News
NASA denies SpaceX Crew Dragon propellant leak report, reveals unrelated heat shield defect
In a partial response to a report alleging evidence of several significant anomalies during a recent private astronaut launch that could affect a crew of NASA astronauts launched last month, the space agency has issued a statement denying those claims. However, the same statement simultaneously revealed that SpaceX recently discovered a different problem with a different Crew Dragon spacecraft component during ground testing.
On May 23rd, Space Explored published a report alleging that a SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft experienced major issues during Axiom-1, the company’s first all-private astronaut launch to the International Space Station (ISS). According to sourced info and a possible internal SpaceX memo, some of Dragon’s toxic propellant leaked during the 17-day flight, damaged or weakened parts of its heat shield, and “[caused] dangerously excessive wear upon reentry.” In general, the report appeared to be well-sourced and even alleged that NASA’s Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) had opened an investigation. Additionally, when approached for comment, neither NASA nor SpaceX were initially willing to speak on the record, which also meant that neither denied the accusations.
A day later, NASA provided an official statement to Space Explored explicitly denying that there has been any propellant leak, heat shield contamination, or excessive heat shield wear on any of “Dragon’s recent crew reentries.”
NASA also dismissed concerns about the reuse of a previously-flown Cargo Dragon 2 heat shield structure on Crew-4, which launched just two days after Axiom-1’s recovery and is scheduled to spend four to five more months in orbit. It also noted that the reuse of Dragon’s heat shield tiles – the structures that take the brunt of most reentry heating and are immersed in salt water after every mission – is extremely limited and has only been attempted on occasional Cargo Dragon missions.
Simultaneously, NASA revealed that “a new heat shield composite structure intended for flight on Crew-5 did not pass an acceptance test” at SpaceX’s Hawthorne, California Dragon factory. The unrelated test failure was blamed on a manufacturing defect and NASA betrayed no sign of serious concern in its statement, suggesting that the problem may be less serious than it sounds. In response, NASA says SpaceX will simply use a different heat shield composite structure for Crew-5, which is scheduled to launch no earlier than (NET) September 2022.
The data associated with Dragon’s recent crew reentries was normal – the system performed as designed without dispute. There has not been a hypergol leak during the return of a crewed Dragon mission nor any contamination with the heat shield causing excessive wear. SpaceX and NASA perform a full engineering review of the heat shield’s thermal protection system following each return, including prior to the launch of the Crew-4 mission currently at the International Space Station. The heat shield composite structure (structure below the tile) was re-flown per normal planning and refurbishment processes. The thermal protection system on the primary heat shield for Crew-4 was new, as it has been for all human spaceflight missions. SpaceX has only demonstrated reuse of selected PICA (Phenolic-Impregnated Carbon Ablator) tiles, which is a lightweight material designed to withstand high temperatures, as part of the heat shield on cargo flights.
NASA and SpaceX are currently in the process of determining hardware allocation for the agency’s upcoming SpaceX Crew-5 mission, including the Dragon heat shield. SpaceX has a rigorous testing process to put every component and system through its paces to ensure safety and reliability. In early May, a new heat shield composite structure intended for flight on Crew-5 did not pass an acceptance test. The test did its job and found a manufacturing defect. NASA and SpaceX will use another heat shield for the flight that will undergo the same rigorous testing prior to flight.
Crew safety remains the top priority for both NASA and SpaceX and we continue to target September 2022 for launch of Crew-5.
NASA – May 24th, 2022
Some oddities do remain. While NASA’s explicit refutation should be taken as the definitive final word on the matter, it’s still very unusual that NASA and SpaceX refused or were unable to quickly and publicly deny the claims within a few hours of being asked. That could simply be a consequence of NASA and SpaceX’s poor internal and external communication or both parties’ love for withholding information from taxpayers about systems and technologies that those same taxpayers have paid for.
On the opposite hand, after Crew Dragon’s Demo-2 run-in with greater-than-expected heat shield wear in 2020, it’s almost impossible to imagine that NASA and SpaceX would have proceeded with Crew-4’s launch two days after Axiom-1’s recovery without confidently verifying that heat shield erosion was within normal bounds. SpaceX’s upgraded Phenolic-Impregnated Carbon Ablator (PICA-X) Dragon heat shield tiles are reportedly designed to erode [PDF] less than a centimeter of their circa-2017 ~7.5 cm (3 in) thickness after each reentry. Musk has gone even further, stating in 2012 that “[PICA-X] can potentially be used hundreds of times for Earth orbit re-entry with only minor degradation each time.” If true, it would be extremely difficult for even a brisk post-flight inspection of Axiom-1’s Dragon capsule to miss what Space Explored described as “dangerously excessive wear.”
