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.
News
Swedish unions consider police report over Tesla Megapack Supercharger
The Tesla Megapack Supercharger opened shortly before Christmas in Arlandastad, outside Stockholm.
Swedish labor unions are considering whether to file a police report related to a newly opened Tesla Megapack Supercharger near Stockholm, citing questions about how electricity is supplied to the site. The matter has also been referred to Sweden’s energy regulator.
Tesla Megapack Supercharger
The Tesla Megapack Supercharger opened shortly before Christmas in Arlandastad, outside Stockholm. Unlike traditional charging stations, the site is powered by an on-site Megapack battery rather than a direct grid connection. Typical grid connections for Tesla charging sites in Sweden have seen challenges for nearly two years due to union blockades.
Swedish labor union IF Metall has submitted a report to the Energy Market Inspectorate, asking the authority to assess whether electricity supplied to the battery system meets regulatory requirements, as noted in a report from Dagens Arbete (DA). The Tesla Megapack on the site is charged using electricity supplied by a local company, though the specific provider has not been publicly identified.
Peter Lydell, an ombudsman at IF Metall, issued a comment about the Tesla Megapack Supercharger. “The legislation states that only companies that engage in electricity trading may supply electricity to other parties. You may not supply electricity without a permit, then you are engaging in illegal electricity trading. That is why we have reported this… This is about a company that helps Tesla circumvent the conflict measures that exist. It is clear that it is troublesome and it can also have consequences,” Lydell said.
Police report under consideration
The Swedish Electricians’ Association has also examined the Tesla Megapack Supercharger and documented its power setup. As per materials submitted to the Energy Market Inspectorate, electrical cables were reportedly routed from a property located approximately 500 meters from the charging site.
Tomas Jansson, ombudsman and deputy head of negotiations at the Swedish Electricians’ Association, stated that the union was assessing whether to file a police report related to the Tesla Megapack Supercharger. He also confirmed that the electricians’ union was coordinating with IF Metall about the matter. “We have a close collaboration with IF Metall, and we are currently investigating this. We support IF Metall in their fight for fair conditions at Tesla,” Jansson said.
News
Tesla HW4.5 spotted in new Model Y, triggers speculation
Owners taking delivery of recent Model Y builds have identified components labeled “AP45.”
Tesla’s Hardware 4.5 computer appears to have surfaced in newly delivered Model Y vehicles, prompting fresh speculation about an interim upgrade ahead of the company’s upcoming AI5 chip.
Owners taking delivery of recent Model Y builds have identified components labeled “AP45,” suggesting Tesla may have quietly started rolling out revised autonomy hardware.
Hardware 4.5 appears in new Model Y units
The potential Hardware 4.5 sighting was first reported by Model Y owner @Eric5un, who shared details of a Fremont-built 2026 Model Y AWD Premium delivered this January. As per the Model Y owner, the vehicle includes a new front camera housing and a 16-inch center display, along with an Autopilot computer labeled “AP45” and part number 2261336-02-A.
The Tesla owner later explained that he confirmed the part number by briefly pulling down the upper carpet liner below the Model Y’s glovebox. Other owners soon reported similar findings. One Model Y Performance owner noted that their December build also appeared to include Hardware 4.5, while another owner of an Austin-built Model Y Performance reported spotting the same “AP45” hardware.
These sightings suggest that Tesla may already be installing revised FSD computers in its new Model Y batches, despite the company not yet making any formal announcements about Hardware 4.5.
What Hardware 4.5 could represent
Clues about Hardware 4.5 have surfaced previously in Tesla’s Electronic Parts Catalog. As reported by NotATeslaApp, the catalog has listed a component described as “CAR COMPUTER – LEFT HAND DRIVE – PROVISIONED – HARDWARE 4.5.” The component, which features the part number 2261336-S2-A, is priced at $2,300.00.
Longtime Tesla hacker @greentheonly has noted that Tesla software has contained references to a possible three-SoC architecture for some time. Previous generations of Tesla’s FSD computer, including Hardware 3 and Hardware 4, use a dual-SoC design for redundancy. A three-SoC layout could allow for higher inference throughput and improved fault tolerance.
Such an architecture could also serve as a bridge to AI5, Tesla’s next-generation autonomy chip expected to enter production later in 2026. As Tesla’s neural networks grow larger and more computationally demanding, Hardware 4.5 may provide additional headroom for vehicles built before AI5 becomes widely available.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk’s Grokipedia is getting cited by OpenAI’s ChatGPT
Some responses generated by OpenAI’s ChatGPT have recently referenced information from Grokipedia.
Some responses generated by OpenAI’s ChatGPT have recently referenced information from Grokipedia, an AI-generated encyclopedia developed by rival xAI, which was founded by Elon Musk. The citations appeared across a limited set of queries.
Reports about the matter were initially reported by The Guardian.
Grokipedia references in ChatGPT
Grokipedia launched in October as part of xAI’s effort to build an alternative to Wikipedia, which has become less centrist over the years. Unlike Wikipedia, which is moderated and edited by humans, Grokipedia is purely AI-powered, allowing it to approach topics with as little bias as possible, at least in theory. This model has also allowed Grokipedia to grow its article base quickly, with recent reports indicating that it has created over 6 million articles, more than 80% of English Wikipedia.
The Guardian reported that ChatGPT cited Grokipedia nine times across responses to more than a dozen user questions during its tests. As per the publication, the Grokipedia citations did not appear when ChatGPT was asked about high-profile or widely documented topics. Instead, Grokipedia was referenced in responses to more obscure historical or biographical claims. The pattern suggested selective use rather than broad reliance on the source, at least for now.
Broader Grokipedia use
The Guardian also noted that Grokipedia citations were not exclusive to ChatGPT. Anthropic’s AI assistant Claude reportedly showed similar references to Grokipedia in some responses, highlighting a broader issue around how large language models identify and weigh publicly available information.
In a statement to The Guardian, an OpenAI spokesperson stated that ChatGPT “aims to draw from a broad range of publicly available sources and viewpoints.” “We apply safety filters to reduce the risk of surfacing links associated with high-severity harms, and ChatGPT clearly shows which sources informed a response through citations,” the spokesperson stated.
Anthropic, for its part, did not respond to a request for comment on the matter. As for xAI, the artificial intelligence startup simply responded with a short comment that stated, “Legacy media lies.”
Swedish unions consider police report over Tesla Megapack Supercharger
Tesla HW4.5 spotted in new Model Y, triggers speculation
