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.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
