiest diner in Hollywood by close to an order of magnitude
TESLA DINER 🍔
Frantic!!!
Crazy busy. pic.twitter.com/wMbmr8SFFn
— Rich & Sharon (@HullTeslaModel3) January 4, 2026
- Reddit discussions around the same time describe it as not empty when locals drive by regularly, with some calling the empty narrative “disingenuous anti-Tesla slop.”
When we visited it last week it was packed. We had to wait to enter, get a table and go to the restroom. We were lucky to find a spot to charge.
— Rani G (@ranig) January 4, 2026
Bottom Line
The Tesla Diner, admittedly, is not the nonstop circus it was at launch–that was never sustainable or intended. But, it’s far from “dying” or an “empty pit stop.”
It functions as a successful prototype: boosting Supercharger usage, generating solid revenue, and serving as a branded amenity in the high-traffic EV market of Los Angeles.
News
Tesla stands to win big from potential adjustment to autonomous vehicle limitations
Enabling scale, innovation, and profitability in a sector that is growing quickly would benefit Tesla significantly, especially as it has established itself as a leader.
Tesla stands to be a big winner from a potential easing of limitations on autonomous vehicle development, as the United States government could back off from the restrictions placed on companies developing self-driving car programs.
The U.S. House Energy and Commerce subcommittee will hold a hearing later this month that will aim to accelerate the deployment of autonomous vehicles. There are several key proposals that could impact the development of self-driving cars and potentially accelerate the deployment of this technology across the country.
These key proposals include raising the NHTSA’s exemption cap from 2,500 to 90,000 vehicles per year per automaker, preempting state-level regulations on autonomous vehicle systems, and mandating NHTSA guidelines for calibrating advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS).
Congress, to this point, has been divided on AV rules, with past bills like the 2017 House-passed measure stalling in the Senate. Recent pushes come from automakers urging the Trump administration to act faster amid competition from Chinese companies.
Companies like Tesla, who launched a Robotaxi service in Austin and the Bay Area last year, and Alphabet’s Waymo are highlighted as potential beneficiaries from lighter sanctions on AV development.
The NHTSA recently pledged to adopt a quicker exemption review for autonomous vehicle companies, and supporters of self-driving tech argue this will boost U.S. innovation, while critics are concerned about safety and job risks.
How Tesla Could Benefit from the Proposed Legislation
Tesla, under CEO Elon Musk’s leadership, has positioned itself as a pioneer in autonomous driving technology with its Full Self-Driving software and ambitious Robotaxi plans, including the Cybercab, which was unveiled in late 2024.
The draft legislation under consideration by the U.S. House subcommittee could provide Tesla with significant advantages, potentially transforming its operational and financial landscape.
NHTSA Exemption Cap Increase
First, the proposed increase in the NHTSA exemption cap from 2,500 to 90,000 vehicles annually would allow Tesla to scale up development dramatically.
Currently, regulatory hurdles limit how many fully autonomous vehicles can hit the roads without exhaustive approvals. For Tesla, this means accelerating the rollout of its robotaxi fleet, which Musk envisions as a network of millions of vehicles generating recurring revenue through ride-hailing. With Tesla’s vast existing fleet of over 6 million vehicles equipped with FSD hardware, a higher cap could enable rapid conversion and deployment, turning parked cars into profit centers overnight.
Preempting State Regulations
A united Federal framework would be created if it could preempt State regulations, eliminating the patchwork of rules that currently complicate interstate operations. Tesla has faced scrutiny and restrictions in states like California, especially as it has faced harsh criticism through imposed testing limits.
A federal override of State-level rules would reduce legal battles, compliance costs, and delays, allowing Tesla to expand services nationwide more seamlessly.
This is crucial for Tesla’s growth strategy, as it operates in multiple markets and aims for a coast-to-coast Robotaxi network, competing directly with Waymo’s city-specific expansions.
Bringing Safety Standards to the Present Day
Innovation in the passenger transportation sector has continued to outpace both State and Federal-level legislation, which has caused a lag in the development of many things, most notably, self-driving technology.
Updating these outdated safety standards, especially waiving requirements for steering wheels or mirrors, directly benefits Tesla’s innovative designs. Tesla wanted to ship Cybertruck without side mirrors, but Federal regulations required the company to equip the pickup with them.
Cybercab is also planned to be released without a steering wheel or pedals, and is tailored for full autonomy, but current rules would mandate human-ready features.
Streamlined NHTSA reviews would further expedite approvals, addressing Tesla’s complaints about bureaucratic slowdowns. In a letter written in June to the Trump Administration, automakers, including Tesla, urged faster action, and this legislation could deliver it.
In Summary
This legislation represents a potential regulatory tailwind for Tesla, but it still relies on the government to put forth action to make things easier from a regulatory perspective. Enabling scale, innovation, and profitability in a sector that is growing quickly would benefit Tesla significantly, especially as it has established itself as a leader.
News
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang explains difference between Tesla FSD and Alpamayo
“Tesla’s FSD stack is completely world-class,” the Nvidia CEO said.
NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang has offered high praise for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system during a Q&A at CES 2026, calling it “world-class” and “state-of-the-art” in design, training, and performance.
More importantly, he also shared some insights about the key differences between FSD and Nvidia’s recently announced Alpamayo system.
Jensen Huang’s praise for Tesla FSD
Nvidia made headlines at CES following its announcement of Alpamayo, which uses artificial intelligence to accelerate the development of autonomous driving solutions. Due to its focus on AI, many started speculating that Alpamayo would be a direct rival to FSD. This was somewhat addressed by Elon Musk, who predicted that “they will find that it’s easy to get to 99% and then super hard to solve the long tail of the distribution.”
During his Q&A, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang was asked about the difference between FSD and Alpamayo. His response was extensive:
“Tesla’s FSD stack is completely world-class. They’ve been working on it for quite some time. It’s world-class not only in the number of miles it’s accumulated, but in the way it’s designed, the way they do training, data collection, curation, synthetic data generation, and all of their simulation technologies.
“Of course, the latest generation is end-to-end Full Self-Driving—meaning it’s one large model trained end to end. And so… Elon’s AD system is, in every way, 100% state-of-the-art. I’m really quite impressed by the technology. I have it, and I drive it in our house, and it works incredibly well,” the Nvidia CEO said.
Nvidia’s platform approach vs Tesla’s integration
Huang also stated that Nvidia’s Alpamayo system was built around a fundamentally different philosophy from Tesla’s. Rather than developing self-driving cars itself, Nvidia supplies the full autonomous technology stack for other companies to use.
“Nvidia doesn’t build self-driving cars. We build the full stack so others can,” Huang said, explaining that Nvidia provides separate systems for training, simulation, and in-vehicle computing, all supported by shared software.
He added that customers can adopt as much or as little of the platform as they need, noting that Nvidia works across the industry, including with Tesla on training systems and companies like Waymo, XPeng, and Nuro on vehicle computing.
“So our system is really quite pervasive because we’re a technology platform provider. That’s the primary difference. There’s no question in our mind that, of the billion cars on the road today, in another 10 years’ time, hundreds of millions of them will have great autonomous capability. This is likely one of the largest, fastest-growing technology industries over the next decade.”
He also emphasized Nvidia’s open approach, saying the company open-sources its models and helps partners train their own systems. “We’re not a self-driving car company. We’re enabling the autonomous industry,” Huang said.
Tesla Diner defies the ‘Doom’ narrative: Profitable, Popular, and Here to Stay
Tesla stands to win big from potential adjustment to autonomous vehicle limitations
