News
SpaceX’s response to Crew Dragon explosion unfairly maligned by head of NASA
In a bizarre turn of events, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine has offered harsh criticism of SpaceX’s response to Crew Dragon’s April 20th explosion, suffered just prior to a static fire test of its eight Super Draco abort engines.
The problem? The NASA administrator’s criticism explicitly contradicts multiple comments made by other NASA officials, the director of the entire Commercial Crew Program, and SpaceX itself. Lest all three of the above sources were either blatant lies or deeply incorrect, it appears that Bridenstine is – intentionally or accidentally – falsely maligning SpaceX and keeping the criticism entirely focused on just one of the two Commercial Crew partners. The reality is that his initial comments were misinterpreted, but an accurate interpretation is just as unflattering.
Stay ahead of the curve and be the first to learn about new industry trends each week!
Follow along as our team gives you their take on the biggest stories of the week.Ultimately, Bridenstine responded to a tweet by Ars Technica’s Eric Berger to correct the record, noting that the criticism was directed at his belief that SpaceX’s “communication with the public was not [good]”, while the company’s post-failure communication with NASA was actually just fine. In fact, according to Commercial Crew Program (CCP) Manager Kathy Lueders, NASA team members were quite literally in the control room during the pre-static fire explosion and the failure investigation began almost instantly.
A blog post and official update published by NASA on May 28th further confirms Lueders’ praise for the immediate SpaceX/NASA response that followed the failure.
“Following the test [failure], NASA and SpaceX immediately executed mishap plans established by the agency and company. SpaceX fully cleared the test site and followed all safety protocols. Early efforts focused on making the site safe, collecting data and developing a timeline of the anomaly, which did not result in any injuries. NASA assisted with the site inspection including the operation of drones and onsite vehicles.”
— NASA, May 28th, 2019
Why, then, are Bridenstine’s comments so bizarre and unfair?
A trip down memory lane
Back in mid-2018, Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft suffered a major setback (albeit not as catastrophic as Crew Dragon’s) when a static fire test ended with a valve failing to close, leaking incredibly toxic hydrazine fuel all over the test stand and throughout the service module that was test-fired. The failure reportedly delayed Boeing’s Starliner program months as a newer service module had to replace the contaminated article that was meant to support a critical 2019 pad-abort test preceding Starliner’s first crew launch.
According to anonymous sources that have spoken with reporters like Eric Berger and NASASpaceflight.com, the anomalous test occurred in late-June 2018, followed by no less than 20-30 days of complete silence from both Boeing and NASA. If Boeing told NASA, NASA certainly didn’t breathe a word of that knowledge to – in Bridenstine’s words – “the public (taxpayers)”. Prior to Mr. Berger breaking the news, Boeing ignored at least one private request for comment for several days before the author gave up and published the article, choosing to trust his source.
After the article was published, Boeing finally provided an official comment vaguely acknowledging the issue.
“We have been conducting a thorough investigation with assistance from our NASA and industry partners. We are confident we found the cause and are moving forward with corrective action. Flight safety and risk mitigation are why we conduct such rigorous testing, and anomalies are a natural part of any test program.”
— Boeing, July 21st, 2018 (T+~30 days)
SpaceX, for reference, offered an official media statement hours after Crew Dragon capsule C201 suffered a major failure during testing, acknowledging that an “anomaly” had occurred and that SpaceX and NASA were already working closely to investigate the accident. Less than two weeks after that, Vice President of Mission Assurance Hans Koenigsmann spent several minutes discussing Crew Dragon’s failure at a press conference, despite the fact that it was off topic in an event meant for a completely different mission (Cargo Dragon CRS-17).
“Earlier today, SpaceX conducted a series of engine tests on a Crew Dragon test vehicle on our test stand at Landing Zone 1 in Cape Canaveral, Florida. The initial tests completed successfully but the final test resulted in an anomaly on the test stand. Ensuring that our systems meet rigorous safety standards and detecting anomalies like this prior to flight are the main reasons why we test. Our teams are investigating and working closely with our NASA partners.”
— SpaceX, April 20th, 2019 (T+several hours)
Within ~40 days, NASA published an official update acknowledging Crew Dragon’s accident and the ongoing mishap investigation. Meanwhile, a full year after Starliner’s own major accident, NASA communications have effectively never once acknowledged it, while Boeing has been almost equally resistant to discussing or even acknowledging the problem and the delays it caused. On May 24th, NASA and Boeing announced that Starliner’s service module had passed important propulsion tests (essentially a repeat of the partially failed test in June 2018) – the anomaly that incurred months of delays and required a retest with a new service section was not mentioned once.
On April 3rd, NASA published a Commercial Crew schedule update that showed Boeing’s orbital Starliner launch debut (Orbital Flight Test, OFT) launching no earlier than August 2019, a delay of 4-5 months. In the article, NASA’s explanation (likely supplied in part by Boeing) bizarrely pointed the finger at ULA and the technicalities of Atlas V launch scheduling.
