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 Model Y ownership two weeks in: what I love and what I don’t

With any new car, I don’t really find things I dislike within the first few months; the novelty of a shiny new vehicle usually wears off eventually.

Published

2 hours ago

on

September 13, 2025

By

Credit: Tesla

I am officially two weeks into Tesla ownership, having picked up my Model Y Long Range All-Wheel-Drive on Saturday, August 30. I have many things I really love, and I’ll do my best to come up with a few things I don’t, although I find that to be very difficult currently.

With any new car, I don’t really find things I dislike within the first few months; the novelty of a shiny new vehicle usually wears off eventually. In the past, I’ve had a car I only kept for nine months, but I loved it for the first two months. I am sure down the road, some things about the Tesla will bother me, but right now, I don’t have too much to complain about.

As for the things I love, I’ll try to keep it to just five, and as I continue to write about my ownership experience in the coming months, I’ll see if these things change.

A Quick Rundown

In the two weeks I have had my new Model Y, I have driven 783 miles. I have driven it manually, used Full Self-Driving, navigated tight city streets in Baltimore, and driven spiritedly on the winding back roads of Pennsylvania.

I traded my ICE vehicle for a Tesla Model Y: here’s how it went

I have had the opportunity to put it to the test in a variety of ways, and I feel like I have a great idea of this car and how it handles and drives just two weeks in.

What I Love About My Tesla Model Y

I am only going to pick a handful of things, but do not take this list as a complete one. I truly have so many things I love about this car, but I want to mention the ones that are not necessarily “novelties.” I love the A/C seats, but it’s not something I feel deserves a mention here, because it would not likely sway someone to consider the car.

Instead, I want to highlight what I feel are things that truly set the Model Y apart from cars I’ve had in the past.

Tesla Full Self-Driving

Available on all Teslas, Full Self-Driving is something I use every day. It is not only a convenience thing, but it is also truly a fun feature to track improvements, and it’s been fun to show a lot of my friends who are not familiar with its capabilities just how safe and impressive it is.

My Fiancè and I have watched Full Self-Driving make slight changes in performance in the two weeks we’ve been using it. I tracked one instance on a Pennsylvania back road when the car stopped at an “Except Right Turn” Stop Sign. Initially, the car stopped, holding up traffic behind it. Just days later, FSD proceeded through that same Stop Sign cautiously, but without coming to a complete stop, which is the proper way to navigate through it.

This quick adjustment was very impressive, and it even caught the attention of my better half. I will say it has been very fun to watch her fall in love with this car after being very reluctant to watch me get rid of our Bronco Sport.

The Handling

Tesla refined the suspension with the new Model Y, and you can surely feel it. Coming from a larger SUV, I did miss being able to really push the limits of my car on a beautiful, sunny, and warm day, and the winding roads of Pennsylvania are calling me for a drive.

The way this car hugs turns and genuinely puts a smile on my face when I’m pushing it. Dare I say I like driving it more than I like it driving me?

Interior Storage

One of my biggest complaints about my Bronco Sport was that, despite being an SUV, it felt smaller than it was supposed to be. I had trouble fitting golf bags and luggage in the back without having other storage options. It led me to install a roof rack and get a cargo container. I would have to put longer clubs in the back seat so the bags could lie without clubs getting bent.

I don’t seem to have a significant problem with this in the Model Y. Plus, the frunk and the additional cargo under the floor of the trunk are great for bags and other things. It offers 10 cubic feet more of space with the seats down than the Bronco Sport does.

The Entertainment

Not only is the sound system in this car absolutely unbelievable, but I also really enjoy the Tesla Theater, which is really something that has revolutionized how we spend our time in the car.

Charging at the Superchargers has become a new way for us to spend time together. Even if it’s just 30 minutes, my Fiancé’s busy work schedule at the hospital means we don’t get to spend as much time together as we would like. The charging lets us go grab a snack, watch a movie or show in the car, and just be with each other.

It’s honestly my favorite thing about the car so far, that we’ve both truly enjoyed what it has done for us. It put a smile on my face to hear her say, “It’s just so much fun to be in this car” last night when we met friends for dinner.

What I Don’t Love

I’m just going to get nitpicky here, because I don’t have much to complain about.

The Paint

I love the Diamond Black, and it gets so many compliments. However, it sure does get dirty fast. I feel like I’m going to have to invest in a car wash membership or set aside time each week to clean it. This is not a Tesla-specific problem, of course.

