Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s response to Crew Dragon explosion unfairly maligned by head of NASA

SpaceX's first spaceworthy Crew Dragon capsule seen prior to its first Falcon 9-integrated static fire and a post-recovery test fire three months later. (SpaceX)

Published

6 years ago

on

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.

Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft. (Boeing)

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)

Advertisement

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.

During the second attempt, a Starliner service section successfully completed a test that ended in a partial failure during the first attempt ~11 months prior. (Boeing/NASA)

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.

An official slide from NASA Commercial Crew Manager Kathy Lueders, presented in May 2019 – one month after C201’s explosion – during a NASA Advisory Committee (NAC) meeting. (NASA)

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.

Advertisement
Related Topics:

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

News

Tesla appears to be mulling a Cyber SUV design

In a new video titled “Sustainable Abundance,” Tesla was showing the Cybercab clay models being autonomously molded. In the back, there are very clearly several models of a Cybertruck-inspired SUV:

Published

10 hours ago

on

September 1, 2025

By

Credit: Tesla

Tesla appears to be mulling a Cyber SUV design, which would encapsulate the stainless steel exoskeleton of the Cybertruck but with elements of an SUV.

The company has been hearing from consumers and fans for some time that it is in need of a full-size SUV in its lineup.

Tesla is missing one type of vehicle in its lineup and fans want it fast

The Model X is more compact than what people are looking for, and although the company has said its focus for some time would be on developing affordable models and the Cybercab, which only enables two-passenger travel, it appears that it may be considering other options.

In a new video titled “Sustainable Abundance,” Tesla was showing the Cybercab clay models being autonomously molded. In the back, there are very clearly several models of a Cybertruck-inspired SUV:

This would not be the first time Tesla has placed projects it is developing in the back of a promotional video, as it did something similar when it was unveiling the improvements it made to the new Model Y earlier this year.

It appeared to show two new body styles sitting in the back under car covers:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by TESLARATI (@teslarati)

There are two things that could prevent this from becoming a future, developed product that reaches the market. One of them seems to be a definitive no, but Tesla’s plans could certainly change, especially given the strong push from fans for this type of vehicle.

Tesla said it wouldn’t build a Stainless Steel exoskeleton vehicle again

Tesla said in its Q4 2024 Shareholder Deck that Cybertruck’s stainless steel exoskeleton would not be used in future vehicles in the top line:

This seems like a definitive no in terms of developing an SUV based on Cybertruck’s aesthetics. However, that could always change.

Tesla’s main focus in autonomy currently

Developing an SUV of this size has been previously dismissed by Tesla, as its focus is on autonomy, AI, and robotics. However, it will still need to develop attractive and useful vehicles that address a large market, and the United States has a strong affinity for SUVs and crossovers.

It seems totally feasible that Tesla could bring this type of vehicle to market to appease the many fans who have called for the company to build it. Tesla has not committed to anything at this point, which is the most important thing to remember.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla receives European Ecolabel (EMAS) seal for Giga Berlin-Brandenburg

The EMAS seal highlights Tesla’s existing environmental measures in the facility.

Published

16 hours ago

on

September 1, 2025

By

Credit: Tesla/X

Tesla has been awarded the European Ecolabel (EMAS) seal for Gigafactory Berlin-Brandenburg. 

The EMAS seal highlights Tesla’s existing environmental measures in the facility, such as extensive reforestation efforts and reduced water usage. It also emphasizes Tesla’s commitment to improve its environmental initiatives.

Giga Berlin’s environmental initiatives

The EMAS (Eco-Management and Audit Scheme) seal is a long-term environmental management system that focuses on compliance with regulations and improving environmental performance, as noted in a Tagesspiegel report.

Plant manager André Thierig noted that Tesla has already planted over 2 million trees to replace the trees that have been felled to make way for Giga Berlin. Tesla is also targeting an additional 5 to 15 MW peak solar capacity this year to make the plant more sustainable. “We will continue to promote photovoltaics in the future,” he said.

Giga Berlin’s consumption and energy use

In 2024, Giga Berlin consumed about 419,503 MWh of energy, with electricity accounting for more than half, followed by natural gas. The facility is looking to lower natural gas use by redirecting the use of process heating water via waste heat. Water consumption was listed at 2.16 cubic meters per vehicle, significantly below the industry average of 3.5.

Advertisement

This year, Tesla Giga Berlin is looking to recycle 90% of the Model Y plant’s process wastewater. Around 11,000 employees currently work at Giga Berlin, which produces 5,000 vehicles per week or roughly 250,000 units annually.

Certification welcomed but not without criticism

The EMAS program requires companies to disclose resource use, emissions, and improvement plans. Over 40 companies in Brandenburg have EMAS certification.

