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.
Elon Musk
Tesla FSD in Europe vs. US: It’s not what you think
Tesla FSD is approved in the Netherlands, but the European version differs from what US drivers use.
On April 10, 2026, the Dutch vehicle authority RDW granted Tesla the first European type approval for Full Self-Driving Supervised, making the Netherlands the first country on the continent to authorize Tesla’s semi-autonomous system for customer use on public roads.
As Teslarati reported, the RDW approval followed 18 months of testing, more than 1.6 million kilometers driven on EU roads, 13,000 customer ride-alongs, and documentation covering over 400 compliance requirements. Tesla Europe had been running public demo drives through cities like Amsterdam and Eindhoven since early 2026, giving passengers their first experience of the system on European streets.
The European version of FSD is not the same software US drivers use. The RDW’s own statement is direct, noting that the software versions and functionalities in the US and Europe “are therefore not comparable one-to-one.” We’ve compile a table below that captures the most significant differences between US-based Tesla FSD vs. European Tesla FSD that’s based on what regulators and Tesla have publicly confirmed.
| Feature | FSD US | FSD Europe (Netherlands) |
| Regulatory framework | Self-certification, post-market oversight | Pre-market type approval required (UN R-171 + Article 39) |
| Hands requirement | Hands-off permitted on highway | Hands must be available to take over immediately |
| Auto turning from stop lights | Available — navigates intersections, turns, and traffic signals autonomously | Available in EU build — confirmed in Amsterdam demo footage handling unprotected turns and signalized intersections |
| Driving modes | Multiple profiles including a more aggressive “Mad Max” mode | EU build is more conservative by default and errs on the side of restraint when it cannot confirm the limit |
| Summon | Available — Smart Summon navigates parking lots to driver | Status unclear — not confirmed as part of the RDW-approved feature set; urban FSD approval targeted separately for 2027 |
| Driver monitoring | Camera-based eye tracking | Stricter continuous monitoring with more frequent intervention alerts |
| Software version | FSD v14.3 | EU-specific builds that must be separately validated by RDW |
| Geographic restriction | US, Canada, China, Mexico, Australia, NZ, South Korea | Netherlands only; EU-wide vote pending summer 2026 |
| Subscription price | $99/month | €99/month |
| Full urban FSD scope | Available | Partial — separate urban application planned for 2027 |
The approval comes as Tesla is under real pressure to grow FSD subscriptions globally. Musk’s 2025 CEO compensation package, approved by shareholders, includes a milestone requiring 10 million active FSD subscriptions as one condition for his stock awards to vest. Tesla hit one million subscriptions during its Q4 2025 earnings call, which is a meaningful start, but still a long way from the target. Opening Europe as a market for subscriptions, rather than just hardware sales, directly accelerates that number.
Tesla has said it anticipates EU-wide recognition of the Dutch approval during summer 2026, which would extend FSD access to Germany, France, and other major markets through a mutual recognition process without each country repeating the full 18-month review. That timeline is Tesla’s projection, not a confirmed regulatory outcome. As Musk acknowledged at Davos in January 2026, “We hope to get Supervised Full Self-Driving approval in Europe, hopefully next month.”
News
Tesla’s troublesome Auto Wipers get a major upgrade
Tesla has quietly deployed a major over-the-air (OTA) update across its entire fleet, implementing a new patent that could finally solve one of the most complained-about features in its vehicles: the Auto Wipers.
One of Tesla’s most complained-about features is that of the Auto Wipers, but they have recently received a major upgrade that impacts every vehicle in the company’s fleet, a company executive confirmed.
Tesla has quietly deployed a major over-the-air (OTA) update across its entire fleet, implementing a new patent that could finally solve one of the most complained-about features in its vehicles: the Auto Wipers.
Confirmed by senior Tesla AI engineer Yun-Ta Tsai on April 10, the improvement is based on patent US 20260097742 A1. It introduces an “energy balance model” that adds a tactile, physics-driven layer to the existing camera-based system—without requiring any new hardware.
🚨 Tesla has already implemented a new patent that improves the accuracy of the Auto Wiper system https://t.co/QjjKHKxSNv pic.twitter.com/mEbd04oJAu
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 10, 2026
Tesla drivers have griped about auto wipers since the company ditched traditional rain sensors in favor of Tesla Vision around 2018.
Owners routinely report the wipers failing to activate in light drizzle or mist, leaving windshields streaked and visibility dangerously reduced. Just as often, they formerly blasted into high-speed mode on dry, sunny days, screeching across glass and risking scratches or premature blade wear.
This is a rare occurrence anymore, but many owners still report the feature having the wipers perform at the incorrect speed or frequency when precipitation is falling.
Tesla has tried repeatedly to fix the problem through software alone.
Early “Deep Rain” initiatives and the 2023 Autowiper v4 update used multi-camera video and refined neural networks, with Elon Musk promising “super good” performance. The 2024.14 update added manual sensitivity boosts, and later FSD versions claimed further gains. Yet complaints persisted.