In theory, during recovery, even a minute propellant leak should have also been immediately detected by SpaceX’s recovery team, as the very first part of the hands-on process involves a small team with gas masks and detectors approaching the floating capsule to ensure that it’s safe for others to approach. Crew Dragon’s liquid monomethylhydrazine (MMH) fuel and dinitrogen tetroxide (NTO) oxidizer are highly toxic in small quantities and MMH is a known carcinogen.
All told, news of a potential propellant leak and anomalous heat shield performance appears to have been a false alarm, although – coincidentally or not – a seemingly minor anomaly with an unflown Crew Dragon heat shield structure did occur earlier this month. Despite that anomaly, Crew-4 and Crew-5 are otherwise proceeding nominally and NASA appears to be content with Crew Dragon’s performance during several recent launches and recoveries.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) just got a price target boost from its biggest bear, Gordon Johnson of GLJ Research, who raised his expected trading level to one that is 95 percent lower than its current trading level.
Johnson pushed his Tesla price target from $19.05 to $25.28 on Wednesday, while maintaining the ‘Sell’ rating that has been present on the stock for a long time. GLJ has largely been recognized as the biggest skeptic of Elon Musk’s company, being particularly critical of the automotive side of things.
Tesla has routinely been called out by Johnson for negative delivery growth, what he calls “weakening demand,” and price cuts that have occurred in past years, all pointing to them as desperate measures to sell its cars.
Johnson has also said that Tesla is extremely overvalued and is too reliant on regulatory credits for profitability. Other analysts on the bullish side recognize Tesla as a company that is bigger than just its automotive side.
Many believe it is a leader in autonomous driving, like Dan Ives of Wedbush, who believes Tesla will have a widely successful 2026, especially if it can come through on its targets and schedules for Robotaxi and Cybercab.
Justifying the price target this week, Johnson said that the revised valuation is based on “reality rather than narrative.” Tesla has been noted by other analysts and financial experts as a stock that trades on narrative, something Johnson obviously disagrees with.
Dan Nathan, a notorious skeptic of the stock, turned bullish late last year, recognizing the company’s shares trade on “technicals and sentiment.” He said, “From a trading perspective, it looks very interesting.”
Tesla bear turns bullish for two reasons as stock continues boost
Johnson has remained very consistent with this sentiment regarding Tesla and his beliefs regarding its true valuation, and has never shied away from putting his true thoughts out there.
Tesla shares closed at $431.40 today, about 95 percent above where Johnson’s new price target lies.
News
I subscribed to Tesla Full Self-Driving after four free months: here’s why
It has been incredibly valuable to me, and that is what my main factor was in considering whether to subscribe or not. It has made driving much less stressful and much more enjoyable.
I have been lucky enough to experience Tesla Full Self-Driving for the entire duration of my ownership experience for free — for four months, I have not had to pay for what I feel is the best semi-autonomous driving suite on the market.
Today, my free trial finally ran out, and I had two choices: I could go without it for a period until I felt like I absolutely needed it, or I could subscribe to it, pay $99 per month, and continue to experience the future of passenger transportation.
I chose the latter, here’s why.
Tesla Full Self-Driving Takes the Stress Out of Driving
There are a handful of driving situations that I don’t really enjoy, and I think we all have certain situations that we would just rather not encounter. This is not to say that I won’t ever experience them as someone who has driven a car for 15 years (it feels weird saying that).
I don’t love to drive in cities; I really don’t like driving on I-695 on my way to Baltimore, and I truly hate parallel parking. All three things I can do and have done, all three within the past few weeks, too.
It takes all the stress out of city driving pic.twitter.com/q0SPPrH4HU
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 4, 2025
However, if I can avoid them, I will, and Tesla Full Self-Driving does that for me.
Tesla Full Self-Driving Eliminates the Monotony
I drive to my alma mater, Penn State University, frequently in the Winter as I am a season ticket holder to Wrestling and have been for 16 years now.
The drive to State College is over two hours and over 100 miles in total, and the vast majority of it is boring as I travel on Rt 322, which is straight, and there is a lot of nature to look at on the way.
I am willing to let the car drive me on that ride, especially considering it is usually very low traffic, and the vast majority of it is spent on the highway.
The drive, along with several others, is simply a boring ride, where I’d much rather be looking out the windshield and windows at the mountains. I still pay attention, but having the car perform the turns and speed control makes the drive more enjoyable.
