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.
Tesla launched the Model Y Standard as an attempt to offer affordable electric vehicles to consumers now that the $7,500 EV tax credit is gone. We were able to spend four days with the car, and it was more than enough time to determine whether or not the car was worth the $9,000 discount compared to the Premium All-Wheel-Drive configuration, which is what I drive daily.
The Model Y Standard was stripped of some of the features that are present in the Premium trims of the Model Y: no glass roof, a sound system with roughly half the speakers, fewer acoustic-lined glass windows, less storage, and less functionality from an interior standpoint.
However, there are some real advantages to purchasing a Standard Model Y, and there are a handful of situations where this car would be well-suited.
Do I think it is worth the lower price? Well, I’ll get to that later in this article.
Initial Thoughts
In my first impressions review of the Model Y Standard, I talked about the face-value differences between my Model Y Premium and the new, more affordable trim. You will first notice the lack of storage between the front two seats, as the cupholder and additional storage bin sliding doors are void. You still get the cupholders, but they are exposed, which isn’t a huge deal, but it definitely takes away from the sleek look the Premium trim offers.
Additionally, the textile seats replace those of the vegan leather that is available in the upper-level trims. I mentioned previously that I could take or leave the vegan leather for the textile seats, as they are easy to clean, quick drying, and hide oils from your skin much better than leather does.
However, there comes one big sacrifice that I have been spoiled by, as the textile seats are not ventilated, so say goodbye to cooling your keister in the Summertime.
The lack of a glass roof is something many owners might not even notice. However, I have been spoiled by the glass roof in my car, and I look out of it every time I’m in my car. It is one of my favorite features, without a doubt. While it would not be a dealbreaker for me, it would be something I would miss terribly.
Things I Noticed After Several Days
Cabin Noise
One of the biggest things I noticed after the first two days in the Model Y Standard is that the cabin is much louder than the Premium. This is because Tesla did not acoustically line all of the glass in the Standard configuration, as it did in the Premium. The side windows are not treated, just the windshields. Therefore, you notice the noise level in the cabin is louder than in the Premium.
If you had not been driving in a Premium trim for a few months, you might not notice it. However, it is something that is a big sacrifice when moving to a different trim level, especially one that is less premium than what you might currently drive.
I have always been so shocked at how amazingly quiet the Premium trim’s cabin is; my Model Y is extremely peaceful, even when I’m sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic, and people have modified mufflers and exhaust systems, tractor-trailers are going by, or crotchrockets are zipping by on the interstate.
This is a huge difference between the two cars, and it is something that is really hard to get used to. I know, first-world problems, right? But when you’re paying between $39,990 and $48,990 for a car, those little things truly do matter.
Stereo System Differences
Another thing I was very aware of was how weak the sound system is. I think if I had bought a Standard Model Y, I would have looked at having the speakers and subwoofers upgraded; I was almost disappointed in how much of a change it was between the two cars.
When I finally picked up my Model Y Premium on Friday (which had been detailed by the awesome team at Tesla Mechanicsburg), the first thing I did was crank up the volume and listen to some music. I really missed having a premium sound system.
Ride Quality
There are virtually no differences between the two cars in terms of ride quality. They are both extremely fun to drive, and the suspension in the Model Y Standard feels perhaps a little bit stiffer than the Premium. Regardless, I didn’t truly notice all that much of a change.
Driving this car around windy roads and tight turns was just as fun as my Model Y Premium. It was a blast to test out, and the slight change in feel was welcome. It’s always fun to drive new cars.
Performance
This is the first EV I’ve ever ridden in where I did not feel that awesome sensation of instant torque. It’s still a quick car, but it is missing that pep in its step that many of us have become accustomed to.
If you want to get someone’s true reaction to EV acceleration, let me just put it this way: This is not the car to do it in.
Some Little-Known Facts About the Model Y Standard
Most of us know that the Model Y Standard has a glass roof, but it is opaque, so even if you took out the headliner, you still would not see out of it. However, there is an interesting little tidbit from a Service perspective that does not make much sense.
If the Model Y glass roof cracks or is broken and needs to be replaced, Service is required to pull off the entire headliner and topside interior to access the glass. It cannot be replaced from the outside. In the Premium, because the glass is exposed, it is a much simpler process to replace the glass. This was an interesting thing I learned.
Additionally, the seat controls are only available on the center screen, which makes it difficult to adjust the seat if you are larger than the person who sat in the car previously. In order to adjust the seat, you’ll have to lean over the chair, access the controls from the screen, and adjust it manually before getting in.
Is the Tesla Model Y Standard Worth the Cheaper Price?
