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.
In a remarkable demonstration of how advanced vehicle technology can intersect with family care and rapid response, a Tesla Model Y equipped with Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised helped save a driver’s life during a severe heart attack. The incident, which occurred on November 15, 2025, highlights the life-saving potential of Tesla’s connected ecosystem.
John Brandt, 55, was driving his new 2026 Model Y Launch Edition on Interstate 20 from Atlanta toward Birmingham early that morning. He had recently received the FSD v14.1.3 update. Around 3:50 a.m., he began experiencing severe chest pain. Barely conscious and unable to safely control the vehicle, John managed to call his son, Jack Brandt.
FSD Supervised remained engaged, keeping the car steadily on course while John reached out for help.
As an authorized driver on his father’s Tesla account, Jack quickly sprang into action from his own phone. He located Tanner Medical Center in Carrollton, Georgia—a facility equipped for cardiac emergencies—via Google Maps and shared the destination directly through the Tesla app.
A Model Y driver started experiencing a medical emergency with chest pain mid-drive & called his son.
His son then remotely rerouted the car – which had FSD Supervised enabled – to the nearest hospital & let them know the vehicle was en route. ER staff were standing by on… pic.twitter.com/yi1tHISK9y
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) June 16, 2026
The Model Y responded immediately, rerouting: it took the next exit, turned around on I-20, navigated local roads, and pulled directly up to the emergency room entrance. Jack also alerted hospital staff that a heart attack patient was en route in a Tesla.
Doctors diagnosed John with a massive STEMI heart attack, requiring immediate intervention on three blocked arteries. They later confirmed that without the swift reroute, John likely would not have survived—whether he had pulled over to wait for an ambulance or attempted to continue driving. He received life-saving treatment and is now recovering fully.
Tesla shared the story on X, including an interview video featuring John and Jack reflecting on the event. John described the terrifying onset of symptoms, while Jack detailed the ease of remote intervention thanks to the app’s features. Only authorized users with vehicle access can change navigation destinations, adding a layer of security and family coordination.
This case underscores Tesla’s emphasis on connectivity and supervised autonomy. Features like remote navigation allow loved ones to assist in real-time emergencies, while FSD handles complex driving tasks reliably. Tesla notes that FSD Supervised requires active driver supervision and is not fully autonomous; this was a specific incident, not a general emergency protocol.
The story has resonated widely, with many praising Tesla’s technology for bridging gaps in critical moments. Jack previously shared details on social media in February 2026, and Tesla’s recent post has amplified its reach. As vehicles become smarter and more connected, such integrations could redefine personal safety on the road—turning cars into proactive partners in health crises.
For Tesla owners, the incident serves as a powerful reminder to add trusted family members as authorized drivers and explore FSD capabilities. While no technology replaces professional medical care, this blend of AI-assisted driving and seamless app control proved invaluable. John’s survival stands as a testament to innovation that prioritizes human life.
In a bold declaration on X, xAI CEO Elon Musk announced that its model will be capable of creating full movies by the end of the year. Quoting an xAI post showcasing a stunning AI-generated trailer for Homer’s The Odyssey, Musk simply stated: “Full movies by the end of the year.”
The quoted video, created entirely with the newly released Grok Imagine Video 1.5, demonstrates the rapid strides in AI video generation. Crafted by creator David Thompson, the 2-minute-plus trailer reimagines the ancient epic in the style of a 1970s classical Hollywood blockbuster. It features 36 meticulously consistent shots that form a cohesive narrative world.
Full movies by the end of this year https://t.co/kkBrngWA0X
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 17, 2026
Its realistic nature is truly mind-blowing, and it’s pretty amazing to think that it cool to think it could create an entire movie soon.
The trailer reimagines The Odyssey as a whole, and opens with a concept board outlining the vision: a retelling of the story using 35mm film aesthetics, classical framing, and other elements.
There are a handful of things that truly outline Grok’s capabilities:
- Scale and Physics: A bloodied Spartan helmet rests on a sandy battlefield amid smoke, marching armies, and flocks of birds. Horses gallop, chariots charge, and warriors clash with believable weight and motion.
- Emotional Depth and Dialogue: Close-ups capture intense expressions, as characters deliver lines like a warrior’s grief-stricken speech on a rocking ship.