Tesla Full Self-Driving Makes Navigating Easier
Other than the local routes that I routinely travel and know like the back of my hand, I’ve really enjoyed Full Self-Driving’s ability to get me to places — specifically new ones — without me having to constantly check back at the Navigation.
Admittedly, I’ve had some qualms with the Nav, especially with some routing and the lack of ability to choose a specific route after starting a drive. For example, it takes a very interesting route to my local Supercharger, one that nobody local to my area would consider.
But there are many times I will go to a new palce and I’m not exactly sure where to go or how to get there. The Navigation, of course, helps with that. However, it is really a luxury to have my car do it for me.
To Conclude
There was no doubt in my mind that when my Full Self-Driving trial was up, I’d be subscribing. It was really a no-brainer. I am more than aware that Full Self-Driving is far from perfect, but it is, without any doubt, the best thing about my Tesla, to me.
It has been incredibly valuable to me, and that is what my main factor was in considering whether to subscribe or not. It has made driving much less stressful and much more enjoyable.
🚨 How I’ve gotten Tesla Full Self-Driving for free…until now
Watch me subscribe to Tesla FSD! https://t.co/bjK7EEOptR pic.twitter.com/cs5CmN5PdJ
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 7, 2026
The Tesla Diner has been subject to many points of criticism since its launch in mid-2025, and skeptics and disbelievers claim the company’s latest novel concept is on its way down, but there’s a lot of evidence to state that is not the case.
The piece cites anecdotal evidence like empty parking lots, more staff than customers during a December visit, removed novelty items, like Optimus robot popcorn service and certain menu items, the departure of celebrity chef Eric Greenspan in November 2025, slow service, high prices, and a shift in recent Google/Yelp reviews toward disappointment.
The piece frames this as part of broader Tesla struggles, including sales figures and Elon Musk’s polarizing image, calling it a failed branding exercise rather than a sustainable restaurant.
This narrative is overstated and sensationalized, and is a good representation of coverage on Tesla by today’s media.
Novelty Fade is Normal, Not Failure
Any hyped launch, especially a unique Tesla-branded destination blending dining, Supercharging, and a drive-in theater, naturally sees initial crowds taper off after the “Instagram effect” wears down.
Tesla makes major change at Supercharger Diner amid epic demand
This is common for experiential spots in Los Angeles, especially pop-up attractions or celebrity-backed venues. The article admits early success with massive lines and social media buzz, but treats the return to normal operations as “dying down.”
In reality, this stabilization is a healthy sign of transitioning from hype-driven traffic to steady patronage.
Actual Performance Metrics Contradict “Ghost Town” Claims
- In Q4 2025, the Diner generated over $1 million in revenue, exceeding the average McDonald’s location
- It sold over 30,000 burgers and 83,000 fries in that quarter alone. These figures indicate a strong ongoing business, especially for a single-location prototype focused on enhancing Supercharger experiences rather than competing as a mass-market chain
It’s not a ghost town lol. The @Tesla Diner still had over 30,000 burger orders and 83,000 fries orders in Q4. The diner generated over $1M in revenue in Q4, a $4M annual run rate, which is more than the average McDonald’s…. pic.twitter.com/XvAGLUqxej
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) January 4, 2026
Conflicting On-the-Ground Reports
While the article, and other similar pieces, describe a half-full parking lot and sparse customers during specific off-peak visits, other recent accounts push back:
- A January 2026 X post noted 50 of 80 Supercharger stalls were busy at 11 a.m., calling it “the busiest diner in Hollywood by close to an order of magnitude
TESLA DINER 🍔
Frantic!!!
Crazy busy. pic.twitter.com/wMbmr8SFFn
— Rich & Sharon (@HullTeslaModel3) January 4, 2026
- Reddit discussions around the same time describe it as not empty when locals drive by regularly, with some calling the empty narrative “disingenuous anti-Tesla slop.”
When we visited it last week it was packed. We had to wait to enter, get a table and go to the restroom. We were lucky to find a spot to charge.
— Rani G (@ranig) January 4, 2026
Bottom Line
The Tesla Diner, admittedly, is not the nonstop circus it was at launch–that was never sustainable or intended. But, it’s far from “dying” or an “empty pit stop.”
It functions as a successful prototype: boosting Supercharger usage, generating solid revenue, and serving as a branded amenity in the high-traffic EV market of Los Angeles.
Tesla price target boost from its biggest bear is 95% below its current level
I subscribed to Tesla Full Self-Driving after four free months: here’s why