In other words, NASA somehow managed to completely leave out the fact that Starliner suffered a major failure almost a year prior that likely forced the OFT service section to be redirected to a pad abort test.
Following SpaceX’s anomaly, the company (and NASA, via Kathy Lueders) have been open about the fact that it means the Crew Dragon meant for DM-2 – the first crewed test launch – would have to be redirected to Dragon’s in-flight abort (IFA) test, while the vehicle originally meant to fly the first certified astronaut launch (USCV-1) would be reassigned to DM-2. Thankfully, this practice can be a boon for minimizing delays caused by failures. Oddly, Boeing has not once acknowledged that it was likely forced to do the same thing with Starliner, albeit with the expendable service section instead of the spacecraft’s capsule section.
Again, although the slides of additional CCP presentations from advisory committee meetings have briefly acknowledged Starliner’s failure with vague mentions like “valve design corrective action granted” (Dec. 2018) and “Service Module Hot Fire testing resuming after new valves installed” (May 2019), NASA has yet to acknowledge the Service Module failure and its multi-month schedule impact.
So, if SpaceX’s moderately quiet but otherwise excellent communication of Crew Dragon’s explosion was unsatisfactory and worthy of pointed criticism straight from the head of NASA, the fact that Boeing and NASA have scarcely acknowledged a Starliner anomaly that caused months of delays must be downright infuriating, insulting, and utterly unacceptable. And yet… not one mention during Bridenstine’s bizarre criticism of SpaceX’s supposed communication issues.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Tesla released what analysts believe the company will report in terms of deliveries and energy deployments for Q2, but the figures seem to confirm a long-standing theory on the company’s vehicle division.
For years, Tesla was just looked at as a car company. Now that it has established itself as a powerhouse in energy, AI, and tech as a whole, the company is now less hellbent on achieving quarterly growth, on a sequential basis, at least from a major standpoint.
Tesla topped out its annual deliveries in 2023 at 1.81 million, and in the two years since, the company has reported a decrease in deliveries for the entire 12-month term both times.
With Tesla delivering 358,023 cars in Q1, a 6.3 percent increase over Q1 2025, but falling short of Wall Street expectations at 365,000-370,000 units, the narrative around vehicle deliveries and their importance continued to change earlier this year. Some might say it is convenient, but others might say it is the typical evolution of a company that continues to change over time.
For Q2, Tesla’s delivery consensus estimates sit at 406,024 units, analysts believe. They were surveyed from Daiwa, DB, Wedbush, Cowen, Canaccord, Baird, Wolfe, BMP Paribas, Goldman Sachs, RBC, Evercore ISI, Barclays, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Truist, UBS, Jefferies, JPM, Needham & Co., HSBC, and William Blair.
Credit: Tesla
Tesla is also expected to report deployments of 13.8 GWh this quarter.
The change to Tesla’s overall narrative now leans less on vehicle deliveries and more on its other projects. Most notably, Tesla’s Robotaxi project has taken the priority over most of its other business ventures, and investors and the public are more concerned about the deployment of vehicles into the fleet, the operation of a driverless ride-hailing service, Cybercab production and operation, and expansion into new cities.
Tesla analyst realizes one big thing about the stock: deliveries are losing importance
This big narrative switch happened when Tesla indicated it was looking at making transportation a service by launching a ride-hailing service that will operate using Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite. Once unsupervised operation begins, Robotaxi could be a new way for people to get around, all without a driver in their car.
Instead, they will rely on the billions of miles Tesla has accumulated from its real-world fleet.
It is important to note that Tesla remains significant in the automotive sector, and deliveries must continue as they have for years. Tesla still has a strong automotive business and needs to execute further on all facets to keep its investors happy.
Tesla launched the slightly larger Model Y L in China last year, and it became a hit in no time. The longer wheelbase, larger interior, and slightly more forgiving legroom area in the Model Y L became a sought-after possibility for U.S. buyers, who have been begging the company for a larger SUV.
Now, Tesla needs it more than ever, especially considering the Model X was discontinued alongside its Model S sibling earlier this year. It looks to be more likely than ever, and based on recent reports, it will fall in line with CEO Elon Musk’s prediction that it would arrive in the United States in late 2026.
Recent reports from Forbes and Not a Tesla App both have indicated Tesla plans to bring the Model Y L to the U.S. this year. The reports cite “credible sources,” and an analyst from AutoForecast Solutions named Sam Fiorani stated that the car would enter production later this year.
Fiorani said:
“China, Australia, and India are supplied by the factory in China, which will not supply vehicles to the U.S. Production of the Model Y L is expected to begin in the U.S. in September, which will lead to sales beginning before the end of 2026.”
Production would take place at Gigafactory Texas.
