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.
Elon Musk said today on X that Teslas will start to learn your individual preferences. This is something that he seemed to hint toward earlier this month when he said parking was by far the biggest reason drivers intervene with Full Self-Driving.
Musk made the comment in response to notable Tesla influencer Whole Mars, who said that his vehicle will sometimes disobey the settings he has enabled for his car. He responded to the post, stating that “The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”
The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 18, 2026
This is something that could be perhaps one of the biggest ways Tesla could minimize or even work closer toward eliminating interventions altogether. While FSD does a lot of things really well, many people intervene a vast majority of the time not due to major or critical safety errors.
Instead, many take over because the car is doing something that they do not like as a preference; it might park in a parking spot that is not preferred by the driver, it might linger too long in the left lane on the highway (a personal favorite), or it could even take a route that the driver does not like.
These all lead to interventions, but they are not triggered by a major safety issue. Instead, it’s just preference.
READ OUR REVIEW OF TESLA’S LATEST FSD VERSION:
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Early Impressions: new features and early performance
If Teslas could start to learn the personal preferences of the person who owns them, interventions will truly begin to be less frequent. Some of this is already pretty evident, in my opinion. Teslas use a neural network to learn behaviors and accumulate data to improve performance.
For months now, we’ve tracked FSD’s performance at “Except Right Turn” stop signs, something that is very common in Pennsylvania, but many of our readers located in other parts of the U.S. have never heard of. FSD handles one Except Right Turn stop sign very well, one that I travel past frequently. Others that I do not navigate through as often do not have as confident a performance. It seems like the cars might already be doing this to an extent.
🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3 proceeds through an Except Right Turn Stop Sign pic.twitter.com/YemRSlens7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 8, 2026
That example is also for something that is a street sign and not necessarily a driver preference; however, I still feel it is worth mentioning because it only handles that commonly passed Except Right Turn stop sign with true confidence. Others it still seems to struggle with.
This could be one of Tesla’s big moves toward full autonomy, and it could be a pathway to truly unsupervised driving. Every day, millions of cars on the road travel at a human driver’s personal preferences with no incident. Why can’t autonomous vehicles still cater to a passenger’s preferences while being autonomous? Tesla seems to have the idea that it would be possible.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.
A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.
Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.
However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.
DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”
Do legacy media outlets typically use headlines involving the make of a car in a crash or is that only for Tesla?
It would be one thing if the self-driving malfunctioned but the crash was purely human-induced.
Seems like these outlets want to associate Tesla with crashes as… pic.twitter.com/EmfyeYiuv6
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) July 17, 2026
The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.
This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.
High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:
🚨 Why do Tesla Owners get so defensive over the narrative of crashes involving Teslas? https://t.co/aX7ogtjTCR pic.twitter.com/KO4QWaLOKl
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 24, 2026
Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.
DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.
As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.
Tesla entered two new markets this week by advancing its presence in Latvia (Europe) and officially launching operations in Uruguay (South America), marking a rapid dual-continent expansion.
These moves underscore the company’s strategy to tap into emerging EV markets with supportive policies, renewable energy grids, and growing demand for sustainable transport.
Latvia: Strengthening the Baltic Footprint
In Latvia, Tesla has built on its earlier registration of Tesla Latvia SIA in late 2025 with recent steps toward full operations, including job postings for a service center and representation in Riga. This aligns with broader Baltic expansion following Lithuania’s model of pop-up stores and service centers.
Coming to Latvia https://t.co/XNkQQJ2O6a pic.twitter.com/yS9kpcNky1
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) July 17, 2026
EV penetration in Latvia stands at around 7 percent for BEVs in new passenger car registrations. 2025 data showed 1,602 BEVs out of about 22,500 total, or 7.1 percent, with combined plug-ins nearing 19 percent. Growth has been steady but below the European average, supported by government subsidies and infrastructure development. Tesla models like the Model 3 lead local EV registrations.
Vehicles for the Latvian market will likely be sourced from Gigafactory Berlin or Gigafactory Shanghai. Charging infrastructure is robust for the region as well, with over 400- 2,000 public points, with Tesla Superchargers in Riga, Jūrmala, and along Via Baltica routes offering up to 250 kW.
Uruguay: Third South American Country
Tesla teased its Uruguay arrival with “Estamos llegando,” or, “We are arriving,” on social media, followed by an official presentation scheduled for mid-July.
Hola Uruguay 🇺🇾
Nuestros Model 3 y Model Y están cada vez mas cerca! pic.twitter.com/FR41fsA7um
— Tesla Latinoamérica (@Tesla_LatAm) June 30, 2026
The company established Tesla Uruguay SAS, homologated Model 3 and Model Y (three versions each), and appointed local leadership. This makes Uruguay Tesla’s third official South American market after Chile and Colombia.
Uruguay boasts one of Latin America’s highest EV penetrations, with battery-electric vehicles exceeding 20 percent market share recently, driven by tax incentives, high fuel prices, and a nearly 95-100 percent renewable electricity grid. Hundreds of Teslas already operate via grey imports, but official sales bring warranties, service, and support.
Vehicles will be imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, enabling competitive pricing for Model 3 and Model Y. Charging plans include Supercharger development alongside existing infrastructure, leveraging the country’s green energy advantage for affordable operation.
Tesla Superchargers follow Model 3 and Model Y to South American country
Tesla’s Dual Continent Expansion
Tesla’s simultaneous push into Latvia and Uruguay demonstrates efficient scaling: prioritizing service and infrastructure first, then direct sales in high-potential niches. In Europe, it fills Baltic gaps; in Latin America, it counters Chinese dominance while leveraging renewables.
This dual move signals Tesla’s ambition to accelerate global EV adoption amid varying regional paces. By addressing local needs, like subsidies in Latvia or incentives and green grids in Uruguay, Tesla not only boosts volumes but advances its mission of sustainable energy.
For investors and consumers, it highlights resilience and opportunity in diverse markets, potentially paving the way for further growth in underserved regions. With strong fundamentals in both, these entries could yield long-term gains as EV transitions mature worldwide.
Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences
Ron DeSantis calls out media bias in Tesla crash coverage
