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.
Elon Musk
Tesla Supercharger for Business exposes jaw-dropping ROI gap between best and worst locations
Tesla’s new Supercharger for Business calculator reveals an eye-opening all-in cost and location-based ROI projections.
Tesla has launched an online calculator for its Supercharger for Business program, giving property owners their first transparent look at what it really costs to install Superchargers on site and what kind of return they can expect.
The program itself launched in September 2025, allowing businesses to purchase and operate Supercharger hardware on their own property while Tesla handles installation, maintenance, software, and 24/7 driver support. As Teslarati reported at launch, hosts also get their logo placed on the chargers and their location integrated into Tesla’s in-car navigation, meaning drivers are actively routed there. The stalls are open to all EVs, not just Teslas.
We launched Supercharger for Business in 2025 to help companies get charging right. We found simplicity and transparency to be a problem in this industry.
We’re now sharing pricing and a financial calculator to help make informed decisions. The goal is to accelerate investments,…
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) April 8, 2026
The new online calculator, announced by Tesla on Wednesday with the note that “simplicity and transparency” have been a problem in the industry, lets any business enter a U.S. address and get a real cost and revenue model. A standard 8-stall V4 Supercharger site runs approximately $500,000 in hardware and $55,000 per post for installation, bringing an all-in price just shy of $1 million. Tesla charges a flat $0.10 per kWh fee to cover software, billing, and network operations. Businesses set their own retail price and keep the margin above that fee.
Taking a look at Tesla’s Supercharger for Business online calculator, we can see that ROI is not uniform, and the gap between a strong location and a poor one can stretch the breakeven point by several years.
The biggest driver is foot traffic and how long people stay. A busy rest station, hotel, or outlet mall brings in repeat visitors who need to charge while they’re already stopped, pushing utilization numbers higher and shortening payback time.
Tesla Supercharger for Business ROI calculator
Local electricity rates matter just as much on the cost side. Markets like California carry some of the highest commercial electricity rates in the country, which eats into the margin between what a host pays per kWh and what they charge drivers. At the same time, dense urban areas with high EV adoption tend to support higher retail charging prices, which can offset that cost if demand is strong enough. Weather also plays a role. Cold climates reduce battery efficiency and increase charging frequency, but they can also suppress utilization in winter months if drivers avoid stopping in exposed outdoor locations. Suburban and rural sites face a different problem: lower baseline EV traffic, which means a site with cheaper power and lower operating costs can still take longer to pay back simply because the stalls sit idle more often. Tesla’s calculator uses real fleet data to pre-fill utilization estimates by ZIP code, so businesses can run their specific address against these variables rather than relying on averages.
The program has seen real adoption. Wawa, already the largest host of Tesla Superchargers with over 2,100 stalls across 223 locations, opened its first fully owned and branded site in Alachua, Florida earlier this year. Francis Energy of Oklahoma and the city of Alpharetta, Georgia have also deployed branded stations through the program, as Teslarati covered in January.
Tesla now exceeds 80,000 Supercharger stalls worldwide, and the calculator makes the economic case for accelerating that number through private investment rather than company-owned sites alone.
News
Elon Musk drops a bomb regarding Tesla Model S, X inventory
After more than a decade on the road, the original flagship sedan and SUV platforms are effectively at the end of the line. Production of new Model S and Model X vehicles has ceased, and custom orders were quietly halted in early April. What remains are roughly a few hundred factory inventory units scattered across the globe, mostly Plaid variants, and they are disappearing fast.
Elon Musk just dropped a bomb regarding Tesla Model S and X inventory, and as the company is phasing out the flagship vehicles, it sounds like the time to purchase one brand new is almost over.
Musk confirmed on Wednesday that there are “only a few hundred Tesla Model S & X cars left in inventory. Order now if you want one.”
Tesla is running out of units rather quickly.
The message from Musk reads like a final call for two of the company’s most storied vehicles.
Only a few hundred Tesla Model S & X cars left in inventory. Order now if you want one.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 8, 2026
After more than a decade on the road, the original flagship sedan and SUV platforms are effectively at the end of the line. Production of new Model S and Model X vehicles has ceased, and custom orders were quietly halted in early April. What remains are roughly a few hundred factory inventory units scattered across the globe, mostly Plaid variants, and they are disappearing fast.
The news marks the close of a remarkable 14-year chapter. Launched in 2012, the Model S redefined the electric vehicle with blistering acceleration, over-the-air updates, and a luxury interior that embarrassed traditional sedans.
The Model X followed in 2015, turning heads with its Falcon-wing doors and seating for seven.