Additionally, a few Model Y L units have been spotted under wraps in the United States, giving more indication that Tesla plans to bring the vehicle to the U.S. When Tesla is close to launching a vehicle in the U.S., it is not uncommon to see these models with the exact car covers that you see below:
Looks like another Tesla Model Y L was spotted in the U.S.! pic.twitter.com/jhsdkcN5Go
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 26, 2026
It makes sense, especially considering Musk hinted the Model Y L would make it to the U.S. in late 2026, but it was up in the air. The CEO said the advent of self-driving might not warrant a larger SUV coming to the U.S. market specifically.
The problem is, consumers do not want to hear that. They love Tesla’s tech, FSD, and other features, but they need more space for growing families. The Model X is gone, and the most anyone can fit in a Tesla right now is seven people in the seven-seat Model Y. That back row is truly only large enough to fit small children comfortably.
Tesla fans have requested a full-size SUV, and the company has made some hints that it could be in the plans.
The Model Y and Model Y L differ noticeably in size, with the Model Y L being a stretched, six-seat variant designed for great interior room. The Standard Model Y measures approximately 4,790mm in length, 1,982 mm in width with the mirrors folded, 1,624mm in height, and 2,890mm in wheel base.
In contrast, the Model Y L extends to be about 4,969–4,976mm long (roughly 179mm or 7 inches longer), stands 1,668mm tall (+44mm), and features a significantly longer 3,040 mm wheelbase (+150mm), while maintaining the same width.
This elongation primarily benefits rear passenger space and enables a 2+2+2 seating layout with captain’s chairs, though it slightly reduces maximum cargo capacity behind the rearmost seats and adds a bit of overall mass and turning radius. The result is a more spacious family hauler that still shares the core footprint and agile character of the original Model Y.
In a major development that will inevitably strengthen Tesla’s dominant position in the American EV market, Polestar has been effectively banned from selling new vehicles in the United States, starting with the 2027 model year.
The U.S. Department of Commerce denied Polestar authorization under the Connected Vehicle Rule, which prohibits vehicles containing certain connected technologies (Cellular, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc.) linked to China or Russia due to national security risks, including potential data collection on American drivers.
🚨 A Tesla competitor goes down
Polestar will no longer sell new vehicles in the United States starting with the 2027 model year.
The U.S. Department of Commerce denied the brand authorization under the Connected Vehicle Rule, which restricts the sale of cars with software and… pic.twitter.com/TrwnQeoiES
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Polestar, which is majority-owned by China’s Geely Holding, could not obtain the required exemption despite producing some models domestically.
Polestar confirmed it will sell off any remaining inventory of the Polestar 3 and Polestar 4 models, while continuing service and warranty support for existing customers. No new models or major refreshes will reach U.S. buyers, and the company is pivoting its growth strategy to Europe, where it already generates the vast majority of its sales.
The outcome removes a direct premium EV competitor that had positioned itself as a stylish, performance-oriented alternative to Tesla’s lineup. The Polestar 2 challenged the Model 3, while the Polestar 3 and 4 targeted segments overlapping with the Model Y and upcoming Tesla offerings. Polestar’s U.S. sales had already been sluggish amid intense competition and slower demand, representing just 6 percent of its global volume in the first quarter of 2026.
While Polestar was not on Tesla’s level in the U.S., it still places a dent in the evergrowing field of Tesla competitors in the country, where it has long dominated EV sales.
Tesla faces none of these hurdles. As a U.S.-founded and U.S.-headquartered company with major manufacturing in Fremont, Austin, and Nevada, Tesla’s vehicles are built with compliant domestic and allied supply chains. Its Full Self-Driving technology, over-the-air software updates, and vertically integrated ecosystem were developed entirely in-house without foreign ownership entanglements that trigger national security reviews, at least in the U.S.
Of course, it did face a similar threat in China a few years back:
Elon Musk responds to reports of Tesla ban among China’s military over security concerns
The Connected Vehicle Rule, first advanced under the prior administration and upheld under the current one, is part of a broader U.S. effort to protect the domestic auto industry and critical technology from Chinese influence. High tariffs on Chinese-made EVs and related restrictions have already reshaped the market. Tesla benefits directly: it avoids these barriers while continuing to lead in U.S. EV sales volume, Supercharger network expansion, and energy storage integration.
By clearing Polestar from the new-vehicle playing field, the policy reduces competitive pressure in the premium and performance EV segments where Tesla has invested billions. American consumers seeking cutting-edge electric vehicles now have one fewer option tied to foreign adversaries — and one clearer path to the market leader that has driven the EV transition from the start.
For Tesla, this is more than regulatory relief. It is a strategic tailwind that reinforces its position as America’s premier EV innovator at a time when domestic manufacturing and technological independence matter most.
Tesla Q2 delivery consensus confirms this long-standing theory
Tesla looks keen to bring larger Model Y L to the U.S.
