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 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
