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.

Comments

News

Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised) v14.1.7 real-world drive and review

On an hour-long drive, we tested v14.1.7 and tested its new capabilities, which are mostly overall performance and smoothness fixes rather than integrations of new features that are unknown to routine FSD users.

Published

12 hours ago

on

November 13, 2025

By

tesla interior operating on full self driving
Credit: TESLARATI

Tesla started rolling out its Full Self-Driving (Supervised) v14.1.7 suite last night to owners, and there are several improvements to note within the new update that are at least the start of fixes to highly-mentioned issues.

On an hour-long drive, we tested v14.1.7 and tested its new capabilities, which are mostly overall performance and smoothness fixes rather than integrations of new features that are unknown to routine FSD users. However, there are a handful of shortcomings that are still present within the suite, which are not something that will be fixed within the span of a single update.

For what it is, Full Self-Driving does an excellent job of navigating — once you get it on its correct path. Our issues tend to be confined to navigation, routing, and the decision-making process that has to do with the way the car wants to get you to your destination. There were five things that happened on our first drive with v14.1.7 that are worth mentioning. The full drive will be available at the bottom of this article.

Navigation and Routing Still Seems to Be a Major Challenge

In past content, we’ve discussed the issues with routing and navigation, and how a Tesla chooses its path. Most noticeably, these issues occur in the same areas; for me, it’s my local Supercharger. My 2026 Model Y with AI4 continues to pick less-than-optimal routes out of the Supercharger, and in this instance, it actually chose to turn down a road, pull over, and give me the wheel, essentially asking, “Hey, can you get me on the right track here?”

This is still my biggest bone to pick with FSD, even more so than some of the bonehead moves it’s made in tougher scenarios (mostly parking lots with very limited visibility due to shrubs being planted in the worst possible locations). It’s rare that it happens, but this particular Supercharger has been a true thorn in the side of my Tesla.

This is not an issue that is confined to v14.1.7, or even v14 in general. Unfortunately, it is an issue that has persisted throughout my ownership experience, as well as during Demo Drives.

Stuttering and Hesitation at Intersections was Non-Existent

There was some confusion regarding my language in a recent article where I stated Tesla is confronting the issues that have been reported regarding the “stabbing” with braking.

“Tesla began the v14.1.4 launch last night, which included minor improvements and addressed brake-stabbing issues many owners have reported. In my personal experience, the stabbing has been awful on v14.1.3, and is a major concern.

However, many things have improved, and only a couple of minor issues have been recurring. Many of the issues v13 addressed are no longer an issue, so Tesla has made significant progress.”
It has undoubtedly improved, but it is not resolved.

With that being said, I did not feel a single example of hesitation, stabbing, or stuttering at a single intersection or instance when it has been present in the past. CEO Elon Musk said it would be fixed with v14.2, so it seems like Tesla is well on its way to resolving it.

Proper Handling of Crosswalks

It’s crazy how many people still do not stop for pedestrians at clearly-marked crosswalks. I had two instances of it happen during the drive, with FSD stopping for those pedestrians both times.

Human drivers did not stop either time:

Handled Merging onto a Highway with an Inconsiderate Driver Well

Routinely, drivers will get over into the left lane, if they are able, to allow merging traffic to safely enter the freeway. It does not always happen this way, and it’s not required by law.

Not exclusive to v14.1.7, as many past iterations would have done this as well, but it was nice to watch the vehicle slow down to let that traffic pass. It then entered the freeway safely, and the entire maneuver was well done.

Took an Appropriate Move with Oncoming Foot Traffic and Debris in a Tight Alleyway

This was probably the most on-edge I was during the drive because: 1) FSD chose to take an unnecessary alleyway, and 2) there was a box and oncoming pedestrians.

The car was aware of everything that was going on. In order to avoid the box, it would have had to turn toward the pedestrians, and in order to avoid the pedestrians, it would have had to turn into the box.

It chose to wait patiently, and after the pedestrians were past the car, FSD chose to proceed.

