News
Boeing Starliner abort test (mostly) a success as SpaceX nears Crew Dragon static fire
On November 4th, Boeing completed a crucial pad abort test of its reusable Starliner spacecraft, successful in spite of an unintentional partial failure of its parachute recovery system. Three days later, Boeing revealed what it believed to be the cause of that anomaly in a November 7th press conference.
Meanwhile, SpaceX – having completed Crew Dragon’s pad abort test in 2015 – is preparing for an equally important In-Flight Abort (IFA) test and is perhaps just a day or two away from static firing the Crew Dragon capsule assigned to the test flight.
According to a NASA press release after the test, it “was designed to verify [that] each of Starliner’s systems will function not only separately, but in concert, to protect astronauts by carrying them safely away from the launch pad in the unlikely event of an emergency prior to liftoff.” Although the test wasn’t without flaws, the pad abort test successfully demonstrated the ability of the four launch abort engines and control thrusters to safely extricate astronauts from a failing rocket.
Those theoretical astronauts would have almost certainly survived the ordeal unharmed despite the failed deployment of one of Starliner’s three main parachutes, testing the spacecraft’s abort capabilities and redundancy quite a bit more thoroughly than Boeing intended. To put it bluntly, Boeing’s above tweet and PR claim that the failed deployment of 1/3 parachutes is “acceptable for the test parameters and crew safety” is an aggressive spin on a partial failure that NASA undoubtedly did not sign off on.
Boeing and SpaceX have both suffered failures while testing parachutes, leading NASA to require significantly more testing. However, in a November 7th press conference, Boeing revealed that Starliner’s parachute anomaly wasn’t the result of hardware failing unexpectedly under planned circumstances, but rather a consequence of a lack of quality assurance that failed to catch a major human error. Boeing says that a critical mechanical linkage (a pin) was improperly installed by a technician and then not verified prior to launch, causing one of Starliner’s three drogue chutes to simply detach from the spacecraft instead of deploying its respective main parachute.
Space is Parachutes are hard
Parachutes have been a major area of concern for the Commercial Crew Program. Both SpaceX and Boeing have now suffered failures during testing and have since been required to perform a range of additional tests to verify that upgraded and improved parachutes are ready to reliably return NASA astronauts to Earth. Although the Starliner pad abort test did indeed demonstrate the ability to land the capsule safely under two main chutes, an inadvertent test of redundancy, the series of Boeing actions that lead to the failure will almost certainly be scrutinized by NASA to avoid reoccurrences.
Boeing believes that the parachute failure won’t delay the launch of Starliner’s Orbital Flight Test (OFT), currently targeting a launch no earlier than (NET) December 17th. However, it can be said with some certainty that it will delay Starliner’s crewed launch debut (CFT), at least until Boeing can prove to NASA that it has corrected the fault(s) that allowed it to happen. SpaceX is similarly working to qualify upgraded Crew Dragon parachutes for astronaut launches, although the company has thus far only suffered anomalies related to the structural failure of parachute rigging/seams/fabric.
Abort tests galore
Boeing’s Starliner pad abort test occurred just days prior to a different major abort test milestone – this time for SpaceX. SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule C205 will perform a static fire test of its upgraded SuperDraco abort system, as well as its Draco maneuvering thrusters.
SpaceX has made alterations to the SuperDraco engines to prevent a failure mode that abruptly reared its head in April 2019, when a leaky valve and faulty design resulted in a catastrophic explosion milliseconds before a SuperDraco static fire test. Prior to its near-total destruction, Crew Dragon capsule C201 was assigned to SpaceX’s In-Flight Abort test, and its loss (and the subsequent failure investigation) delayed the test’s launch by at least six months. Crew Dragon’s design has since been fixed by replacing reusable check valves with single-use burst discs, nominally preventing propellant or oxidizer leaks.
If capsule C205’s static fire testing – scheduled no earlier than November 9th – goes as planned, SpaceX may be able to launch Crew Dragon’s in-flight abort (IFA) test before the end of 2019e. Likely to be a bit of a spectacle, Crew Dragon will launch atop a flight-proven Falcon 9 booster and a second stage with a mass simulator in place of its Merlin Vacuum engine, both of which will almost certainly be destroyed when Dragon departs the rocket during peak aerodynamic pressure.
NASA made in-flight abort tests an optional step for its Commercial Crew providers and Boeing decided to perform a pad abort only and rely on modeling and simulations to verify that Starliner’s in-flight abort safety. Assuming that NASA is happy with the results of Starliner’s pad abort and Boeing can alleviate concerns about the parachute anomaly suffered during the test, Starliner’s uncrewed orbital flight test (OFT) could launch as early as December 17th. Starliner’s crewed flight test (CFT) could occur some 3-6 months after that if all goes as planned during the OFT.
If SpaceX’s In-Flight Abort (IFA) also goes as planned and NASA is content with the results, Crew Dragon could be ready for its crewed launch debut (Demo-2) as early as February or March 2020.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
