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 wins big as NHTSA drops three-year, 120k unit probe against Model Y
In all, 120,089 Model Ys were impacted, but in two cases, drivers reported the complete detachment of the steering wheel from the steering column while the vehicle was in motion. NHTSA’s initial review revealed that the vehicles had been delivered without the critical retaining bolt that secures the steering wheel to the splined steering column.
A probe into over 120,000 2023 Tesla Model Y units has been closed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The probe ends without the agency requiring any action from Tesla.
The probe, designated PE23-003, opened in March 2023 and stemmed from just two consumer complaints involving low-mileage Model Y SUVs.
In all, 120,089 Model Ys were impacted, but in two cases, drivers reported the complete detachment of the steering wheel from the steering column while the vehicle was in motion. NHTSA’s initial review revealed that the vehicles had been delivered without the critical retaining bolt that secures the steering wheel to the splined steering column.
NHTSA has ended a probe into over 120,000 Tesla Model Y vehicles after claims that the steering wheel could detach from the steering column due to a missing retaining bolt
There is no action needed by Tesla pic.twitter.com/YpAO3bKugA
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 28, 2026
Factory records showed each car had undergone an “end-of-line” repair at Tesla’s facility, during which the steering wheel was removed and reinstalled. The bolt was apparently omitted after the repair, leaving only a friction fit between the wheel and column to hold it in place temporarily.
According to NHTSA documents, this friction fit maintained the connection during initial low-mileage driving until forces during normal operation caused the wheel to detach. Both vehicles that were impacted were repaired under warranty with no injuries reported, and no additional incidents surfaced during the agency’s three-year review.
After analyzing manufacturing processes, complaint data, and field reports, NHTSA concluded the issue was isolated to those two post-repair vehicles rather than indicative of a systemic defect in Tesla’s production or quality control.
The closure means the agency has determined no recall or further enforcement is warranted for this specific missing-bolt condition.
This outcome marks the second NHTSA investigation into Tesla closed without action this month, as a recent probe into the company’s “Actually Smart Summon” feature was also resolved in April.
The two resolutions provide some relief for Tesla amid the continuous and somewhat unfair regulatory scrutiny of its vehicles, including open inquiries into driver assistance systems.
Importantly, the closed probe does not involve or affect Tesla’s separate May 2023 voluntary recall of certain 2022-2023 Model Y vehicles. That recall addressed a different issue—steering-wheel fasteners that were installed but not torqued to specification—prompted by a service technician’s observation of a loose wheel during unrelated repairs.
Tesla identified a small number of related warranty claims and proactively addressed the matter without NHTSA mandate.
The Model Y remains one of the world’s best-selling vehicles, and Tesla continues to refine its lineup, including the recent “Juniper” refresh. While federal oversight of the electric vehicle pioneer remains intense, this decision underscores that isolated manufacturing anomalies do not always translate into broader safety defects requiring recalls.
News
Tesla Model Y L gets biggest hint yet that it’s coming to the U.S.
Over the past week, a noticeable wave of American Tesla influencers descended on China and Australia, each posting in-depth YouTube reviews of the Model Y L within days of one another.
The Tesla Model Y L is perhaps the most wanted vehicle in the company’s lineup in the United States, especially now that it is void of a true family vehicle with the removal of the Model X.
In China, Tesla currently offers a longer, more family-friendly version of the Model Y, known as the Model Y L, which is longer in terms of its wheelbase and larger in terms of interior space, making it the perfect option for those with a need for a tad more room than what the all-electric crossover offers in its Standard, Premium, and Performance trims.
However, there seems to be a hint that the Model Y L could be on its way to the United States. Over the past week, a noticeable wave of American Tesla influencers descended on China and Australia, each posting in-depth YouTube reviews of the Model Y L within days of one another:
Not saying that this means anything more than Tesla China simply inviting a handful of American influencers to see this car….
….but this seems like a good strategy for an eventual offering in the U.S. https://t.co/XS3PyBdnNd
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 27, 2026
The timing has sparked some intense speculation as to whether Tesla is quietly preparing to bring the long-wheelbase, three-row family SUV to North America after months of requests from fans.
The Model Y L stretches the wheelbase by about five inches compared to the standard Model Y.
This delivers dramatically more rear legroom, optional captain’s chairs in the second row, and a true six- or seven-seat configuration ideal for growing families. Reviewers praise its refined ride, upgraded interior features like a rear touchscreen and premium audio, and competitive range—up to roughly 466 miles in some configurations.
Many observers see the coordinated influencer trip as more than a coincidence. Tesla China appears to have hosted the group, possibly tied to the Beijing Auto Show, giving U.S.-focused creators early access to hands-on footage aimed squarely at North American audiences.
