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 Roadster unveiling set for this month: what to expect
As Tesla finally edges toward production and an updated reveal, enthusiasts aren’t asking for compromises; they’re demanding the original vision be honored. Here are five clear expectations that will come with the vehicle’s unveiling, which is still set for later this month, hopefully.
The Tesla Roadster has been the ultimate carrot on a stick since its 2017 unveiling. Promised as the fastest production car ever made, with 0-60 mph in under two seconds and a top speed over 250 mph, it has endured years of delays.
As Tesla finally edges toward production and an updated reveal, enthusiasts aren’t asking for compromises; they’re demanding the original vision be honored. Here are five clear expectations that will come with the vehicle’s unveiling, which is still set for later this month, hopefully.
Performance and Safety Do Not Go Hand in Hand, and That’s the Point
The Roadster is not a family sedan or a daily commuter. It is a no-holds-barred supercar meant to embarrass six-figure exotics on track days. Tesla should resist the temptation to load it with every passive-safety nanny and electronic guardian that dulls the raw feedback drivers crave.
Owners want to feel the road, not be shielded from it. Strip away unnecessary electronic limits so the car can deliver the visceral thrill Elon Musk originally described. Safety ratings will still be strong because of Tesla’s structural excellence, but the Roadster’s mission is speed, not coddling.
He said late last year:
“This is not a…safety is not the main goal. If you buy a Ferrari, safety is not the number one goal. I say, if safety is your number one goal, do not buy the Roadster…We’ll aspire not to kill anyone in this car. It’ll be the best of the last of the human-driven cars. The best of the last.”
Musk was clear that this will not be a car that will be the safest in Tesla’s lineup, but that’s the point. It’s not made for anything other than pushing the limits.
Tesla Needs to Come Through on a HUGE Feature
The Roadster unveiling would be wildly disappointing if it were only capable of driving. Tesla has long teased the potential ability to float or hover, and they need to come through on something that is along those lines.
The SpaceX cold-gas thruster package was never a joke. Musk, at one time, explicitly said owners could opt for a set of thrusters capable of lifting the car off the ground for short hops or dramatic launches. That feature is what separates the Roadster from every other hypercar on the planet.
If the production version arrives without it—or with a watered-down “maybe later” version—enthusiasts will feel betrayed. Deliver the thrusters, make them functional, and let the Roadster literally hover above the competition.
An Updated Design Might Be Warranted
It’s been nine years since Tesla first rolled off the next-gen Roadster design and showed it to the world.
The 2017 concept still looks sharp, but eight years is an eternity in automotive styling. The sharp lines and aggressive stance now compete against the angular Cybertruck and the next-generation vehicles rolling out of Fremont and Austin.
Tesla Roadster patent hints at radical seat redesign ahead of reveal
A subtle refresh, maybe with sharper headlights, revised aero elements, and modern materials, would keep the Roadster feeling current without losing its identity. Fans don’t want a complete redesign, just enough evolution to prove Tesla still cares.
Self-Driving Isn’t a Necessity for the Tesla Roadster
Full Self-Driving hardware and software belong in the Model 3, Model Y, and the upcoming robotaxi—not in a two-seat rocket built for canyon carving. The Roadster’s entire appeal is the direct connection between driver, steering wheel, and asphalt.
Offering FSD as standard would dilute the purity that separates it from every other Tesla. Make autonomy an optional delete or simply omit it. Let the Roadster remain the purest driving machine in the lineup, because that’s what it is all about.
Tesla Needs to Come Through on the Unveiling Timeline
The last thing Tesla needs right now is another complaint about not hitting timelines or expectations. This unveiling has already been pushed back one time, from April 1 to “probably in late April.”
Repeated delays have tested even the most patient fans. Whatever date the company now sets for the next major reveal or start of production must be met. No more “next year” promises. The Roadster has waited long enough. When it finally arrives, it must feel worth every extra month.
If Tesla hits these five marks, the Roadster won’t just be another fast car—it will be the machine that redefines what a Tesla can be. The world is watching.
News
Tesla Cabin Camera gets an incredible new feature for added driver safety
The company quietly expanded the capabilities of its in-cabin camera with the rollout of Software Update 2026.8.6. Tesla hacker greentheonly revealed that coding for the software version provides details on now tracking the age of the driver.
Tesla’s interior Cabin-facing Camera just got a brand new feature that is an incredible addition, as it provides yet another layer of added safety.
The company quietly expanded the capabilities of its in-cabin camera with the rollout of Software Update 2026.8.6. Tesla hacker greentheonly revealed that coding for the software version provides details on now tracking the age of the driver.
The camera, which is positioned just above the rearview mirror, is now performing facial analysis to estimate the driver’s age. While not yet user-facing, the feature is the latest example of Tesla’s ongoing push to refine its driver monitoring system for both everyday safety and future Robotaxi operations.
Ha, interesting, cabin camera / driver monitor is now (2026.8.6) doing “driver age” checking.
I wonder if it’s going to filter out children or elderly too?
— green (@greentheonly) April 10, 2026
The cabin camera already processes images entirely onboard the vehicle for privacy, sharing data with Tesla only if owners enable it during safety-critical events.
Age estimation likely uses computer vision to classify facial features, similar to existing attention-tracking algorithms. Potential applications include preventing underage drivers from engaging Full Self-Driving (FSD) or shifting into drive, acting as a secondary safety lock.
