News
SpaceX bests Boeing to become NASA’s largest for-profit vendor
Fourteen years after winning its first major NASA contract, data shared by Aviation Week reporter Irene Klotz shows that SpaceX has usurped every other major aerospace company in the US to become the space agency’s largest for-profit vendor.
SpaceX’s ascension up those ranks has been arduous and far from guaranteed, but the company now provides NASA with a wide range of relatively affordable spaceflight services. SpaceX was paid a record $2.04 billion for those services in the 2022 fiscal year. Only the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), a nonprofit that includes the entirety of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and received $2.68 billion in the same period, ranks higher on NASA’s list of FY2022 vendors. Boeing came in third with $1.72 billion, followed by Lockheed Martin with $1.34 billion.
Cargo
NASA kickstarted its relationship with SpaceX in December 2008 when it awarded the company a $1.5 billion contract to develop the first versions of the Cargo Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 rocket and deliver cargo to the International Space Station (ISS). Famously, founder and CEO Elon Musk once told 60 Minutes that, to a degree, NASA’s contract saved SpaceX from imminent bankruptcy and possible dissolution.
Saved by the infusion of resources, SpaceX successfully debuted Falcon 9 in June 2010 and began operational ISS cargo deliveries under NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) program in October 2012. Aside from a survivable engine failure on CRS-1 (2012) and one catastrophic Falcon 9 failure on CRS-7 (2015), NASA and SpaceX’s CRS cooperation has been a thorough success. SpaceX is just a few weeks away from CRS-26, which will likely become Cargo Dragon’s 26th successful ISS cargo delivery in 10 years.
NASA ultimately paid SpaceX $3.04 billion to complete its first 20 CRS missions. SpaceX’s newer CRS-2 contract, which bore launches in January 2021, has 15 missions on contract and will likely cost NASA another $3.5 billion by the mid-2020s. SpaceX launches an average of three CRS missions per year, likely translating to about $700 million in annual revenue. SpaceX completed two Cargo Dragon launches for NASA in FY2022.
Crew
The second biggest contributor to SpaceX’s NASA revenue is Crew Dragon. In 2014, NASA contracted with SpaceX and Boeing to independently develop spacecraft capable of safely transporting astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS), taking over the role the Space Shuttle and Russian Soyuz spacecraft filled from 2000 to 2020. Crew Dragon completed its first uncrewed orbital test flight in March 2019 and its first crewed test flight in May 2020. Operational launches began in November 2020.
Subverting all expectations, Boeing’s Starliner crew capsule completed its first fully successful uncrewed test flight in May 2022, a full three years behind SpaceX. Starliner’s first crewed test flight is now scheduled no earlier than (NET) February 2023, while its first operational astronaut launch is tentatively scheduled for Q3 2023 at the earliest. Thanks to Boeing’s woeful performance, SpaceX has been responsible for launching every NASA astronaut (save one) since late 2020 and will continue to do so well into 2023. That means that SpaceX is on call for two Crew Dragon launches per year for NASA, whereas the Commercial Crew Program originally hoped that SpaceX and Boeing would each launch once per year.
In 2022, NASA took the extraordinary step of purchasing eight additional Crew Dragon launches while buying zero extra Starliner launches. Through 2030, SpaceX is now under contract to complete 14 operational Crew Dragon missions for NASA for $4.93 billion – less than the $5.1 billion NASA will pay Boeing for just six operational Starliner launches. For its first six operational missions, SpaceX is charging NASA about $220 million apiece. For Crew-7 through Crew-14, SpaceX will charge approximately $290 to $300 million per mission.
SpaceX completed two Crew Dragon launches for NASA in FY2022.
Falcon
Aside from launching Dragons for NASA, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets are also heavily relied upon to launch a wide range of scientific spacecraft through the Solar System. Since 2010, NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) has paid SpaceX almost $1 billion to complete six launches (worth about $400M) and prepare for at least nine others. The nine additional LSP launches SpaceX is scheduled to complete between November 2022 and June 2026 will cost NASA around $1.4 billion. Five of those missions will use SpaceX’s larger Falcon Heavy rocket and represent more than $1 billion of that $1.4 billion.
In FY2022, SpaceX completed two NASA LSP launches for about $120 million.
Starship
Finally, the last major line item on NASA’s SpaceX expenditures is focused on Starship. In April 2021, NASA awarded SpaceX a $2.9 billion Human Landing System (HLS) contract (~$3 billion including previous funding) to develop a Starship-derived Moon landing system capable of transporting astronauts to and from the lunar surface. Since 2020, NASA has paid SpaceX $1.26 billion for its work on HLS, more than $800 million of which was disbursed in FY2022.
All told, a rough estimate of the four programs above accounts for about $1.82 billion of the $2.04 billion NASA paid SpaceX in FY2022. SpaceX was also paid about $50 million for work on its 2024 launch of Europa Clipper, leaving about $170 million that can probably be explained by other advance payments for work on upcoming Dragon and LSP launches.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
