Connect with us
Crew Dragon is lifted off the deck of SpaceX recovery vessel GO Searcher after safely arriving at Port Canaveral, March 10th. (NASA) Crew Dragon is lifted off the deck of SpaceX recovery vessel GO Searcher after safely arriving at Port Canaveral, March 10th. (NASA)

News

SpaceX’s Crew Dragon suffers catastrophic explosion during static fire test

Crew Dragon C201 is lifted off the deck of a SpaceX recovery vessel on March 10th. C201 was destroyed in an explosion on April 20th. (NASA)

Published

on

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.

https://twitter.com/Astronut099/status/1119825093742530560

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.

https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1119754804258062337

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.

Advertisement
-
-

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Tesla CEO Elon Musk denies ridiculous Gigafactory Shanghai rumor

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

Tesla CEO Elon Musk took to his social media platform X on Thursday night to deny a ridiculous rumor regarding the sale of the company’s Chinese vehicle production plant, Gigafactory Shanghai.

On Thursday, the Wall Street Journal, citing sources familiar with the matter, claimed in a scathing new report that Tesla was exploring a potential sale of the entire China business in an effort to help bolster a potential merger between SpaceX and Tesla.

Musk immediately denied the rumor not once but twice, initially calling it “fake news,” and then calling it “absurdly fake news” in a separate post just a few moments later:

The original poster of the Wall Street Journal article that Musk saw deleted the initial post sharing the headline and the rumored sale of Tesla’s China business.

The report seemed absolutely and unequivocally false to begin with; Tesla’s business in China is among the most important pieces of the company’s business. Not only does the factory supply vehicles for the domestic market, but also for various other markets in Asia and Europe.

China is also one of the largest automotive markets in the world, and Tesla has performed well there despite the robust competition.

The speculation regarding a Tesla and SpaceX merger has started to gain steam this year as the space exploration company went public just a month ago. There has been speculation that Musk will bridge all of his companies under one “umbrella company,” and analysts believe this could happen before the end of the decade.

The Tesla and SpaceX merger everyone is talking about is quietly building

This is the latest iteration of Musk’s very evident war on mainstream media. Reports regarding any of Musk’s companies are quick to get the dreaded “false” or “fake news” response from the CEO when they are unfounded.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla AI boss reveals how big Optimus is going to get

Tesla’s Optimus chief corrected himself on X, confirming a staggering 10 million robot production target.

Published

on

By

Tesla Optimus Gen 3 [Credit: Tesla]

Tesla’s Optimus program has a new number attached to it, after Ashok Elluswamy, the executive who has run the humanoid robot program since June 2025, posted a three word correction on X Thursday, “Correction, 10 million robots.”

The line clarifies the long term annual capacity Tesla is building toward its planned second Optimus production line at Gigafactory Texas, a figure Musk has cited repeatedly since last year’s shareholder meeting.

The scale is worth noting, because ten million robots a year would mean Tesla building more units annually than most countries sell in new cars. Tesla has framed this as a second line, not the first. The buildout is happening in two phases: a roughly one million unit per year line inside Tesla’s Fremont factory, installed on the floor space vacated when Model S and Model X production ended earlier this year, and a much larger dedicated facility under construction at Giga Texas that broke ground on its first steel structure in May. That Texas facility is the one Elluswamy’s correction refers to, and is expected to reach volume production sometime in 2027.

Tesla Optimus project fires up as Musk sees production line progress

Elluswamy took over Optimus from Milan Kovac last summer and has spent the months since talking up the program’s trajectory. Elon Musk has also floated the ten million figure at Tesla’s 2025 shareholder meeting.

Ending Model S and Model X production to make room for the first Optimus line was one of the more consequential manufacturing decisions in the company’s recent history, retiring two flagship vehicles in favor of a robot that has yet to enter mass production. Musk has previously estimated per unit production costs at $20,000 to $25,000 once Tesla reaches a million units a year, though he hasn’t said what that cost looks like at ten times the volume.

Continue Reading

News

Autonomous vehicle red tape gets slashed by Trump Administration

Published

on

Credit: Zoox

The Trump Administration today made several key moves to help with the deployment of autonomous vehicles by cutting overreaching red tape that has stifled growth and innovation for years.

The moves, which were put forth by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), aim to grant temporary exemptions to at least one company currently, although that could expand in the coming months. Additionally, it will work with organizations to develop standards and a sound but efficient regulatory landscape.

Zoox is the only company mentioned explicitly by the Trump Administration in its press release announcing the new terms today. They will receive a temporary two-year exemption that will allow the commercial deployment of up to 2,500 vehicles annually for two years.

There is a potential exemption for Robomart, Inc., which “requests a temporary exemption from certain FMVSS No. 500 requirements for a low-speed vehicle operated by an ADS without a human driver onboard. NHTSA will publish a separate notice seeking public comment on its merits once the initial evaluation is complete,” the agency said.

Here are the five new terms that Secretary Sean Duffy has implemented through the NHTSA today:

  1. Allow Zoox to commercially deploy its robotaxis through a temporary exemption.
    This temporary exemption will allow the commercial deployment of up to 2,500 vehicles annually for two years, subject to an enhanced, adaptable oversight structure that can evolve as Zoox’s technology advances.
  2. Accelerate development of first-ever AV performance standards through a partnership with SAE Industry Technologies Consortia (ITC).
    This partnership will fund a three-year, $5 million “A2SCEND” consortium, bringing together experts to gather data and accelerate creation of the first-ever AV performance standards. This project will inform a single national standard for AV safety to eliminate the patchwork regulatory landscape that has stifled innovation for years.
  3. Publish an interim final rule that allows vehicles manufactured prior to an exemption to be eligible for a commercial deployment exemption.
    This rule will modernize the application process and improve access to exemptions for innovators, including AV developers, by granting the NHTSA Administrator the discretion to apply temporary exemptions to vehicles manufactured prior to the effective date of an exemption grant.
  4. Streamline the application process for Part 555 exemptions by updating guidance and soliciting feedback from the public.
    By updating the Part 555 exemption process—which allows automakers to temporarily sell a limited number of non-compliant vehicles, primarily to test new technologies—NHTSA is aiming to create a more flexible oversight structure for exemptions and summarize recent AV framework activities, including expanded exemption pathways, streamlined crash reporting, and ongoing efforts to modernize Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
  5. Establish a new Federal Docket for public feedback on NHTSA’s updated safe AV development and deployment guidance.
    NHTSA is updating its technical guidance for AVs for the first time since 2017—focusing on key safety areas like emergency responder interactions, safety management systems, remote assistance, and post-crash behavior to help the industry scale up driverless deployments safely.

Additionally, the NHTSA said it has modernized some safety standards by proposing updates to:

  • FMVSS 102 – Transmission shifting
  • FMVSS 103/104 – Windshield defrosting and wiping
  • FMVSS 110 – Tire placards
  • FMVSS 135 – Braking systems
  • FMVSS 101 – Controls and displays
  • FMVSS 108 – Vehicle lighting
  • FMVSS 111 – Mirrors and rearview display
  • FMVSS 126 – Electronic stability control systems
  • FMVSS 201/208 – Sun visors and warning labels

These changes aim to make the regulatory process for autonomous vehicles more streamlined and efficient, which could help the U.S. gain dominance over autonomous vehicle systems moving forward.

Continue Reading