Together, the Model S and Model X proved EVs could be desirable halo cars, not just eco-friendly commuters. Their departure clears factory space at Tesla’s Fremont plant for something the mass production of the Optimus humanoid robot, which Musk believes will be the greatest contributor to the company’s value.
Musk has repeatedly signaled that Tesla’s future lies beyond passenger cars. Resources once devoted to low-volume flagships are shifting toward autonomy, Robotaxis, and AI hardware. Optimus, the company’s general-purpose robot, is expected to handle manufacturing, household chores, and eventually complex labor.
In the short term, the scarcity has already driven prices on remaining inventory up by about $15,000, turning the last Model S and X into instant collector’s items.
Tesla uses Model S and X ‘sentimental’ value to enforce massive pricing move
The announcement underscores Tesla’s relentless pivot. While the Model Y continues to hold strong sales, the legacy S and X represented an earlier era of pure performance luxury.
The future has been paved by Tesla and Musk’s focus on autonomy, at least in the United States. Customers continue to call for a large SUV, which might be on the way after a recent nudge from Musk on X.
However, whatever the future holds, it has been forged by Tesla’s two flagship vehicles.
Once these final cars are gone, the Model S and Model X will live on only in driveways, forums, and the rear-view mirror of automotive history.
News
Tesla Cybercab production ignites with 60 units spotted at Giga Texas
Designed exclusively for unsupervised Full Self-Driving, the Cybercab promises to deliver safe, affordable, on-demand mobility without human drivers. Early units with temporary controls allow engineers to refine hardware and software in controlled settings before full autonomous fleets hit the roads.
Tesla Cybercab production at Giga Texas seems to have ignited, as 60 units were spotted outside of the production facility on Wednesday, with speculation hinting the all-electric ride-hailing vehicle could be headed to the lineup sooner rather than later.
Interestingly, they were also spotted with steering wheels, which Tesla said the car would be void of.
Giga Texas observer and drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer shared on X a new post that revealed approximately 60 Cybercabs parked in two organized groups in the factory’s outbound lot—the largest concentration observed to date.
Happy 8 April (Wednesday) at Giga Texas, especially for those wanting an update on Cybercabs … I saw about 60 of them in two groups in the outbound lot today … the largest grouping yet!
Also, looks like at least some of these have white seats and most still have clearly… pic.twitter.com/mZbKH96bA7
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) April 8, 2026
Tegtmeyer noted white seats inside several vehicles and clearly visible steering wheels on most. These are not yet the final steering-wheel-free production versions unveiled in 2024, but early units are likely undergoing validation testing for new features and real-world robotaxi operations across the country.
The timing could not be more symbolic. Tesla has consistently affirmed that mass manufacturing of the Cybercab would begin this month.
CEO Elon Musk has reiterated the April 2026 target multiple times, emphasizing that while initial output will be slow, following the classic S-curve of new-vehicle ramps, the Giga Texas line is being prepared to produce hundreds of units per week.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk outlines expectations for Cybercab production
The first Cybercab already rolled off the line in February, but April marks the official shift to volume production of this purpose-built, pedal- and steering-wheel-free autonomous vehicle.
These 60 Cybercabs signal far more than parked prototypes. They represent tangible proof that Tesla is executing on its ambitious robotaxi roadmap.
Designed exclusively for unsupervised Full Self-Driving, the Cybercab promises to deliver safe, affordable, on-demand mobility without human drivers. Early units with temporary controls allow engineers to refine hardware and software in controlled settings before full autonomous fleets hit the roads.
As production scales, Giga Texas, already home to Cybertruck production, will become the epicenter of Tesla’s autonomous revolution, targeting millions of vehicles annually in the years ahead.
For Tesla and its investors, this sighting underscores manufacturing excellence and timeline discipline. It counters skepticism about the company’s ability to deliver on next-generation vehicles amid a competitive autonomous landscape.
Broader implications are profound: lower transportation costs, reduced emissions, and safer roads as robotaxis proliferate. Musk’s vision of a future where Cybercabs operate 24/7, generating revenue for owners and riders alike, is now visibly underway.
With mass production officially ramping in April, today’s images are not just a snapshot of parked vehicles; they are the first frames of a mobility transformation. Tesla is not only meeting its commitments; it is accelerating toward an era where autonomy reshapes daily life. The Cybercab era has begun.
Tesla Supercharger for Business exposes jaw-dropping ROI gap between best and worst locations
Elon Musk drops a bomb regarding Tesla Model S, X inventory
