Connect with us

News

NASA snubbed SpaceX, common sense to overpay Boeing for astronaut launches, says audit

Published

6 years ago

on

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.

Crew Dragon approaches the ISS on March 3rd during DM-1, the spacecraft’s uncrewed orbital launch debut. (NASA)
Boeing’s Orbital Flight Test (OFT) Starliner spacecraft prepares for flight on November 3rd. (Boeing)

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.

Advertisement
-->

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.

Advertisement
-->
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Boeing completed a most-successful Starliner pad abort test earlier this month, the spacecraft’s first integrated flight of any kind.

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.

Advertisement
-->

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.

Related Topics:

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla removes Safety Monitors, begins fully autonomous Robotaxi testing

This development, in terms of the Robotaxi program, is massive. Tesla has been working incredibly hard to expand its fleet of Robotaxi vehicles to accommodate the considerable demand it has experienced for the platform.

Published

8 hours ago

on

December 14, 2025

By

Credit: @Mandablorian | X

Tesla has started Robotaxi testing in Austin, Texas, without any vehicle occupants, the company’s CEO Elon Musk confirmed on Sunday. Two Tesla Model Y Robotaxi units were spotted in Austin traveling on public roads with nobody in the car.

The testing phase begins just a week after Musk confirmed that Tesla would be removing Safety Monitors from its vehicles “within the next three weeks.” Tesla has been working to initiate driverless rides by the end of the year since the Robotaxi fleet was launched back in June.

Two units were spotted, with the first being seen from the side and clearly showing no human beings inside the cabin of the Model Y Robotaxi:

Another unit, which is the same color but was confirmed as a different vehicle, was spotted just a few moments later:

The two units are traveling in the general vicinity of the South Congress and Dawson neighborhoods of downtown Austin. These are located on the southside of the city.

This development, in terms of the Robotaxi program, is massive. Tesla has been working incredibly hard to expand its fleet of Robotaxi vehicles to accommodate the considerable demand it has experienced for the platform.

However, the main focus of the Robotaxi program since its launch in the Summer was to remove Safety Monitors and initiate completely driverless rides. This effort is close to becoming a reality, and the efforts of the company are coming to fruition.

It is a drastic step in the company’s trek for self-driving technology, as it plans to expand it to passenger vehicles in the coming years. Tesla owners have plenty of experience with the Full Self-Driving suite, which is not fully autonomous, but is consistently ranked among the best-performing platforms in the world.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla refines Full Self-Driving, latest update impresses where it last came up short

We were able to go out and test it pretty extensively on Saturday, and the changes Tesla made from the previous version were incredibly impressive, especially considering it seemed to excel where it last came up short.

Published

19 hours ago

on

December 14, 2025

By

Credit: TESLARATI

Tesla released Full Self-Driving v14.2.1.25 on Friday night to Early Access Program (EAP) members. It came as a surprise, as it was paired with the release of the Holiday Update.

We were able to go out and test it pretty extensively on Saturday, and the changes Tesla made from the previous version were incredibly impressive, especially considering it seemed to excel where it last came up short.

Tesla supplements Holiday Update by sneaking in new Full Self-Driving version

With Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.1, there were some serious regressions. Speed Profiles were overtinkered with, causing some modes to behave in a strange manner. Hurry Mode was the most evident, as it refused to go more than 10 MPH over the speed limit on freeways.

It would routinely hold up traffic at this speed, and flipping it into Mad Max mode was sort of over the top. Hurry is what I use most frequently, and it had become somewhat unusable with v14.2.1.

It seemed as if Speed Profiles should be more associated with both passing and lane-changing frequency. Capping speeds does not help as it can impede the flow of traffic. When FSD travels at the speed of other traffic, it is much more effective and less disruptive.

With v14.2.1.25, there were three noticeable changes that improved its performance significantly: Speed Profile refinements, lane change confidence, and Speed Limit recognition.

Speed Profile Refinement

Speed Profiles have been significantly improved. Hurry Mode is no longer capped at 10 MPH over the speed limit and now travels with the flow of traffic. This is much more comfortable during highway operation, and I was not required to intervene at any point.

With v14.2.1, I was sometimes assisting it with lane changes, and felt it was in the wrong place at the wrong time more frequently than ever before.

However, this was one of the best-performing FSD versions in recent memory, and I really did not have any complaints on the highway. Speed, maneuvering, lane switching, routing, and aggressiveness were all perfect.

