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.
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.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk to attend 2026 World Economic Forum at Davos
The Tesla CEO was confirmed as a last-minute speaker for a session with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink.
Elon Musk is poised to attend the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos. The Tesla CEO was confirmed as a last-minute speaker for a session with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, signaling a thaw in Musk’s long-strained relationship with the event.
A late addition
Organizers of the World Economic Forum confirmed that Elon Musk was added shortly before the event to a Thursday afternoon session, where he was scheduled to speak with Fink, as noted in a Bloomberg News report. Musk’s upcoming appearance marks Musk’s first participation in the forum, which annually draws political leaders, business executives, and global media to Davos, Switzerland.
Musk’s attendance represents a departure from his past stance toward the event. He had been invited in prior years but declined to attend, including in 2024. His upcoming appearance followed remarks from his political ally, Donald Trump, who addressed the forum earlier in the week with a wide-ranging speech.
A previously strained relationship
Musk had frequently criticized the World Economic Forum in the past, describing it as elitist and questioning its influence. In earlier posts, he characterized the gathering as “boring” and accused it of functioning like an unelected global authority. Those remarks contributed to a long-running distance between Musk and WEF organizers.
The forum previously said Musk had not been invited since 2015, though that position has since shifted. Organizers indicated last year that Musk was welcome amid heightened interest in his political and business activities, including his involvement in the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Musk later stepped away from that role.
Despite his friction with the World Economic Forum, Musk has remained central to several global events, from SpaceX’s provision of satellite internet services in geopolitically sensitive regions through Starlink to the growing use of xAI’s Grok in U.S. government applications.
News
Tesla states Giga Berlin workforce is stable, rejects media report
As per the electric vehicle maker, production and employment levels at the facility remain stable.
Tesla Germany has denied recent reports alleging that it has significantly reduced staffing at Gigafactory Berlin. As per the electric vehicle maker, production and employment levels at the facility remain stable.
Tesla denies Giga Berlin job cuts report
On Wednesday, German publication Handelsblatt reported that Tesla’s workforce in Gigafactory Berlin had been reduced by about 1,700 since 2024, a 14% drop. The publication cited internal documents as its source for its report.
In a statement to Reuters, Tesla Germany stated that there has been no significant reduction in permanent staff at its Gigafactory in Grünheide compared with 2024, and that there are no plans to curb production or cut jobs at the facility.
“Compared to 2024, there has been no significant reduction in the number of permanent staff. Nor are there any such plans. Compared to 2024, there has been no significant reduction in the number of permanent staff. Nor are there any such plans,” Tesla noted in an emailed statement.
Tesla Germany also noted that it’s “completely normal” for a facility like Giga Berlin to see fluctuations in its headcount.
A likely explanation
There might be a pretty good reason why Giga Berlin reduced its headcount in 2024. As highlighted by industry watcher Alex Voigt, in April of that year, Elon Musk reduced Tesla’s global workforce by more than 10% as part of an effort to lower costs and improve productivity. At the time, several notable executives departed the company, and the Supercharger team was culled.
As with Tesla’s other factories worldwide, Giga Berlin adjusted staffing during that period as well. This could suggest that a substantial number of the 1,700 employees reported by Handelsblatt were likely part of the workers who were let go by Elon Musk during Tesla’s last major workforce reduction.
In contrast to claims of contraction, Tesla has repeatedly signaled plans to expand production capacity in Germany. Giga Berlin factory manager André Thierig has stated on several occasions that the site is expected to increase output in 2026, reinforcing the idea that the facility’s long-term trajectory remains growth-oriented.
News
Elon Musk gets brash response from Ryanair CEO, who thanks him for booking increase
Elon Musk got a brash response from Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary, who said in a press conference on Wednesday afternoon that the Tesla frontman’s criticism of the airline not equipping Starlink has increased bookings for the next few months.
The two have had a continuing feud over the past several weeks after Musk criticized the airline for not using Starlink for its flights, which would enable fast, free, and reliable Wi-Fi on its aircraft.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk trolls budget airline after it refuses Starlink on its planes
Musk said earlier this week that he was entertaining the idea of purchasing Ryanair and putting someone named Ryan in charge, which would oust O’Leary from his position.
However, the barbs continued today, as O’Leary held a press conference, aiming to dispel any beliefs about Starlink and its use case for Ryanair flights, which are typically short in length.
O’Leary said in the press conference today:
“The Starlink people believe that 90% of our passengers would happily pay for wifi access. Our experience tells us less than 10% would pay; He (Elon) called me a retar*ed twat. He would have to join the back of a very, very long queue of people that already think I’m a retar*ed twat, including my four teenage children.”
He then went on to say that, due to Musk’s publicity, bookings for Ryanair flights have increased over the past few days, up 2 to 3 percent:
“But we do want to thank him for the wonderful boost in publicity. Our bookings are up 2-3% in the last few days. So thank you to Mr. Musk, but he’s wrong on the fuel drag. Non-European citizens cannot own a majority of European airlines, but if he wants to invest in Ryanair, we think it would be a very good investment.”
O’Leary didn’t end there, as he called Musk’s social media platform X a “cesspit,” and said he has no concern over becoming a member of it. However, Ryanair has been very active on X for several years, gaining notoriety for being comical and lighthearted.
🚨 Ryanair CEO’s comments on X and Starlink today at the planned presser.
Strange comments here, it just feels like it’s time to end all this crap https://t.co/NYeG95bM82
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 21, 2026
The public spat between the two has definitely benefited Ryanair, and many are calling for it to end, especially those who support Musk, as they see it as a distraction.
Nevertheless, it is likely going to end with no real movement either way, and is more than likely just a bit of hilarity between the two parties that will end in the coming days.