Tesla Model Y lineup expansion signals an uncomfortable reality for consumers
Tesla watchers are quick to point out this isn’t the first time such a pattern has emerged.
Just months earlier, American influencers were similarly invited to China to test-drive the refreshed Model Y Performance. Those videos dropped in the lead-up to the variant’s U.S. rollout, generating exactly the kind of pre-launch hype that helped smooth its September arrival in American showrooms.
The parallel is obviously hard to ignore, as Tesla has used overseas influencer trips before as a low-key way to build anticipation without formal announcements. With the Model Y L potentially hitting the U.S. market late this year, according to CEO Elon Musk, the timing would make sense.
Tesla Model Y L might not come to the U.S., and it’s a missed opportunity
Of course, it could still be coincidental. Tesla regularly invites creators to its Shanghai factory and events for broader promotional purposes, and the Model Y L has been on sale in China for some time. No official word has come from Tesla or Elon Musk about U.S. availability, pricing, or timing.
Import tariffs, regulatory hurdles, and production priorities at Fremont or the new Mexican Gigafactory could still delay or alter any stateside plans.
Even so, the buzz is real. U.S. families have long asked for a more spacious, three-row Tesla SUV that doesn’t require stepping up to the larger Model X.
If the influencer campaign is any indication, the Model Y L—or a close North American cousin—could finally answer that call. For now, American Tesla fans are watching closely and wondering whether this latest China trip is just good content… or the opening act for something much bigger stateside.
News
Tesla begins probing owners on FSD’s navigation errors with small but mighty change
Previously lumped under “Other,” these incidents made it harder for Tesla’s AI team to isolate and prioritize map-related issues in their reinforcement learning models. There was a lot of disagreement on how certain interventions should be reported.
Tesla has started probing owners on how often its Full Self-Driving suite has Navigation errors with a small but mighty change last night.
In its latest Software Update, which is Version 2026.2.9.9 featuring Full Self-Driving (Supervised) v14.3.2, Tesla has introduced a targeted improvement to how owners will report interventions.
With the initial rollout of v14.3.2, Tesla introduced a new Intervention Menu that appears when a disengagement occurs. It allowed owners to choose from four different categories: Preference, Comfort, Critical, or Other.
Tesla has voided the Other option and replaced it with a new “Navigation” choice, which seems much more ideal given the complaints owners have had about navigation. This seemingly minor UI tweak, rolled out widely in recent days, marks another step in Tesla’s ongoing effort to refine its autonomous driving stack through precise, crowdsourced data.
“Other” has been replaced with “Navigation” in the Tesla Self-Driving intervention reasons menu pic.twitter.com/mBOi3uYs8C
— Whole Mars Catalog (@wholemars) April 28, 2026
Tesla made this change in direct response to longstanding community feedback. For years, FSD users have noted that navigation errors—such as incorrect speed limits, suboptimal routes, or directing the vehicle to a building’s rear entrance instead of the main one—frequently force interventions.
Previously lumped under “Other,” these incidents made it harder for Tesla’s AI team to isolate and prioritize map-related issues in their reinforcement learning models. There was a lot of disagreement on how certain interventions should be reported:
I chose to label this Navigation error as “Critical” while testing FSD v14.3.2
Here’s why:
✅ This intervention wasn’t “preference,” as the maneuver FSD routed was illegal
✅ If a police officer saw this maneuver, it would result in a ticket https://t.co/znhHb4haAo pic.twitter.com/bZOiLwWmQa— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
By adding a dedicated “Navigation” label, the company can now tag disengagements more accurately, feeding cleaner data into its neural networks. This supports faster iteration on routing algorithms, map accuracy, and intent-aware navigation.
Community consensus around Tesla’s navigation system has been consistent and candid. While the end-to-end AI driving behavior in v14.x earns widespread acclaim for smoothness and safety, navigation remains FSD’s clearest Achilles’ heel.
Owners frequently cite outdated map data, failure to learn from repeated corrections, and routing decisions that feel less intuitive than Google Maps or Apple Maps. Common complaints include phantom speed-limit changes, inefficient local roads, and poor point-of-interest handling.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Many drivers report intervening on navigation far more often than on core driving maneuvers, with some estimating it accounts for the majority of disengagements outside of edge cases.
Long-term users note that the same mapping glitches persist across years and software versions, despite thousands of collective miles of feedback. Yet the addition of the “Navigation” option has been met with optimism. It signals Tesla’s commitment to data-driven progress and suggests navigation improvements could arrive sooner.
For a community that already logs millions of FSD miles monthly, this small change could unlock meaningful gains in reliability and user trust—potentially accelerating the path to unsupervised autonomy.
Tesla wins big as NHTSA drops three-year, 120k unit probe against Model Y
Tesla Model Y L gets biggest hint yet that it’s coming to the U.S.
