

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.
News
Tesla removed from Charlotte’s approved EV list due to ‘safety issues’
City reps say it’s not because of Elon Musk’s political involvement, but instead because of safety issues.

Tesla has been removed from the Charlotte, North Carolina, City Council’s list of pre-approved electric vehicles that the city can purchase.
It’s not because of Elon Musk, Democratic council member LaWana Mayfield said, who urged her colleagues to remove Tesla. Instead, she claims it is because of “safety issues.”
She said (via WFAE):
“So it is not just the particular owner of this product. It is the fact that this product has been in multiple lawsuits because of safety issues, and there are multiple concerns.”
Recent data from Tesla shows that its vehicles are about half as likely to be involved in an accident when being driven normally. When Autopilot technology is used, it is about ten times safer than the average driver in the U.S., statistically.
Tesla Vehicle Safety Report shows Autopilot is 10x better than humans
Republican City Council member Ed Driggs stood up for Tesla, saying that:
“I think we just set a dangerous precedent if we have reasons that aren’t related to the cost and the performance of purchased items for excluding them. We already have Teslas in the fleet.”
If they’re so dangerous, why are they already in the fleet?
The NHTSA also shows that Ford is the most recalled car company in 2025, with 81 total recalls. Tesla has just five for the year.
Driggs said to Mayfield during the meeting:
“We are not identifying names on this list. You are singling out one name on this list for political reasons. You don’t have enough data on Tesla compared to the other car companies to suggest they shouldn’t be here. I object to trying to disguise this as anything other than a politically motivated desire to not have this name on this list.”
Tesla was successfully removed by a 6-3 vote. Democrats Danté Anderson, Malcolm Graham, Renee Johnson, Victoria Watlington, and Tiawana Brown supported Tesla’s removal. Republican Edwin Peacock, along with Driggs and Democrat Dimple Ajmera, all voted no on removing Tesla.
The City of Charlotte will buy 45 new electric vehicles, and Teslas would likely be the best option. Many local law enforcement agencies across the U.S. have utilized them and have shown that the vehicles contribute to massive maintenance and cost of ownership reductions due to the lack of overall upkeep.
Tesla police fleet is saving taxpayers $80k per year on fuel costs: report
This is not the first time that a city in the U.S. has chosen to go in a different direction with its EV fleet plans. Tesla was chosen over Ford by the City of Baltimore for a $5 million expenditure that would bolster its fleet with EVs.
However, earlier this year, Baltimore said it “decided to go in a different direction,” and although it was not directly confirmed, the move seemed to be political.
News
Tesla threatened in France with claims of ‘deceptive’ practices
Tesla has been threatened by the Competition, Consumer Affairs, and Fraud Control Office in France after the agency said it is participating in “deceptive business practices” related to its semi-autonomous driving capabilities.

Tesla has been threatened by the Competition, Consumer Affairs, and Fraud Control Office in France after the agency said it is participating in “deceptive business practices” related to its semi-autonomous driving capabilities.
Investigators in the government office said that Tesla has engaged in deceptive commercial practices over the capabilities of its cars. In the past, other agencies and even some skeptics have said that Tesla’s use of the phrases “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving” is inaccurate in terms of its capabilities.
Tesla Autopilot gets stone cast in its direction by Pete Buttigieg
However, Tesla has been transparent with consumers and regulatory agencies that its cars are not yet fully autonomous, meaning drivers could sleep, play on their phones, or pay no attention to the road. The car would take care of steering and speed.
Tesla has never maintained that its cars are capable of this. On its website and in its Owner’s Manuals, it says that drivers are required to pay attention and be prepared to take over in case of an emergency.
The office began the investigation back in 2023 and, this week, ordered Tesla to comply with regulations within the next four months. If it does not, it will face fines of €50,000 per day.
This is not the first time Tesla has had some pushback from regulators regarding the naming of its semi-autonomous driving platforms. Back in 2023, then Secretary of Transportation in the United States, Pete Buttigieg, said the name “Autopilot” was not accurate because it is still a hands-on system:
“I don’t think that something should be called, for example, an Autopilot, when the fine print says you need to have your hands on the wheel and eyes on the road at all times. We call balls and strikes. I view it as something where it’s very important to be very objective. But anytime a company does something wrong or a vehicle needs to be recalled or a design isn’t safe, we’re going to be there.”
He then said that Autopilot and its interaction with the person operating the car is a “real concern.”
Elon Musk
Tesla Robotaxi launch draws attention from regulators, mainstream media milks it
The Tesla Robotaxi launch has resulted in some questions from the NHTSA, a typical thing for early launches. Media is milking it as a huge thing.

Tesla launched its Robotaxi platform in a limited capacity earlier this week in Austin, Texas, and after hundreds of rides have been taken, some instances have caught the attention of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
However, the information the NHTSA is requesting is routine and totally normal for the early stages of a rollout of this magnitude. But that did not stop mainstream media from milking it into something controversial, when it really is not.
Tesla Robotaxi riders tout ‘smooth’ experience in first reviews of driverless service launch
Various outlets reported on the NHTSA’s request to Tesla for additional information regarding things seen in videos online.
The NHTSA said it is “aware of the referenced incidents and is in contact with the manufacturer to gather additional information.” Bloomberg initially reported on the NHTSA’s request for information.
The thing is, the NHTSA has often reached out to companies right after it launches a driverless vehicle service. Both Waymo and GM’s Cruise, as well as Amazon’s Zoox, have had the NHTSA reach out to them regarding the launch of their driverless ride-hailing services.
The headlines for Tesla are significantly different:
- “Tesla’s Robotaxis Have Already Caught this US Safety Agency’s Attention“
- “Tesla’s Robotaxis have already caught the attention of federal safety regulators“
- “US safety regulators contact Tesla over erratic robotaxis“
Reviews from riders in Austin have stated the Robotaxi platform is “smooth” and “comfortable,” with many ranting and raving about the advantages the new ride-hailing service has over others. Not only is it being monitored by a safety monitor in the passenger seat, but there are also other things that make it unique.
One of the most notable is that your Robotaxi will automatically sync entertainment and streaming settings.
The sensationalism that the media tends to use with Tesla is a big reason the company did not invite mainstream outlets to the event. Instead, reporters were seen waiting for Early Access invitees to exit their cars to ask them questions.
Many denied the inquiries:
“Can I talk to you, I’m with Reuters”
> No
🤣🤣 @BeardedTesla @SawyerMerritt pic.twitter.com/jGUdakGzx1
— Robin (@xdNiBoR) June 22, 2025
Elon Musk responded to that video by saying “Lmao,” an acronym for “laughing my ass off.”
-
News2 weeks ago
First Tesla driverless robotaxi spotted in the wild in Austin, TX
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Tesla sues former Optimus engineer for stealing trade secrets
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Tesla CEO Elon Musk reveals new details about Robotaxi rollout
-
News2 weeks ago
SpaceX produces its 10 millionth Starlink kit
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla Robotaxi just got a big benefit from the U.S. government
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla launches new Model S and Model X, and the changes are slim
-
News1 week ago
Tesla confirms massive hardware change for autonomy improvement
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla Model Y proudly takes its place as China’s best-selling SUV in May