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
Tesla FSD in Europe vs. US: It’s not what you think
Tesla FSD is approved in the Netherlands, but the European version differs from what US drivers use.
On April 10, 2026, the Dutch vehicle authority RDW granted Tesla the first European type approval for Full Self-Driving Supervised, making the Netherlands the first country on the continent to authorize Tesla’s semi-autonomous system for customer use on public roads.
As Teslarati reported, the RDW approval followed 18 months of testing, more than 1.6 million kilometers driven on EU roads, 13,000 customer ride-alongs, and documentation covering over 400 compliance requirements. Tesla Europe had been running public demo drives through cities like Amsterdam and Eindhoven since early 2026, giving passengers their first experience of the system on European streets.
The European version of FSD is not the same software US drivers use. The RDW’s own statement is direct, noting that the software versions and functionalities in the US and Europe “are therefore not comparable one-to-one.” We’ve compile a table below that captures the most significant differences between US-based Tesla FSD vs. European Tesla FSD that’s based on what regulators and Tesla have publicly confirmed.
| Feature | FSD US | FSD Europe (Netherlands) |
| Regulatory framework | Self-certification, post-market oversight | Pre-market type approval required (UN R-171 + Article 39) |
| Hands requirement | Hands-off permitted on highway | Hands must be available to take over immediately |
| Auto turning from stop lights | Available — navigates intersections, turns, and traffic signals autonomously | Available in EU build — confirmed in Amsterdam demo footage handling unprotected turns and signalized intersections |
| Driving modes | Multiple profiles including a more aggressive “Mad Max” mode | EU build is more conservative by default and errs on the side of restraint when it cannot confirm the limit |
| Summon | Available — Smart Summon navigates parking lots to driver | Status unclear — not confirmed as part of the RDW-approved feature set; urban FSD approval targeted separately for 2027 |
| Driver monitoring | Camera-based eye tracking | Stricter continuous monitoring with more frequent intervention alerts |
| Software version | FSD v14.3 | EU-specific builds that must be separately validated by RDW |
| Geographic restriction | US, Canada, China, Mexico, Australia, NZ, South Korea | Netherlands only; EU-wide vote pending summer 2026 |
| Subscription price | $99/month | €99/month |
| Full urban FSD scope | Available | Partial — separate urban application planned for 2027 |
The approval comes as Tesla is under real pressure to grow FSD subscriptions globally. Musk’s 2025 CEO compensation package, approved by shareholders, includes a milestone requiring 10 million active FSD subscriptions as one condition for his stock awards to vest. Tesla hit one million subscriptions during its Q4 2025 earnings call, which is a meaningful start, but still a long way from the target. Opening Europe as a market for subscriptions, rather than just hardware sales, directly accelerates that number.
Tesla has said it anticipates EU-wide recognition of the Dutch approval during summer 2026, which would extend FSD access to Germany, France, and other major markets through a mutual recognition process without each country repeating the full 18-month review. That timeline is Tesla’s projection, not a confirmed regulatory outcome. As Musk acknowledged at Davos in January 2026, “We hope to get Supervised Full Self-Driving approval in Europe, hopefully next month.”
News
Tesla’s troublesome Auto Wipers get a major upgrade
Tesla has quietly deployed a major over-the-air (OTA) update across its entire fleet, implementing a new patent that could finally solve one of the most complained-about features in its vehicles: the Auto Wipers.
One of Tesla’s most complained-about features is that of the Auto Wipers, but they have recently received a major upgrade that impacts every vehicle in the company’s fleet, a company executive confirmed.
Tesla has quietly deployed a major over-the-air (OTA) update across its entire fleet, implementing a new patent that could finally solve one of the most complained-about features in its vehicles: the Auto Wipers.
Confirmed by senior Tesla AI engineer Yun-Ta Tsai on April 10, the improvement is based on patent US 20260097742 A1. It introduces an “energy balance model” that adds a tactile, physics-driven layer to the existing camera-based system—without requiring any new hardware.
🚨 Tesla has already implemented a new patent that improves the accuracy of the Auto Wiper system https://t.co/QjjKHKxSNv pic.twitter.com/mEbd04oJAu
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 10, 2026
Tesla drivers have griped about auto wipers since the company ditched traditional rain sensors in favor of Tesla Vision around 2018.
Owners routinely report the wipers failing to activate in light drizzle or mist, leaving windshields streaked and visibility dangerously reduced. Just as often, they formerly blasted into high-speed mode on dry, sunny days, screeching across glass and risking scratches or premature blade wear.
This is a rare occurrence anymore, but many owners still report the feature having the wipers perform at the incorrect speed or frequency when precipitation is falling.
Tesla has tried repeatedly to fix the problem through software alone.
Early “Deep Rain” initiatives and the 2023 Autowiper v4 update used multi-camera video and refined neural networks, with Elon Musk promising “super good” performance. The 2024.14 update added manual sensitivity boosts, and later FSD versions claimed further gains. Yet complaints persisted.
Elon Musk apologizes for Tesla’s quirky auto wipers, hints at improvements
Vision systems struggle with edge cases—glare, bugs, reflections, or faint mist—because they rely purely on visual inference rather than physical detection
The new patent takes a different approach. The car’s computer constantly measures electrical power delivered to the wiper motor. It subtracts predictable losses—internal motor friction, linkage drag, and aerodynamic resistance—leaving only the friction force between the rubber blade and windshield glass.
Water lubricates the glass, sharply reducing friction; dry or icy surfaces increase it dramatically. This real-time “tactile” data acts as an independent check on the camera’s visual cues, instantly shutting down false triggers on dry glass and fine-tuning speed for actual rain.
The system can also detect ice and auto-activate defrost heaters, while long-term friction trends alert drivers when blades need replacing.
By fusing vision with precise motor-load physics, Tesla has created a hybrid sensor that is both elegant and cost-free. Owners have waited years for reliable auto wipers; this OTA rollout may finally deliver them.
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.
Tesla FSD in Europe vs. US: It’s not what you think
Tesla’s troublesome Auto Wipers get a major upgrade