For an additional $9,000 to buy the Model Y Premium AWD, you would get a more capable powertrain, a quieter cabin, better performance, an upgraded interior, more storage, a better sound system, and more luxury features.
To me, the Standard is a car that seems extremely ideal for a teenager’s first vehicle (I got a $1,500 1998 VW Jetta K2 with 200,000 miles when I was 16), or a fleet vehicle. This would be the perfect car for salespeople to use: it does not have all the bells and whistles, it is efficient, and it is just what is needed to drive around to meetings.
For a personal car, it really depends on what you think you need. Admittedly, I’ve been spoiled by the Premium configuration, and personally, I wouldn’t go down to the Standard after owning a Premium trim.
News
Tesla’s new Holiday perk is timed perfectly to make FSD a household name
Tesla AI4 owners get FSD (Supervised) through Christmas, New Year’s Eve and well into the post-holiday travel season.
Tesla quietly rolled out a free Full Self-Driving (Supervised) trial for roughly 1.5 million HW4 owners in North America who never bought the package, and the timing could very well be genius.
As it turns out, the trial doesn’t end after 30 days. Instead, it expires January 8, 2026, meaning owners get FSD (Supervised) through Christmas, New Year’s Eve and well into the post-holiday travel season. This extended window positions the feature for maximum word-of-mouth exposure.
A clever holiday gift
Tesla watcher Sawyer Merritt first spotted the detail after multiple owners shared screenshots showing the trial expiring on January 8. He confirmed with affected users that none had active FSD subscriptions before the rollout. He also observed that Tesla never called the promotion a “30-day trial,” as the in-car message simply reads “You’re Getting FSD (Supervised) For the Holidays,” which technically runs until after the new year.
The roughly 40-day period covers peak family travel and gatherings, giving owners ample opportunity to showcase the latest FSD V14’s capabilities on highway trips, crowded parking lots and neighborhood drives. With relatives riding along, hands-off highway driving and automatic lane changes could become instant conversation starters.
Rave reviews for FSD V14 highlight demo potential
FSD has been receiving positive reviews from users as of late. Following the release of FSD v14.2.1, numerous owners praised the update for its smoothness and reliability. Tesla owner @LactoseLunatic called it a “huge leap forward from version 14.1.4,” praising extreme smoothness, snappy lane changes and assertive yet safe behavior that allows relaxed monitoring.
-->Another Tesla owner, @DevinOlsenn, drove 600 km without disengagements, noting his wife now defaults to FSD for daily use due to its refined feel. Sawyer Merritt also tested FSD V14.2.1 in snow on unplowed New Hampshire roads, and the system stayed extra cautious without hesitation. Longtime FSD tester Chuck Cook highlighted improved sign recognition in school zones, showing better dynamic awareness. These reports of fewer interventions and a more “sentient” drive could turn family passengers into advocates, fueling subscriptions come January.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk predicts AI and robotics could make work “optional” within 20 years
Speaking on entrepreneur Nikhil Kamath’s podcast, Musk predicted that machines will soon handle most forms of labor, leaving humans to work only if they choose to.
Elon Musk stated that rapid advances in artificial intelligence and robotics could make traditional work unnecessary within two decades.
Speaking on entrepreneur Nikhil Kamath’s podcast, Musk predicted that machines will soon handle most forms of labor, leaving humans to work only if they choose to.
Work as a “hobby”
During the discussion, Musk said the accelerating capability of AI systems and general-purpose robots will eventually cover all essential tasks, making human labor a choice rather than an economic requirement. “In less than 20 years, working will be optional. Working at all will be optional. Like a hobby,” Musk said.
When Kamath asked whether this future is driven by massive productivity growth, Musk agreed, noting that people will still be free to work if they enjoy the routine or the challenge. He compared future employment to home gardening, as it is something people can still do for personal satisfaction even if buying food from a store is far easier.
“Optional” work in the future
Elon Musk acknowledged the boldness of his claim and joked that people might look back in 20 years and say he was wrong. That being said, the CEO noted that such a scenario could even happen sooner than his prediction, at least if one were to consider the pace of the advancements in AI and robotics.
-->“Obviously people can play this back in 20 years and say, ‘Look, Elon made this ridiculous prediction and it’s not true,’ but I think it will turn out to be true, that in less than 20 years, maybe even as little as ten or 15 years, the advancements in AI and robotics will bring us to the point where working is optional,” Musk said.
Elon Musk’s comments echo his previous sentiments at Tesla’s 2025 Annual Shareholder Meeting, where he noted that Optimus could ultimately eliminate poverty. He also noted that robots like Optimus could eventually provide people worldwide with the best medical care.
Tesla Model Y Standard Full Review: Is it worth the lower price?
Tesla’s new Holiday perk is timed perfectly to make FSD a household name
