News
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon suffers catastrophic explosion during static fire test
Six weeks after the spacecraft completed its orbital launch debut, SpaceX’s first flight-proven Crew Dragon capsule suffered a catastrophic explosion seconds before a planned SuperDraco test fire.
In the last nine years, SpaceX has successfully built, tested, launched, and recovered Cargo and Crew Dragons 18 times, including five instances of Cargo Dragon capsule reuse, all with minor or no issues. The April 20th event is the first time in the known history of SpaceX’s orbital spacecraft program that a vehicle – in this case, the first completed and flight-proven Crew Dragon capsule – has suffered a total failure. Regardless of the accident investigation’s ultimate conclusions, the road ahead of Crew Dragon’s first crewed test flight has become far more arduous.
According to information acquired by NASASpaceflight.com, SpaceX was in the middle of a series of static fire tests meant to verify that the flight-proven capsule was in good working order after Crew Dragon’s inaugural mission to orbit. The spacecraft was to be tested near SpaceX’s Cape Canaveral Landing Zone facilities, where the company has a small but dedicated space for Dragon tests. Crew Dragon C201’s testing began earlier on Saturday, successfully firing up its smaller Draco maneuvering thrusters. This transitioned into a planned SuperDraco ignition, what would have been the first such integrated test fire for capsule C201.
SpaceX planned to rapidly reuse Crew Dragon C201 for an upcoming in-flight abort (IFA) test, in which the spacecraft would be required to successfully escape from Falcon 9 at the point of peak aerodynamic stress (Max Q). Based on a leaked video of the failure, one or several faults in Crew Dragon’s design and/or build led to a near-instantaneous explosion that destroyed the spacecraft. Sound in the background seems to indicate that the explosion occurred several seconds before the planned SuperDraco ignition, a major concern given their pressure-fed design.
As pressure-fed rocket engines specifically designed to be the basis of a launch escape system, Crew Dragon and its SuperDraco thrusters are meant to be ready to ignite at a millisecond’s notice once they are armed in a flight-ready configuration. It’s safe to say that ten seconds away from a specifically planned ignition is one of those moments, although there is a limited chance that SpaceX’s static fire procedures intentionally diverge from an abort-triggered ignition. Regardless, the fact that Crew Dragon was destroyed before the ignition of its SuperDracos is not an encouraging sign.
Instead of a problem with its high-performance abort thrusters, it can be tentatively concluded that Crew Dragon’s explosion originated in its fuel tanks or propellant plumbing. Such an immediate and energetic explosion points more towards a total failure of propellant lines or valves (or their avionics), while another – and potentially far more concerning – cause could be one of Crew Dragon’s pressure vessels. In a space as enclosed as a Dragon capsule, the rupture of a pressure vessel could trigger a chain reaction of pressure vessel failures, freeing both oxidizer (NTO) and fuel (MMH). Known as hypergolic propellant, NTO and MMH ignite immediately (and violently so) when mixed.
It’s quite possible that the accident investigation to follow will be SpaceX’s most difficult and trying yet. Regardless of the specific cause, the footage of Crew Dragon C201’s demise does not support any positive conclusions about the fate of astronauts or passengers, had they been aboard during the violent explosion. Seemingly triggered in some way by the very system meant to safely extricate Crew Dragon and its astronauts from a failing Falcon 9 rocket, major work will need to be done to prove to NASA that the spacecraft is safe. Sadly, Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft – funded in parallel with Crew Dragon under NASA’s Commercial Crew Program – suffered a far less severe but no less significant failure during a static fire test of its own abort thrusters. Boeing was forced to remove the impacted hardware from its flight plans to extensively clean, repair, and rework the service module.
NASA is now faced with the fact that both of the spacecraft it supported with CCP have exhibited major failures related to their launch escape systems. Crew Dragon’s catastrophic explosion comes as a particularly extreme surprise given how extensively SpaceX has already tested the SuperDraco engines and plumbing, as well as the successful completion of the spacecraft’s launch debut. In the process of DM-1 launch preparations, Crew Dragon likely spent a minimum of 80 minutes with its SuperDraco thrusters and propellant systems primed and ready to abort at any second, apparently without a single mildly-concerning issue.
Godspeed to SpaceX and NASA as they enter into this challenging and unplanned failure investigation.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk takes latest barb at Bill Gates over Tesla short position
Bill Gates placed a massive short bet against Tesla of ~1% of our total shares, which might have cost him over $10B by now
Elon Musk took his latest barb at former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates over his short position against the company, which the two have had some tensions over for a number of years.
Gates admitted to Musk several years ago through a text message that he still held a short position against his sustainable car and energy company. Ironically, Gates had contacted Musk to explore philanthropic opportunities.