Climate Control

Another “first-world problem,” but sometimes I do have trouble getting the A/C to go right where I need it. I feel like, to feel the air, I have to put the fan speed to 7 or higher.

Swing Mode has been a real savior in this sense, but my Fiancè sometimes complains that my cold air will hit her when she’s already freezing. I think this is just something I need to get used to, as the vents are significantly different than any other car. It’s really not that bad, but it is worth mentioning that we’ve both said we are still adjusting to it early on.

Continue Reading

Cybertruck

Tesla brings closure to head-scratching Cybertruck trim

Published

3 hours ago

on

September 13, 2025

By

(Credit: Tesla)

Tesla has ended the production and sale of a Cybertruck trim level that had many people scratching their heads. The move comes after slow sales on the trim, as many Cybertruck buyers opted for other configurations that seemed to be a better value for the money.

On Friday, Tesla officially brought closure to the Long Range Rear-Wheel-Drive configuration of the Cybertruck, a build that was introduced earlier this year at a lower price point than its All-Wheel-Drive counterparts, but missed many of the key features that made the Cybertruck, the Cybertruck.

Tesla Cybertruck RWD production in full swing at Giga Texas

Rolling the variant out at a price of $69,990, only $10,000 less than that of the All-Wheel-Drive configuration. However, it was also void of many other things:

  • Single Motor
  • Textile Seats instead of Leather
  • 7-Speaker Audio System instead of 15-Speakers
  • No Rear Touchscreen
  • No Powered Tonneau Cover for Truck Bed
  • No 120v/240v outlets

For $79,990, just $10,000 more, owners could receive all of these premium features, plus a more capable All-Wheel-Drive powertrain, which truly made this Rear-Wheel-Drive build of the Cybertruck a sitting duck for criticism.

It was simply not enough meat for the price, and demand was evidently low. From those I spoke to, orders were few and far between; people simply found more value in the All-Wheel-Drive configuration based solely on the additional motor. Adding all the premium interior and functionality features made it a no-brainer.

In a way, it seems Tesla was overly optimistic about the Rear-Wheel-Drive configuration of the Cybertruck, but even after it was launched, plenty of loyal fans were confused by it:

The Cybertruck is a great vehicle, and it is among the best vehicles in the company’s lineup. However, it really missed a price point for the Rear-Wheel-Drive configuration that was effective enough to drive people toward it. Many said they would have considered it if Tesla could have brought the price down into the high $40,000 or low $50,000 range.

I took a Tesla Cybertruck weekend Demo Drive – Here’s what I learned

It seems it just did not have the appeal to keep up. Now, Tesla has the All-Wheel-Drive and Cyberbeast for $72,490 and $114,990, respectively.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla Board Chair discusses what is being done to protect CEO Elon Musk

Published

22 hours ago

on

September 12, 2025

By

Credit: xAI

Tesla Board Chair Robyn Denholm met with Bloomberg this morning to discuss a variety of topics, but perhaps one of the most interesting was her comments on what is being done to protect company CEO Elon Musk.

After the assassination of right-wing political commentator Charlie Kirk this week, there have been concerns about Musk’s safety, as well as that of other high-profile business leaders and political figures.

Earlier this week, Musk said himself that his security detail would be increased significantly following Kirk’s death, a move that many investors and fans of the company had requested because of political violence.

Elon Musk assures Tesla investors he will enhance his security detail

“Definitely need to enhance security,” Musk said. Tesla spent $3.3 million on Musk’s security in 2024 and January and February 2025. For reference, Meta spent over $27 million on Mark Zuckerberg’s security last year, which is higher than any other tech CEO.

During Denholm’s appearance on Bloomberg TV earlier today, she stated that the company has been focused on Musk’s security detail for “many years,” especially considering he is one of the richest people on Earth and holds an incredible amount of influence.

“It is something that we take very seriously; he takes it very seriously as well. So, again, from a board perspective, it is something we’ve discussed at length,” Denholm said.

Denholm added that she believes “there is not anyone in a boardroom that is not touched by what has happened with Charlie Kirk.”

Although Musk’s political involvement has toned down significantly in the past, he still has enemies, especially based on groups that oppose him and the company specifically. Based on this week’s events, it feels that increased security is a necessary expense Tesla must account for.

Continue Reading

Trending