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 influencers argue company’s polarizing Full Self-Driving transfer decision
Tesla maintains it will honor transfers for orders with initial delivery windows before the deadline and offers full deposit refunds otherwise, citing longstanding fine print that the program is “subject to change at any time.”
Tesla’s decision to tighten its Full Self-Driving (FSD) transfer promotion has ignited fierce debate among owners and enthusiasts.
The company quietly updated its terms in late February 2026, changing the eligibility from “order by March 31, 2026” to “take delivery by March 31, 2026.”
What began as a flexible incentive to boost sales, allowing buyers to transfer their paid FSD (Supervised) to a new vehicle, now excludes many, particularly Cybertruck owners facing delivery delays into summer or later.
Tesla maintains it will honor transfers for orders with initial delivery windows before the deadline and offers full deposit refunds otherwise, citing longstanding fine print that the program is “subject to change at any time.”
The reversal has polarized the Tesla community, with accusations of a “bait-and-switch” clashing against defenses of corporate pragmatism. Many owners who placed orders under the original wording feel betrayed, especially as production backlogs and new unsupervised FSD rollout complicate timelines.
However, Tesla has allowed them to cancel their orders and receive a refund.
Critics of the decision argue that the change disadvantages loyal customers who helped fund FSD development, calling it poor communication and a revenue grab as Tesla pivots toward subscriptions.
Popular influencers have amplified the divide. Whole Mars Catalog struck a measured but firm tone, acknowledging the original “order by” language but emphasizing Tesla’s right to adjust terms. He has continued to defend Tesla in this particular issue:
Sad to see so many fans trashing Tesla with such extreme language.
LIARS!!! PATHETIC!!! And if you aren’t as furious and angry as they are they are you’re “worshipping” and saying “they can do no wrong”.
Let’s get real here. They’re not liars. They offered FSD transfer to us… https://t.co/3Ay7vGaVR6
— Whole Mars Catalog (@wholemars) March 3, 2026
He criticized extreme backlash as “dramatization” and “spoiled kids,” noting the unsupervised FSD era and broader sales challenges make blanket transfers financially risky. Whole Mars advocated for polite outreach to CEO Elon Musk over the issue.
Rather than “calling them out”, I would simply say “Hey Elon, really hoped to be able to do FSD transfer on my cybertruck but the terms changed. Would really appreciate if Tesla could extend this to everyone who ordered before the terms changes”
that would probably work
— Whole Mars Catalog (@wholemars) March 3, 2026
In a contrasting perspective, Dirty TesLA voiced sharper frustration, posting that blocking transfers feels “crazy” and distancing himself from “people that want to worship a corporation and say they can do no wrong.” His stance resonated with owners who view the policy flip as disrespectful to early adopters.
Popular Tesla influencer Sawyer Merritt captured the frustration felt by thousands. In a widely shared thread viewed over 700,000 times, Merritt detailed how pre-change Cybertruck orders now risk losing FSD eligibility unless their initial delivery window falls before March 31.
It’s not a contradiction, it’s a change in policy that Tesla just made an hour ago. I am trying to check if the change is retroactive to all existing orders, including Cybertruck AWD orders, because if it is, that sucks big time.
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) February 28, 2026
The controversy underscores deeper tensions—between Tesla’s need for revenue discipline and owners’ expectations of goodwill. As FSD evolves toward unsupervised capability, the community remains split: some see the change as necessary business, others as a broken promise. Whether Tesla reconsiders under pressure or holds firm remains to be seen, but it does not appear they are planning to budge.
News
Tesla Semi’s latest adoptee will likely encourage more of the same
Public visibility matters. When shoppers see a trusted name like Ralph’s running clean, high-tech trucks on public roads, skepticism fades. Competitors such as Albertsons, which pre-ordered Semis years ago, and other chains chasing ESG targets now have proof that electric autonomy works in real-world grocery fleets.
The latest adoptee of the Tesla Semi will likely encourage more businesses in the same realm to adopt the all-electric Class 8 truck, as a new company utilizing the Semi has been spotted in Southern California.
A sleek, futuristic Tesla Semi truck branded for Ralph’s Supermarkets was spotted cruising a Los Angeles highway in a viral 13-second dashcam video posted March 2, by X user ChargePozitive.
Tesla Semi Truck in the wild pic.twitter.com/SnQY8ShMMJ
— ChargePozitive ⚡️➕ (@ChargePozitive) March 2, 2026
This sighting confirms Kroger’s March 2025 partnership with Tesla to deploy up to 500 autonomous electric Semis.
