

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 makes major production announcement at Giga Shanghai
On Monday, Tesla China Vice President Grace Tao announced a change at Giga Shanghai.

Tesla has made a major production announcement at its Chinese production facility, Giga Shanghai. The change of plans comes right after the company announced its strongest quarter in terms of deliveries in its history.
On Monday, Tesla China Vice President Grace Tao announced that the production facility would begin ramping up manufacturing in preparation for an even stronger Q4.
Tao said on the Chinese social media platform Weibo:
“The Shanghai Gigafactory has recently begun its fourth-quarter production ramp-up! In the third quarter of 2025, Tesla delivered a total of 497,000 new vehicles worldwide, setting a new quarterly delivery record. As the fourth quarter begins, our colleagues at the Shanghai factory are working hard to expand production and fully charge their vehicles, so that car owners in China and Asia-Pacific can receive their vehicles as soon as possible.”
China is an extremely robust market for electric vehicles, and Tesla routinely delivers strong numbers in the sector.
However, Giga Shanghai is responsible for much more than just China, as it is a major export hub for other markets, including Asian-Pacific countries like New Zealand and Australia, among others.
Tesla delivered 497,099 vehicles in Q3, its strongest quarter ever from a delivery standpoint. About half of those vehicles came from Shanghai, as estimates point to roughly 242,000 of those cars coming from the Chinese factory.
Tesla China comeback: Retail sales hit second-highest month of 2025
Ramping up production at Giga Shanghai signals some internal belief that there is a lot of strength in terms of demand for Tesla vehicles. Tesla has a strong track record of fulfilling the need for its vehicles at the Shanghai factory, as it is widely regarded for building some of the best-quality Tesla vehicles.
However, the company launched a new configuration of the Model Y, called the Model Y L, in China. It is only available from Giga Shanghai and features a third row of seating and additional length in the wheelbase.
This additional space was widely sought out by customers, and Tesla listened. It could be a key to the company continuing its strength in the Chinese market, especially as there are many well-equipped competitors in the country.
News
Tesla China comeback: Retail sales hit second-highest month of 2025
Tesla’s September numbers are just below the 74,127 units that were sold domestically in March.

Tesla’s retail sales in China climbed to 71,525 vehicles in September, the company’s second-highest monthly total this year, as per data from the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA).
The result reflects a steady rebound, narrowing Tesla’s year-on-year sales decline to just 0.93%, while showing a 25% jump from August’s weaker numbers. Tesla China’s September numbers are just below the 74,127 units that were sold domestically in March.
Tesla China’s September
Despite the uptick, Tesla China’s retail sales have now logged seven months of year-on-year declines this 2025, managing growth only in March and June, though a good portion of these lost sales was due to the changeover to the new Model Y. The Shanghai Gigafactory, which produces both the Model 3 and Model Y, continues to serve as a dual-purpose hub for domestic and export markets.
In September, Tesla exported 19,287 vehicles from its Shanghai facility, up 19.6% year-on-year but down 25.9% from August, as noted in a CNEV Post report. This is in line with Tesla China’s strategy of prioritizing exports early in each quarter. Including exports, Tesla China’s total wholesale volume reached 90,812 units in September, up 2.82% year-on-year and 9.16% month-on-month.
Model Y still leads
The Tesla Model Y still led the electric vehicle maker’s sales in China with 59,907 units sold wholesale during the month, rising 17.1% from last year, while Model 3 reached 30,905 units, dipping 16.8% year-on-year but up 27% from August. Tesla’s overall market share in China’s NEV segment rose to 5.52%, and its BEV share climbed to 8.66%, modest gains hinting at the company’s resilience in a fiercely competitive market.
Across Q3, Tesla sold 169,294 vehicles in China, down 6.9% year-on-year, marking its second consecutive quarterly decline but a strong 31.4% recovery versus Q2. Year-to-date, Tesla’s retail total stands at 432,704 units, down 5.97% compared to last year.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk teases ‘Banish’ feature to pair perfectly with Summon
Tesla has long promised the possibility of completely hands-off parking: arrive, drop off at the entrance, the car parks itself, and the car retrieves you at the end of your visit.

Elon Musk has once again teased the “Banish” feature that could come to Tesla vehicles in the near future. It would be a perfect pairing to the popular Assisted Smart Summon (ASS), which the company launched earlier this year.
Banish has been something Tesla has teased for years. The company has promised the possibility of completely hands-off parking: arrive, drop off at the entrance, the car parks itself, and the car retrieves you at the end of your visit.
Ultimately, even though it is technically a driverless feature, Tesla has not refined its parking portion of the Full Self-Driving (Supervised) suite enough to release Banish to the public.
Tesla recently started performing specified parking tasks at the driver’s discretion. In the FSD (Supervised) v14.1 release, Tesla has added the ability to pick your parking scenario. Drivers can choose a Charger, Parking Lot, Curbside, Street, Driveway, or Parking Garage.
To achieve Banish, Tesla would have to gather enough data with these scenarios to then gain the capability to park after dropping vehicle occupants off.
🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised) v14.1’s new Arrival Options pic.twitter.com/P8GDY7BIZ6
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 10, 2025
However, CEO Elon Musk recently hyped Banish to the point of stating Teslas will be capable of it “in the near future.”
His remark came in response to a video where FSD v14.1 drove around a Costco parking lot for twenty minutes looking for a spot:
In the near future, your Tesla will drop you off at the store entrance and then go find a parking spot.
When you’re ready to exit the store, just tap Summon on your phone and the car will come to you. https://t.co/7oUEk9Bb0H
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 10, 2025
Summon is a feature that has given Tesla its challenges, but the release of Assisted Smart Summon (ASS) has improved some of its capabilities.
I tested it after receiving v14.1, and it did a great job of taking the correct route and driving safely to my location:
🚨 There were no noted improvements to Tesla’s Actually Smart Summon (ASS) with the v14.1 Full Self-Driving (Supervised) update
However, with v13.2.9, ASS turned the wrong way on this exact route.
Not this time! Exceptionally done! pic.twitter.com/vYHL0zjlOk
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 10, 2025
There will likely be some time between now and when Tesla is able to release Banish. As previously noted, Tesla will need to collect enough data from real-world scenarios and obtain a proven track record of being able to handle lots and parking in a variety of environments while supervised.
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla Giga Berlin’s water consumption has achieved the unthinkable
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla unveils charging innovation that will make the Semi instantly successful
-
News2 weeks ago
Waymo responds to shocking video that would have gotten Tesla FSD crucified
-
News2 weeks ago
Lucid CEO shades Tesla Model S: “Nothing has changed in 12 years now”
-
News2 weeks ago
Elon Musk slams Sky News over Epstein invite: “Deserves complete contempt”
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla Model Y sells faster than diesel cars and other EVs in Sweden’s used market
-
News6 days ago
Tesla FSD (Supervised) V14.1 with Robotaxi-style dropoffs is here
-
News1 week ago
Tesla all but confirms that affordable Model Y is coming Tuesday