Brandenburg’s Environment Minister Minister Hanka Mittelstädt (SPD) described Tesla as a role model for the region. “Everything is public, and that also creates a certain amount of trust,” she said, noting that Tesla is a “beacon” in the industry.

Monique Zweig, Managing Director of the East Brandenburg Chamber of Industry and Commerce (IHK), shared her optimism in a comment to rbb24. “At Tesla, you can see that climate goals go hand in hand with industry,” Zweig stated.

Unsurprisingly, local activists expressed skepticism. The Association for Nature and Landscape in Brandenburg, which is against Tesla, questioned whether the certification could be used as “greenwashing.”

Advertisement

The group also alleged that the certificate could pave the way for weaker oversight for the EV maker. “The seal is ‘greenwashing’ to portray the company as more environmentally friendly,” spokesperson Steffen Schorcht noted.

Continue Reading

News

I traded my ICE vehicle for a Tesla Model Y: here’s how it went

After working at Teslarati for six years and covering the EV space nearly every single day (I recently published my 5,000th article on here), I figured it was time to make a switch.

Published

17 hours ago

on

September 1, 2025

By

I recently decided, after a variety of things, that I was going to trade in my internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle for a new Tesla Model Y. It was a long time coming.

After working at Teslarati for six years and covering the EV space nearly every single day (I recently published my 5,000th article on here), I figured it was time to make a switch. Over the past few years, there have been days when I would have been better off with an EV, but my Summer and Winter activities, as well as the price, kept me from making the switch.

Recently, I decided that it was time. My 2021 Ford Bronco Sport had been experiencing a number of issues, none major, but numerous sensor replacements. It was an affordable and fun car, but after fixing the Tire Pressure Monitoring System in the front right tire, an EVAP switch valve in the motor two months ago, and some other things, the Bronco became more of a chore (and a drain on my wallet) than anything.

With the timing of the $7,500 tax credit expiring and a substantial amount of positive equity in my Bronco, I knew it was time. My experience was excellent, but I would like to share some insights with our readers about the entire process, which may also help you make the jump. Others were more of a one-time thing, as they were things customers would only deal with as the tax credit went away.

My Decision

I knew I was going to get a Tesla, and my inability to enjoy a good sedan steered me to a Model Y (no hate toward the Model 3, it’s just not for me). I knew with the weather in Pennsylvania, all-wheel drive was a need, and the price difference between the rear-wheel-drive and AWD configurations of the Y made it a no-brainer.

Plus, I really would like to get this thing out on the beach, something I’ve done every Summer since buying the Bronco with my Fiancè.

I actually ordered this car back in June, but ended up canceling the reservation to wait until the end of Summer. I ended up ordering the car I took delivery of on Saturday back on my birthday on August 16.

I was looking for Diamond Black with White Interior, and it was available in Pittsburgh for delivery. However, I really love the team at Tesla Mechanicsburg, so I opted to do a Black on Black Model Y that was a Fremont build, so I could pick it up from the guys up there. The interior color was not a dealbreaker for me. I just wanted to take delivery soon.

I ordered from inventory, which is not something that is possible now. There is no new Model Y inventory within 200 miles of me, a good sign for Tesla but a bad sign if you’re looking to buy something before the quarter ends. Luckily, the IRS is allowing people to enter an agreement for a car, so you could technically build the car of your choice, put a down payment on it, and take delivery after the September 30 cutoff.

Tesla Delivery Day

My appointment was at 12 p.m. and I arrived about ten minutes before. The team greeted me quickly, and I was able to walk right up and see my car with my name on it. It was pretty incredible and a feeling I have not felt in a long time. I’ll be honest, when I bought the Bronco, I never thought I’d own one. When I got one, it felt pretty surreal.

I felt that way yesterday. It was really cool to finally buy a car that I’d only dreamed of owning. It’s not the only car I dream of owning in my lifetime, but it is one I knew I wanted right now. Now that I was showing up to buy it, it really felt surreal.

The process was really fast and efficient, and I could have been in and out in ten minutes if I wanted to. However, I hung around and talked to the guys there; they discussed some good accessories I should consider and suggested some tint.

I was on my way.

My First Drive and What to Expect

I stopped by my Fiancè’s work, showed her the new ride, brought her some lunch, and headed home to my pup. So far, I’ve driven about 60 miles, with most of it being done manually and about 10 miles using Full Self-Driving. I’ve enjoyed driving it myself so much as of right now, but I know FSD will come in handy plenty in the coming months.

In the future, I plan to explore a wide range of topics as an owner. I do not currently have home charging, which is something that many people believe is a dealbreaker for owning an EV. I have two Superchargers very close to my place, so I’m not too concerned about it.

I have been in touch with my leasing office about installing a charger or chargers for the past few months, which seems like it could happen early next year.

So far, I’m really happy with how everything has worked out.

Continue Reading

Trending