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

7 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.

Advertisement
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)

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.

Advertisement
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.

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

Elon Musk

Tesla Optimus Gen 3 is coming to the Tesla Diner with new ambitions

Tesla’s Optimus robot left the Hollywood Diner within months of opening. Now Musk is planning its return with a bigger role and a major Gen 3 upgrade underway.

Published

26 minutes ago

on

March 30, 2026

By

Tesla Optimus Gen 3 [Credit: Tesla]

Tesla’s Optimus robot was one of the most talked-about features when the Tesla Diner opened on Santa Monica Boulevard in Hollywood on July 21, 2025. Dubbed “Poptimus” by Tesla fans, the Gen 2 robot stood upstairs at the retro-futuristic, drive-in theater and Tesla Supercharging station, scooping popcorn into bags and handing them to guests with a wave.

The diner itself had been years in the making. Elon Musk first floated the idea in 2018 with a tweet about building an “old-school drive-in, roller skates & rock restaurant” at a Hollywood Supercharger. What eventually opened was a unique two-story neon-lit space, with 80 EV charging stalls, and Optimus serving as a live demonstration of where Tesla’s ambitions were headed.


But Optimus did not stay long, and was gone by December 2025.

Now, the robot is set to return with a more demanding job. Musk has ambitions for Optimus to take on a food runner role in 2026, delivering meals directly to cars at the Supercharger stalls. While the latest Gen 3 Optimus is likely to initially take on its previous popcorn-serving role, it wouldn’t be out of the question for Optimus to see a quick promotion. With improved  hand dexterity that features 50 total actuators and 22 degrees of freedom per hand, and significantly more powerful processing through Tesla’s latest AI5 chip that includes Grok-powered voice interaction, Musk described Optimus at the Abundance Summit on March 12, 2026, as “by far the most advanced robot in the world, Nothing’s even close.”

That confidence is backed by a major manufacturing shift. At the Q4 2025 earnings call in January, Musk announced Tesla would discontinue the Model S and Model X and convert those Fremont production lines to build Optimus. “It’s time to basically bring the Model S and X programs to an end,” he said, calling for a pivot that reflects where the Tesla’s future lies.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Musk forces Judge’s exit from shareholder battles over viral social media slip-up

McCormick insisted in a court filing that she harbors no actual bias against Musk or the defendants. She claimed she either never clicked the “support” button, LinkedIn’s version of a “like,” or did so accidentally.

Published

5 hours ago

on

March 30, 2026

By

(Credit: Tesla)

Many Tesla fans are familiar with the name Kathaleen McCormick, especially if they are investors in the company.

McCormick is a Delaware Chancery Court Judge who presided over Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s pay package lawsuit over the past few years, as well as his purchase of Twitter. However, she will no longer be sitting in on any issues related to Musk.

Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss

In a rare admission of potential optics issues in one of America’s most powerful corporate courts, Delaware Chancery Court Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick stepped aside Monday from a cluster of shareholder lawsuits targeting Elon Musk and Tesla’s board.

The move came just days after Musk’s legal team highlighted her apparent “support” on LinkedIn for a post that mocked the billionaire over his 2022 tweets about the $44 billion Twitter acquisition.

McCormick insisted in a court filing that she harbors no actual bias against Musk or the defendants. She claimed she either never clicked the “support” button, LinkedIn’s version of a “like,” or did so accidentally.

She wrote in a newly published memo from the Delaware Chancery Court:

“The motion for recusal rests on a false premise — that I support a LinkedIn post about Mr. Musk, which I do not in fact support. I am not biased against the defendants in these actions.”

Yet she granted the reassignment anyway, acknowledging that the intense media scrutiny surrounding her involvement had become “detrimental to the administration of justice.”

The consolidated cases will now be handled by three of her colleagues on the Delaware Court of Chancery, the nation’s go-to venue for high-stakes corporate disputes. The lawsuits accuse Musk and Tesla directors of breaching fiduciary duties through lavish executive compensation and lax governance oversight.

