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.
News
Tesla opens new “Cybaer” Engineering Center in Berlin
Tesla opened its Berlin Engineering Center, uniting four sites and 30 labs near Giga Berlin.
Tesla has opened a new engineering hub in Berlin, putting the teams that design and test its European parts about 30 minutes from the factory that builds them.
The Berlin Tesla Engineering Center, or BTEC, opened Wednesday in the Köpenick district. Tesla Europe said on X that the project went from permit to operational in under a year and consolidates four engineering sites and 30 labs onto a single campus. It is the company’s third hub of this kind, after Fremont and Shanghai.
“We’re combining materials, powertrain, vehicle engineering & validation under one roof, enabling a short feedback loop between development & ramp,” Tesla Europe wrote.
Berlin Tesla Engineering Center opens today From permit to operational in under a year, it brings 4 engineering sites onto 1 campus w/ 30 different labs in Köpenick, 30 minutes from Giga Berlin With our 3rd hub of this kind after Fremont & Shanghai, we’re combining materials, powertrain, vehicle engineering & validation under one roof – enabling a short feedback loop between development & ramp — Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) November 4, 2026
Tesla converted the former production halls of a cable factory for the site. About 250 engineers and technicians are starting there, most of them relocated from existing Tesla facilities such as Tilburg in the Netherlands. Tesla has already applied for approval of a second phase that would take the headcount to roughly 500, and it put the total investment at €100 million.
The labs cover battery cells, motors, materials and complete vehicles, and a large hall is set aside for safety testing of components, including airbags. During the opening, staff demonstrated a pedestrian leg impact test on the front of a Tesla using a catapult rig, Tagesspiegel reported. The center’s logo is a cubist Berlin bear that employees call the “Cybaer.”
Tesla said its Berlin design and engineering teams already contributed to the Model Y, Semi and Roadster, and that the work continues at BTEC. The center will handle technical problem solving for Giga Berlin in Grünheide while also developing and validating parts for vehicles built in China and the United States.
“We came here to stay,” BTEC head Brückner told dpa. “We serve all of Europe via Gigafactory Berlin-Brandenburg.” He said a site close to the plant was a priority, and that the old industrial building allowed Tesla to move quickly.
That proximity matters more now that Giga Berlin is growing again. In June, Tesla said it would raise Model Y output at the plant to 7,500 vehicles per week and hire 1,000 more workers after a record first quarter of more than 61,000 units. The factory recently built 7,000 Model Ys in a single week for the first time. Tesla also more than doubled the planned 4680 cell capacity at the site to 18 GWh per year in May, and has talked about eventually taking Grünheide to one million vehicles annually.
Sales are giving Tesla reason to invest. KBA data released the same day showed Tesla’s German registrations nearly quadrupled year over year in October to 2,932 units, bringing the total for the first ten months of 2026 to 47,742.
Ferrari’s first electric vehicle, the Luce, is fully sold out for 2027, according to CEO Benedetto Vigna.
Presenting third-quarter results, he stated: “Everything we plan to sell next year is already fully allocated. Client test drives, scheduled for next year, will help further boost demand. We have no critical issues, neither on manufacturing nor on the demand side. Obviously, the car is more complex because it has many new parts and many new technologies.”
First customer deliveries are expected before the end of 2026, with the model already commanding waitlists despite a turbulent debut.
The Luce is a five-seat, four-door liftback saloon—the longest Ferrari ever produced—powered by four electric motors producing approximately 1,035 horsepower.
It features an 800-volt architecture, a 122-kWh battery, a claimed WLTP range of around 329 miles, 0-62 mph acceleration in 2.5 seconds, and a starting price near €550,000 in Europe (roughly $560,800–$615,000 in the U.S. depending on configuration).
Developed in collaboration with Jony Ive and Marc Newson’s LoveFrom studio alongside Ferrari’s own Centro Stile, it represents a deliberate departure from the brand’s traditional mid-engine sports cars toward a more spacious, grand-touring format.
Its exterior has proven deeply polarizing. Unveiled in Rome in May 2026, the design features smooth, sweeping surfaces, a large glass roof, and restrained detailing that critics described as bland, generic, or more reminiscent of an Apple product or mass-market EV than a Ferrari.