While the initial announcement targeted Midwest supply chains, the California appearance under the Ralph’s banner shows the program expanding to Kroger’s West Coast operations. Ralph’s, a staple for millions of Southern California shoppers, is now hauling groceries with the Semi, which has zero tailpipe emissions and claims up to 500 miles of range per charge.
Tesla Semi pricing revealed after company uncovers trim levels
The timing could not be better for sustainable logistics. Traditional trucking accounts for a massive share of retail emissions, but Tesla’s Semi slashes fuel and maintenance costs while leveraging full autonomy to ease driver shortages and improve safety.
Tesla’s expanding Megacharger network, including new sites along major freight corridors and partnerships like the recently-announced one with Pilot Travel Centers, is removing range anxiety and making nationwide scaling realistic. There’s still a long way to go, but things are moving in the right direction.
Public visibility matters. When shoppers see a trusted name like Ralph’s running clean, high-tech trucks on public roads, skepticism fades. Competitors such as Albertsons, which pre-ordered Semis years ago, and other chains chasing ESG targets now have proof that electric autonomy works in real-world grocery fleets.
PepsiCo’s successful pilots already demonstrated viability, and Ralph’s sighting adds retail credibility.
As Tesla ramps high-volume Semi production through 2026, this isn’t an isolated curiosity. Instead, it’s a catalyst. More grocers adopting the platform will accelerate industry-wide decarbonization, cut operating expenses, and deliver tangible environmental wins.
The future of sustainable supply chains is already on the highway, and Ralph’s just made it impossible to ignore.
Moving forward, Tesla hopes to expand the Semi program into other regions, including Europe, which CEO Elon Musk recently said is a total possibility next year.
Elon Musk
Tesla ramps Cybercab test manufacturing ahead of mass production
Tesla still has plans for volume production, which remains between four and eight weeks away, aligning with Musk’s statements that early ramps would be deliberately measured given the Cybercab’s novel architecture and full reliance on Tesla’s vision-based Full Self-Driving technology.
Tesla is seemingly ramping Cybercab test manufacturing ahead of mass production, which is scheduled to begin next month, the company said.
At Tesla’s Gigafactory Texas, production of the Cybercab, the company’s groundbreaking purpose-built Robotaxi vehicle, is accelerating markedly. Drone footage from Joe Tegtmeyer captured striking aerial footage today, revealing what appears to be the largest public sighting of Cyebrcabs to date.
A total of 25 units were observed by Tegtmeyer across the Gigafactory Texas property, marking a clear step-up in testing and validation activities as Tesla prepares for a broader output.
Tesla Cybercab production begins: The end of car ownership as we know it?
In the footage, 14 metallic gold Cybercabs were parked in a tight formation outside the factory exit, showcasing their sleek, autonomous-only design with no steering wheels, pedals, or traditional controls. Another 9 units sat at the crash testing facility, likely undergoing structural and safety validations, while two more appeared at the west end-of-line area for final checks.
Big day for Cybercab at Giga Texas today! Actually, yesterday to kick off March, the production line went into a higher volume & today we see 25 at three main locations, and there were several others I observed driving around too!
I think this may be the largest single grouping… pic.twitter.com/HZDMNv57lJ
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) March 3, 2026
Tegtmeyer noted additional Cybercabs driving around the complex, hinting at active movement and real-world testing beyond static parking.
This surge follows the first production Cybercab rolling off the line in mid-February 2026, several weeks ahead of the originally anticipated April start.
That milestone, celebrated by Tesla employees and confirmed by CEO Elon Musk, kicked off low-volume builds on the dedicated “unboxed” manufacturing line, a modular process designed to slash costs, reduce factory footprint, and enable faster assembly compared to conventional methods.
Industry observers interpret the jump to dozens of visible units in early March as evidence that Tesla has transitioned into higher-volume test manufacturing.
Tesla still has plans for volume production, which remains between four and eight weeks away, aligning with Musk’s statements that early ramps would be deliberately measured given the Cybercab’s novel architecture and full reliance on Tesla’s vision-based Full Self-Driving technology.
The Cybercab, envisioned as a sub-$30,000 autonomous two-seater for robotaxi fleets, represents Tesla’s bold pivot toward scalable autonomy and robotics.
Tesla fans and enthusiasts on X praised the imagery, with many expressing excitement over the visible progress toward deployment. While challenges remain, including software maturity, regulatory hurdles, and supply chain scaling, the increased factory activity underscores Tesla’s momentum in turning the Cybercab vision into reality.
As Giga Texas continues expanding and refining the manufacturing process of the Cybercab, the coming months will prove to be a pivotal time in determining how quickly this revolutionary vehicle reaches roads in the U.S. and internationally.
Tesla influencers argue company’s polarizing Full Self-Driving transfer decision
Tesla Semi’s latest adoptee will likely encourage more of the same