Lane Changes

v14.2.1 had a tendency to be a little more timid when changing lanes, which was sort of frustrating at times. When the car decides to change lanes and turn on its signal, it needs to pull the trigger and change lanes.

It also changed lanes at extremely unnecessary times, which was a real frustration.

There were no issues today on v14.2.1.25; lane changes were super confident, executed at the correct time, and in the correct fashion. It made good decisions on when to get into the right lane when proceeding toward its exit.

It was one of the first times in a while that I did not feel as if I needed to nudge it to change lanes. I was very impressed.

Speed Limit Recognition

So, this is a complex issue. With v14.2.1, there were many times when it would see a Speed Limit sign that was not meant for the car (one catered for tractor trailers, for example) or even a route sign, and it would incorrectly adjust the speed. It did this on the highway several times, mistaking a Route 30 sign for a 30 MPH sign, then beginning to decelerate from 55 MPH to 30 MPH on the highway.

This required an intervention. I also had an issue leaving a drive-thru Christmas lights display, where the owners of the private property had a 15 MPH sign posted nearly every 200 yards for about a mile and a half.

The car identified it as a 55 MPH sign and sped up significantly. This caused an intervention, and I had to drive manually.

It seems like FSD v14.2.1.25 is now less reliant on the signage (maybe because it was incorrectly labeling it) and more reliant on map data or the behavior of nearby traffic.

A good example was on the highway today: despite the car reading that Route 30 sign and the Speed Limit sign on the center screen reading 30 MPH, the car did not decelerate. It continued at the same speed, but I’m not sure if that’s because of traffic or map data:

A Lone Complaint

Tesla has said future updates will include parking improvements, and I’m really anxious for them, because parking is not great. I’ve had some real issues with it over the past couple of months.

Today was no different:

Full Self-Driving v14.2.1.25 is really a massive improvement over past versions, and it seems apparent that Tesla took its time with fixing the bugs, especially with highway operation on v14.2.1.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla hints at Starlink integration with recent patent

“By employing polymer blends, some examples enable RF transmission from all the modules to satellites and other communication devices both inside and outside the vehicle.”

Published

2 days ago

on

December 13, 2025

By

Credit: Grok

Tesla hinted at a potential Starlink internet terminal integration within its vehicles in a recent patent, which describes a vehicle roof assembly with integrated radio frequency (RF) transparency.

The patent, which is Pub. No U.S. 2025/0368267 describes a new vehicle roof that is made of RF-transparent polymer materials, allowing and “facilitating clear communication with external devices and satellites.”

Tesla believes that a new vehicle roof design, comprised of different materials than the standard metallic or glass elements used in cars today, would allow the company to integrate modern vehicular technologies, “particularly those requiring radio frequency transmission and reception.

Instead of glass or metallic materials, Tesla says vehicles may benefit from high-strength polymer blends, such as Polycarbonate, Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene, or Acrylonitrile Styrene Acrylate.

These materials still provide ideal strength metrics for crashworthiness, stiffness for noise, vibration, and harshness control, and are compliant with head impact regulations.

They would also enable better performance with modern technologies, like internet terminals, which need an uninterrupted signal to satellites for maximum reception. Tesla writes in the patent:

“By employing polymer blends, some examples enable RF transmission from all the modules to satellites and other communication devices both inside and outside the vehicle.”

One of the challenges Tesla seems to be aware of with this type of roof design is the fact that it will still have to enable safety and keep that at the forefront of the design. As you can see in the illustration above, Tesla plans to use four layers to increase safety and rigidity, while also combating noise and vibration.

It notes in the patent that disclosed examples still meet the safety requirements outlined in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).

Starlink integrated directly into Tesla vehicles would be a considerable advantage for owners. It would come with a handful of distinct advantages.

Initially, the inclusion of Starlink would completely eliminate cellular dead zones, something that is an issue, especially in rural areas. Starlink would provide connectivity in these remote regions and would ensure uninterrupted service during road trips and off-grid adventures.

It could also be a critical addition for Robotaxi, as it is crucial to have solid and reliable connectivity for remote monitoring and fleet management.

Starlink’s growing constellation, thanks to SpaceX’s routine and frequent launch schedule, will provide secure, stable, and reliable internet connectivity for Tesla vehicles.

SpaceX reaches incredible milestone with Starlink program

Although many owners have already mounted Starlink Mini dishes under their glass roofs for a similar experience, it may be integrated directly into Teslas in the coming years, either as an upgrade or a standard feature.

Continue Reading