Elon Musk apologizes for Tesla’s quirky auto wipers, hints at improvements
Vision systems struggle with edge cases—glare, bugs, reflections, or faint mist—because they rely purely on visual inference rather than physical detection
The new patent takes a different approach. The car’s computer constantly measures electrical power delivered to the wiper motor. It subtracts predictable losses—internal motor friction, linkage drag, and aerodynamic resistance—leaving only the friction force between the rubber blade and windshield glass.
Water lubricates the glass, sharply reducing friction; dry or icy surfaces increase it dramatically. This real-time “tactile” data acts as an independent check on the camera’s visual cues, instantly shutting down false triggers on dry glass and fine-tuning speed for actual rain.
The system can also detect ice and auto-activate defrost heaters, while long-term friction trends alert drivers when blades need replacing.
By fusing vision with precise motor-load physics, Tesla has created a hybrid sensor that is both elegant and cost-free. Owners have waited years for reliable auto wipers; this OTA rollout may finally deliver them.
News
Tesla Roadster unveiling set for this month: what to expect
As Tesla finally edges toward production and an updated reveal, enthusiasts aren’t asking for compromises; they’re demanding the original vision be honored. Here are five clear expectations that will come with the vehicle’s unveiling, which is still set for later this month, hopefully.
The Tesla Roadster has been the ultimate carrot on a stick since its 2017 unveiling. Promised as the fastest production car ever made, with 0-60 mph in under two seconds and a top speed over 250 mph, it has endured years of delays.
As Tesla finally edges toward production and an updated reveal, enthusiasts aren’t asking for compromises; they’re demanding the original vision be honored. Here are five clear expectations that will come with the vehicle’s unveiling, which is still set for later this month, hopefully.
Performance and Safety Do Not Go Hand in Hand, and That’s the Point
The Roadster is not a family sedan or a daily commuter. It is a no-holds-barred supercar meant to embarrass six-figure exotics on track days. Tesla should resist the temptation to load it with every passive-safety nanny and electronic guardian that dulls the raw feedback drivers crave.
Owners want to feel the road, not be shielded from it. Strip away unnecessary electronic limits so the car can deliver the visceral thrill Elon Musk originally described. Safety ratings will still be strong because of Tesla’s structural excellence, but the Roadster’s mission is speed, not coddling.
He said late last year:
“This is not a…safety is not the main goal. If you buy a Ferrari, safety is not the number one goal. I say, if safety is your number one goal, do not buy the Roadster…We’ll aspire not to kill anyone in this car. It’ll be the best of the last of the human-driven cars. The best of the last.”
Musk was clear that this will not be a car that will be the safest in Tesla’s lineup, but that’s the point. It’s not made for anything other than pushing the limits.
Tesla Needs to Come Through on a HUGE Feature
The Roadster unveiling would be wildly disappointing if it were only capable of driving. Tesla has long teased the potential ability to float or hover, and they need to come through on something that is along those lines.
The SpaceX cold-gas thruster package was never a joke. Musk, at one time, explicitly said owners could opt for a set of thrusters capable of lifting the car off the ground for short hops or dramatic launches. That feature is what separates the Roadster from every other hypercar on the planet.
If the production version arrives without it—or with a watered-down “maybe later” version—enthusiasts will feel betrayed. Deliver the thrusters, make them functional, and let the Roadster literally hover above the competition.
An Updated Design Might Be Warranted
It’s been nine years since Tesla first rolled off the next-gen Roadster design and showed it to the world.
The 2017 concept still looks sharp, but eight years is an eternity in automotive styling. The sharp lines and aggressive stance now compete against the angular Cybertruck and the next-generation vehicles rolling out of Fremont and Austin.
Tesla Roadster patent hints at radical seat redesign ahead of reveal
A subtle refresh, maybe with sharper headlights, revised aero elements, and modern materials, would keep the Roadster feeling current without losing its identity. Fans don’t want a complete redesign, just enough evolution to prove Tesla still cares.
Self-Driving Isn’t a Necessity for the Tesla Roadster
Full Self-Driving hardware and software belong in the Model 3, Model Y, and the upcoming robotaxi—not in a two-seat rocket built for canyon carving. The Roadster’s entire appeal is the direct connection between driver, steering wheel, and asphalt.
Offering FSD as standard would dilute the purity that separates it from every other Tesla. Make autonomy an optional delete or simply omit it. Let the Roadster remain the purest driving machine in the lineup, because that’s what it is all about.
Tesla Needs to Come Through on the Unveiling Timeline
The last thing Tesla needs right now is another complaint about not hitting timelines or expectations. This unveiling has already been pushed back one time, from April 1 to “probably in late April.”
Repeated delays have tested even the most patient fans. Whatever date the company now sets for the next major reveal or start of production must be met. No more “next year” promises. The Roadster has waited long enough. When it finally arrives, it must feel worth every extra month.
If Tesla hits these five marks, the Roadster won’t just be another fast car—it will be the machine that redefines what a Tesla can be. The world is watching.
Tesla FSD in Europe vs. US: It’s not what you think
Tesla’s troublesome Auto Wipers get a major upgrade