- Cinematic Workflow: It’s hard to believe AI created this trailer, as editing and suspense are clearly detailed in this trailer
Now, why is this a big deal? AI has been a real threat to the way movies have been made over the past several decades. It’s no secret that the various AI platforms out there are becoming more capable, but Musk has said that he believes things would be “watchable” by the end of this year, and by the end of 2027, Grok would be able to create “really good” movies.
There are several issues that remain, most notably the ability to remain cohesive throughout the length of a film, energy requirements, copyright questions for training data, and artistic intent. Hollywood has created some of the greatest cinematic masterpieces over the past 100 years, but 2026 could be the year AI not only assists but also independently authors cinema.
Tesla is continuing to push the boundaries of vehicle dynamics, as its latest published patent, US12654505B2, or “Suspension Actuator System for a Vehicle,’ which has finally been pushed through.
The design, which is credited to inventors Brian Lee Doorlag, Avraham Kagan, and Justin Sill, introduces a sophisticated hybrid suspension design that blends active motor-driven control with strategic passive elements to deliver superior ride quality, energy efficiency, and resilience against road imperfections, especially potholes.
Suspension Actuator System for a Vehicle@Tesla‘s US20240383297A1 patent introduces an innovative suspension actuator system that transforms vehicle suspension control through an intelligent combination of active and passive control elements.
By implementing both series and… https://t.co/vRvlOu3Dql pic.twitter.com/2WriXgpOvr
— SETI Park (@seti_park) November 27, 2024
At the heart of the system is an active control element powered by an electric motor. This motor drives a belt connected to a ball nut assembly and threaded screw, which adjusts the effective length of the suspension strut in real time.
By extending or retracting, the actuator can lift or lower the wheel more accurately, which can end up countering road disturbances. Sensors, including accelerometers and wheel position monitors, feed data to a suspension control system that processes inputs and commands the motor instantly.
This active component doesn’t work alone. A low-rate air spring mounts in parallel with the actuator. Its primary role is to offset much of the vehicle’s static weight, dramatically reducing the power demand on the motor.
Without this, the active system would constantly fight gravity, draining energy and generating heat. The air spring handles steady-state loads efficiently, allowing the motor to focus on dynamic adjustments.
Complementing this is a series of passive control elements—a spring and an adaptive damper—placed between the actuator and the wheel. This setup filters high-frequency vibrations before they reach the active motor, preventing it from overworking on minor inputs. The adaptive damper, potentially magnetorheological or valve-controlled, further tunes damping electronically for optimal comfort and stability.
How It Differs from Traditional Suspensions
Traditional passive suspensions compromise between comfort and handling, while pure active systems can be power-hungry and complex. Tesla’s hybrid approach resolves this by delegating tasks: the parallel air spring manages weight and low-frequency body motions, the series elements absorb rapid vibrations, and the active actuator tackles larger, lower-frequency events.
The result is a smoother, more isolated cabin experience. High-frequency road noise and harshness diminish, while the vehicle maintains precise control during cornering or acceleration. Energy efficiency improves, too—lower motor loads mean reduced battery drain, potentially extending range in electric vehicles.
How It Mitigates Potholes Specifically
Potholes are a major challenge because they provide a sudden drop to the wheel plunge, jarring the body of the vehicle, risking damage. The patent explicitly addresses this. Upon detecting a pothole (via sensors or predictive mapping), the control system activates
the motor to retract the strut, effectively pulling the wheel upward to minimize downward excursion. The series spring/damper cushions the impact, while the parallel air spring maintains overall support.
This proactive “wheel retraction” prevents sharp jolts, preserving passenger comfort and protecting components. Integrated with Tesla’s road roughness mapping patents, the system could anticipate potholes from fleet data, enabling preemptive adjustments for even smoother navigation.
Future Implications for Tesla Vehicles
This technology builds on Tesla’s existing adaptive dampers and air suspension that is seen in Cybertruck, but advances toward fully active control. It could roll out to future models, including refreshed Cybertrucks or next-gen vehicles, enhancing both daily drivability and off-road capability. By minimizing power use and complexity, it aligns with Tesla’s goals of efficiency and scalability.
In summary, US12654505B2 exemplifies Tesla’s engineering philosophy: intelligent integration over brute force. This hybrid suspension promises quieter, more comfortable rides and robust pothole defense, potentially setting a new standard for automotive comfort. As Tesla iterates, drivers can look forward to roads feeling far less rough.
Tesla Full Self-Driving and App Connectivity save life in medical emergency
Elon Musk predicts Grok will start to challenge Hollywood by the end of 2026