Ferrari unveils its Luce EV, and its reception has been a disaster
Online reactions included memes comparing it to a Nissan Leaf or Polestar, while former Ferrari chairman Luca di Montezemolo publicly warned of “the destruction of a myth” and suggested the prancing horse logo be removed. Italian politicians and longtime owners joined the chorus of disappointment, and Ferrari’s shares dropped roughly 8% in a single day, erasing billions in market value.
Design experts noted the absence of the brand’s signature tension, aggression, and emotional drama.
Yet the controversy has not translated into weak demand among the ultra-wealthy clientele who actually buy Ferraris. Production volumes remain tightly limited, as reports suggest fewer than 500 units in the current year and a longer-term pace of roughly 600 annually through 2030, preserving exclusivity.
One early chassis sold for $40 million at auction. Vigna has indicated that seeing the car in person, along with upcoming client test drives, is expected to strengthen rather than weaken interest. Ferrari aims for fully electric models to comprise 20 percent of its lineup by 2030, with a second EV now delayed to 2028.
For a brand defined by scarcity and desirability, the Luce’s sell-out status suggests that among those who can afford it, the polarizing design has not proven to be a commercial liability.
Tesla and SpaceX shares fell on Wednesday after Democrats swept both chambers of Congress. The decline stood out as broader market securities recovered and turned positive, while both of Musk’s publicly traded companies lagged.
CEO Elon Musk already joked about the unsuccessful campaigning for the Republicans, but now the new party will make pretty drastic changes to how it handles Tesla and SpaceX, and those companies will adjust their outlook.
Let’s take a deeper look.
Tesla ($TSLA)
Tesla shares traded lower during the regular session after Democrats secured both the House and Senate. The stock was down 2.32 percent at around 1:45 p.m. on the East Coast, trading at around $389.30.
The pressure is tied to more than the raw scale of Musk’s political spending, estimated at $450–474 million this cycle with roughly $224 million directed at Texas. In that state, Tesla now faces a Democratic governor and a Democratic senator after Gina Hinojosa unseated Greg Abbott and James Talarico defeated Ken Paxton.
The Austin Gigafactory, Robotaxi pilot programs in multiple Texas cities, and any related AI compute expansion sit under a new state executive who campaigned against certain corporate subsidies and floated a moratorium on new data-center construction.
Federally, Democratic control of key committees opens the door to deeper examination of Tesla’s autonomous-driving safety record, federal energy-storage and manufacturing incentives, and the national-security implications of any combination with SpaceX.
Investors are also weighing whether the company’s historically close alignment with the prior Republican leadership will invite slower permitting, additional hearings, or tighter rules on Full Self-Driving deployment.
For Tesla, the political shift adds near-term friction around state permitting and federal regulatory approvals for autonomy and energy storage. A potential merger with SpaceX may face slower review even if it proceeds.
Core growth drivers such as vehicle deliveries, energy deployments, and robotaxi rollout remain intact, yet the stock now carries a higher political-risk premium that could weigh on valuation until the company demonstrates workable relationships with the new Texas leadership and congressional majorities.
SpaceX ($SPCX)
SpaceX shares also declined in live trading on November 4 following the Democratic midterm sweep. The stock traded at $134.97, down 4.49 percent. The drop occurred even as broader indexes stabilized, highlighting a company-specific reaction to the election outcome.
Musk’s large contributions, concentrated in Texas races that both companies lost, place SpaceX’s Starbase launch facility and headquarters under a new Democratic governor.
At the federal level, Democratic control of Congress enables greater scrutiny of NASA, the Department of Defense, and other contracts that support a meaningful share of revenue, along with reviews of Starlink national-security uses and any Tesla merger. Analysts have noted that empowered committees can hold hearings and request documents on these relationships.
For SpaceX, the results raise the risk of delayed contract awards, higher compliance costs, and tighter constraints on AI and satellite infrastructure expansion, particularly in Texas where a data-center moratorium has been discussed.
A merger with Tesla could encounter political friction that slows integration of launch, connectivity, and autonomy capabilities.
While Starlink growth and launch cadence continue as primary drivers, the company faces a more contested path for federal funding and state-level operations, requiring management to rebuild ties with the new congressional majorities and Texas leadership to limit the overhang.
Tesla opens new “Cybaer” Engineering Center in Berlin
Ferrari Luce sold out for 2027 after design controversy