One prominent claim, filed by a Detroit pension fund, challenges massive stock awards granted to board members, alleging the payouts harmed the company. The litigation also overlaps with issues stemming from Musk’s turbulent 2022 Twitter purchase.

McCormick’s history with Musk made her a lightning rod. In 2022, she presided over the fast-tracked lawsuit that ultimately forced Musk to complete the Twitter deal after he tried to back out.

Then in 2024, she struck down his record $56 billion Tesla compensation package, ruling the approval process was flawed and overly CEO-friendly. The Delaware Supreme Court later reinstated the pay on technical grounds, but the ruling fueled Musk’s long-standing criticism of the state’s judiciary.

Musk has repeatedly urged companies to reincorporate elsewhere, arguing Delaware courts have grown hostile to visionary leaders. Monday’s recusal hands him a symbolic victory and underscores how personal social-media activity can collide with judicial impartiality standards.

Delaware law requires judges to step aside if there’s even a “reasonable basis” to question their neutrality.

Court watchers say the episode highlights growing tensions in corporate America’s legal epicenter. While McCormick maintained her impartiality, the appearance of bias proved too costly to ignore. The cases will proceed without her, but the broader debate over Delaware’s dominance in business litigation is far from over.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk has generous TSA offer denied by the White House: here’s why

Musk stepped in on March 21 via a post on X, writing: “I would like to offer to pay the salaries of TSA personnel during this funding impasse that is negatively affecting the lives of so many Americans at airports throughout the country.”

Published

7 hours ago

on

March 30, 2026

By

Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk made a generous offer to pay the salaries of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees last week, but the offer was denied by the White House.

In a striking display of private-sector initiative clashing with federal bureaucracy, the White House has turned down an offer from Elon Musk to personally cover the salaries of TSA officers amid an ongoing partial government shutdown. The rejection, reported last Wednesday by multiple outlets, highlights the legal and political hurdles facing unconventional solutions to Washington’s funding gridlock.

The impasse began weeks ago when Congress failed to pass funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), leaving TSA employees, essential workers who screen millions of travelers daily, without paychecks while still required to report for duty.

Frustrated travelers have endured record-long security lines at major airports, with reports of chaos and delays rippling across the country.

Musk stepped in on March 21 via a post on X, writing: “I would like to offer to pay the salaries of TSA personnel during this funding impasse that is negatively affecting the lives of so many Americans at airports throughout the country.”

But it was not for no reason.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson responded on behalf of the Trump administration, expressing appreciation for Musk’s gesture.

However, the legal obstacles, which would be insurmountable, would inhibit Musk from doing so. Jackson said:

“We greatly appreciate Elon’s generous offer. This would pose great legal challenges due to his involvement with federal government contracts.”

Musk’s companies hold significant federal contracts, including NASA launches through SpaceX and potential Defense Department work, raising concerns about conflicts of interest, ethics rules, and anti-bribery statutes that prohibit private payments to government employees. Administration officials also indicated they expect the shutdown to end soon, making external funding unnecessary.

The episode underscores deeper tensions in Washington. Musk, who has advised on government efficiency efforts and maintains a close relationship with President Trump, has frequently criticized wasteful spending and bureaucratic delays.

His offer came as airport security lines ballooned, drawing public frustration toward both parties. TSA officers, many of whom rely on paychecks to cover mortgages and family expenses, have continued working without compensation, a situation that has drawn bipartisan concern but little immediate resolution.

Critics of the rejection argue it prioritizes red tape over practical relief for frontline workers and travelers. Supporters of the White House position counter that allowing private funding sets a dangerous precedent and could undermine congressional authority over the budget.

The White House eventually came to terms with the TSA on Friday and started paying them once again, and lines at airports instantly shrank.  The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said that TSA staf would begin receiving paychecks “as early as” today.

Continue Reading