Elon Musk explains Bill Gates beef: He ‘placed a massive bet on Tesla dying’
Musk said he could not take the request seriously, especially as Gates was hoping to make money on the downfall of the one company taking EVs seriously.
The Tesla frontman has continued to take shots at Gates over the years from time to time, but the latest comment came as Musk’s net worth swelled to over $600 billion. He became the first person ever to reach that threshold earlier this week, when Tesla shares increased due to Robotaxi testing without any occupants.
Musk refreshed everyone’s memory with the recent post, stating that if Gates still has his short position against Tesla, he would have lost over $10 billion by now:
Bill Gates placed a massive short bet against Tesla of ~1% of our total shares, which might have cost him over $10B by now
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 17, 2025
Just a month ago, in mid-November, Musk issued his final warning to Gates over the short position, speculating whether the former Microsoft frontman had still held the bet against Tesla.
“If Gates hasn’t fully closed out the crazy short position he has held against Tesla for ~8 years, he had better do so soon,” Musk said. This came in response to The Gates Foundation dumping 65 percent of its Microsoft position.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk sends final warning to Bill Gates over short position
Musk’s involvement in the U.S. government also drew criticism from Gates, as he said that the reductions proposed by DOGE against U.S.A.I.D. were “stunning” and could cause “millions of additional deaths of kids.”
“Gates is a huge liar,” Musk responded.
It is not known whether Gates still holds his Tesla short position.
Tesla made a change to the Cybertruck, and nobody noticed. But to be fair, nobody could have, but it was revealed by the program’s lead engineer that it was aimed toward simplifying manufacturing through a minor change in casting.
After the Cybertruck was given a Top Safety Pick+ award by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), for its reputation as the safest pickup on the market, some wondered what had changed about the vehicle.
Tesla makes changes to its vehicles routinely through Over-the-Air software updates, but aesthetic changes are relatively rare. Vehicles go through refreshes every few years, as the Model 3 and Model Y did earlier this year. However, the Cybertruck is one of the vehicles that has not changed much since its launch in late 2023, but it has gone through some minor changes.
Most recently, Wes Morrill, the Cybertruck program’s Lead Engineer, stated that the company had made a minor change to the casting of the all-electric pickup for manufacturing purposes. This change took place in April:
We made a minor change on the casting for manufacturability in April. Our Internal testing shows no difference in crash result but IIHS only officially tested the latest version
— Wes (@wmorrill3) December 17, 2025
The change is among the most subtle that can be made, but it makes a massive difference in manufacturing efficiency, build quality, and scalability.
Morrill revealed Tesla’s internal testing showed no difference in crash testing results performed by the IIHS.
The 2025 Cybertruck received stellar ratings in each of the required testing scenarios and categories. The Top Safety Pick+ award is only given if it excels in rigorous crash tests. This requires ‘Good’ ratings in updated small and moderate overlap front, side, roof, and head restraints.
Additionally, it must have advanced front crash prevention in both day and night. Most importantly, the vehicle must have a ‘Good’ or ‘Acceptable’ headlights standard on all trims, with the “+ ” specifically demanding the toughest new updated moderate overlap test that checks rear-seat passenger protection alongside driver safety.
Tesla has entered an interesting situation with its Full Self-Driving suite in California, as the State’s Department of Motor Vehicles had adopted an order for a suspension of the company’s sales license, but it immediately put it on hold.
The company has been granted a reprieve as the DMV is giving Tesla an opportunity to “remedy the situation.” After the suspension was recommended for 30 days as a penalty, the DMV said it would give Tesla 90 days to allow the company to come into compliance.
The DMV is accusing Tesla of misleading consumers by using words like Autopilot and Full Self-Driving on its advanced driver assistance (ADAS) features.
The State’s DMV Director, Steve Gordon, said that he hoped “Tesla will find a way to get these misleading statements corrected.” However, Tesla responded to the story on Tuesday, stating that this was a “consumer protection” order for the company using the term Autopilot.
It said “not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.” It added that “sales in California will continue uninterrupted.”
This was a “consumer protection” order about the use of the term “Autopilot” in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.
Sales in California will continue uninterrupted.
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) December 17, 2025
Tesla has used the terms Autopilot and Full Self-Driving for years, but has added the term “(Supervised)” to the end of the FSD suite, hoping to remedy some of the potential issues that regulators in various areas might have with the labeling of the program.
It might not be too long before Tesla stops catching flak for using the Full Self-Driving name to describe its platform.
Tesla Robotaxi goes driverless as Musk confirms Safety Monitor removal testing
The Robotaxi suite has continued to improve, and this week, vehicles were spotted in Austin without any occupants. CEO Elon Musk would later confirm that Tesla had started testing driverless rides in Austin, hoping to launch rides without any supervision by the end of the year.
Elon Musk takes latest barb at Bill Gates over Tesla short position
Tesla Cybertruck gets small change that makes a big difference