Closing Thoughts

Overall, we’re very impressed with v14.1.7, and we think this is Tesla’s best iteration of the FSD suite yet, as it should be since it’s the newest version available. Tesla’s attention to detail regarding the brake stabbing is really well done, and it seems evident that a complete fix is on its way.

Other than the navigation issue at the very beginning, which was not an intervention, at least in my opinion, this was a really successful drive.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk debunks report claiming xAI raised $15 billion in funding round

xAI also responded with what appeared to be an automated reply, stating, “Legacy Media Lies.”

Published

14 hours ago

on

November 13, 2025

By

Credit: xAI

Elon Musk has debunked a report claiming his AI startup xAI had raised $15 billion from a funding round. Reports of the alleged funding round were initially reported by CNBC, which cited sources reportedly familiar with the matter.

CNBC’s report

The CNBC story cited unnamed sources that claimed that the new capital injection would help fund GPUs that xAI needs to train its large language model, Grok. The news outlet noted that following the funding round, xAI was valued at $200 billion. 

Artificial intelligence startups have been raising funds from investors as of late. OpenAI raised $6.6 billion in October, valuing the startup at a staggering $500 billion. Reuters also reported last month that OpenAI was preparing for an IPO with a valuation of $1 trillion. Elon Musk’s xAI is looking to catch up and disrupt OpenAI, as well as its large language model, ChatGPT, which has become ubiquitous.

Elon Musk and xAI’s responses

In his response on X, Elon Musk simply stated that the CNBC story was “false.” He did not, however, explain if the whole premise of the publication’s article was fallacious, or if only parts of it were inaccurate. 

Amusingly enough, xAI also issued a response when asked about the matter by Reuters, which also reported on the story. The artificial intelligence startup responded with what appeared to be an automated reply, which read, “Legacy Media Lies.”

Advertisement

xAI, founded in July 2023 as an alternative to OpenAI and Anthropic, has aggressively built out infrastructure to support its flagship products, including Grok and its recently launched Grokipedia platform. The company is developing its Colossus supercomputer in Memphis, which is heralded as one of the world’s largest supercomputer clusters.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla reportedly testing Apple CarPlay integration: report

Citing insiders reportedly familiar with the matter, Bloomberg News claimed that CarPlay is being trialed by the EV maker internally.

Published

17 hours ago

on

November 13, 2025

By

Credit: Tesla

Tesla is reportedly testing Apple’s CarPlay software for its vehicles, marking a major shift after years of resisting the tech giant’s ecosystem. 

Citing insiders reportedly familiar with the matter, Bloomberg News claimed that CarPlay is being trialed by the EV maker internally. The move could help Tesla gain more market share, as surveys have shown many buyers consider CarPlay as an essential feature when choosing a car.

Not the usual CarPlay experience

Bloomberg claimed that Tesla’s tests involve a rather unique way to integrate CarPlay. Instead of replacing the vehicle’s entire infotainment display, Tesla’s integration will reportedly feature a CarPlay window on the infotainment system. This limited approach will ensure that Tesla’s own software, such as Full Self-Driving’s visuals, remains dominant. 

The feature is expected to support wireless connectivity as well, bringing Tesla in line with other luxury automakers that already offer CarPlay. While plans remain fluid and may change before public release, the publication’s sources claimed that the rollout could happen within months. 

A change of heart

Tesla has been reluctant to grant Apple access to its in-car systems, partly due to Elon Musk’s past criticism of the tech giant’s App Store policies and its poaching of Tesla engineers during the failed Apple Car project. Tesla’s in-house software is also deemed by numerous owners as a superior option to CarPlay, thanks to its sleek design and rich feature set.

Advertisement

With Apple’s retreat from building cars and Elon Musk’s relationship with Apple for X and Grok, however, the CEO’s stance on the tech giant seems to be improving. Overall, Tesla’s potential CarPlay integration would likely be appreciated by owners, as a McKinsey & Co. survey last year found that roughly one-third of buyers considered the lack of such systems a deal-breaker.

Continue Reading

Trending