It could also be linked to Robotaxi readiness: the upcoming Cybercab will need robust occupant verification to ensure children cannot hail or ride unsupervised.
In consumer vehicles, it could enable tailored FSD behaviors—more conservative acceleration and braking for elderly drivers, for instance—or simply block unauthorized use by minors.
Beyond age checks, the cabin camera powers Tesla’s comprehensive driver monitoring system, introduced years earlier and continuously improved. It first gained prominence for detecting inattentiveness. When Autopilot or FSD is active, the camera tracks eye gaze, head position, and steering inputs in real time.
If the driver looks away too long or fails to keep their hands ready, the system issues escalating visual and audible alerts before disengaging assistance. This has dramatically reduced misuse cases and helped Tesla meet stricter regulatory demands for hands-on supervision.
The camera also monitors for drowsiness. Activated above roughly 40 mph (65 km/h) after at least 10 minutes of manual driving, the Driver Drowsiness Warning analyzes facial cues—frequency of yawns and blinks—alongside driving patterns like lane drifting or erratic steering.
When fatigue is detected, a clear on-screen message and chime prompt the driver to pull over and rest, or even to activate Full Self-Driving. Tesla explicitly states this feature enhances active safety without relying on facial recognition for identity.
These layered capabilities create a robust safety net. Inattentiveness detection alone has curbed distracted driving during assisted operation. Drowsiness alerts address a leading cause of highway crashes by intervening before impairment escalates.
Adding age verification extends this protection: it could flag inexperienced young drivers for extra caution or restrict high-autonomy features, while preparing vehicles for a future where robotaxis must safely manage passengers of all ages.
With privacy safeguards intact and processing done locally, Tesla’s cabin camera continues evolving from a simple attention monitor into a sophisticated guardian—advancing safer roads today and autonomous mobility tomorrow.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s Semi truck factory is open with a detail that changes everything
Tesla’s dedicated Nevada Semi factory has opened, targeting 50,000 trucks per year as fleet adoptions accelerate nationwide.
Nearly nine years after Elon Musk unveiled the Tesla Semi in November 2017, the company is now opening a dedicated factory just outside of Reno, Nevada, and ramping toward mass production of 50,000 trucks per year.
Volume production began in March 2026 at the new Tesla Semi factory, with the competitive advantage not being the factory itself. Rather, it’s where Tesla built it. By constructing the 1.7 million square foot facility directly adjacent to Gigafactory Nevada in Sparks, Tesla closed the one supply chain loop that had delayed the Semi program for years. The 4680 battery cells that power the Semi are manufactured in the same complex, which significantly streamlines supply logistics. That single decision eliminates the bottleneck that forced Tesla to prioritize battery supply for passenger cars over the Semi throughout 2020, 2021, and 2022, which is precisely why the first deliveries slipped three years past the original target. Every other electric truck manufacturer sources its battery cells from a separate supplier, ships them to a separate factory, and absorbs the cost and delay that comes with that. Tesla built its Semi factory around its battery factory, and that vertical integration is what makes 50,000 trucks per year a realistic number rather than an aspirational one.
At the 2025 Annual Shareholder Meeting, Musk was direct about where things stood, stating “Starting next year, we will manufacture the Tesla Semi. We already have a lot of prototype Semis in operation – PepsiCo and other companies have been using them for some time. But in 2026, we’ll begin volume production at our Northern Nevada factory.” Full ramp to volume output is targeted before June 30, 2026.
🚨 Awesome new video showing the new Tesla Semi factory in Sparks, Nevada
The future of sustainable logistics is being built here: pic.twitter.com/dbiGV8FYn3
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 10, 2026
The first limited deliveries happened in December 2022 to PepsiCo, which eventually doubled its fleet to 50 trucks out of its California distribution facility. Since then the Semi has been showing up in more corporate fleets. As Teslarati noted in March, a Ralph’s Supermarkets branded Semi was spotted on a Los Angeles highway, confirming Kroger’s partnership with Tesla to deploy up to 500 electric Semis. Walmart, Costco, Sysco, US Foods, DHL, Hight Logistics and WattEV are among the companies actively running or receiving units. DHL logged real-world efficiency of 1.72 kWh per mile under a full 75,000 pound load over 388 miles, matching Tesla’s targets closely.
The 2026 production model arrives with meaningful upgrades over the original, with a 1,000 pound weight reduction, updated aerodynamics, and support for 1.2 MW Megacharger speeds that can restore 60% of range in around 30 minutes during a mandatory driver rest break. Tesla opened its first public Megacharger in Ontario, California in March, positioned near the I-10 and I-15 interchange serving the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The company plans 37 Megacharger sites by end of 2026 and 66 total across 15 states by early 2027, with construction beginning at the nation’s largest truck stop operator in the first half of this year.
Tesla reveals various improvements to the Semi in new piece with Jay Leno
Musk has described the Semi’s economics as a straightforward case. “The Semi is a TCO no-brainer,” he said, noting the total cost of ownership is “much, much cheaper than any other transportation you could have.” At under $300,000, the truck costs roughly double a comparable diesel, but California’s $200,000 per vehicle subsidy has driven over 1,000 state orders alone. As Teslarati has tracked, the prototype fleet accumulated over 13.5 million miles with 95% fleet uptime before production ever scaled. The factory opening now turns that proof of concept into a production program.
Tesla Roadster unveiling set for this month: what to expect
Tesla Cabin Camera gets an incredible new feature for added driver safety
