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’s last chance version of the flagship Model X is officially gone
The Signature Edition was no ordinary Model X Plaid. Offered exclusively by invitation to select existing Tesla owners, it represented the final production batch of the current-generation Model X before manufacturing at Fremont ends.
Tesla enabled a last-chance version of its two flagship vehicles, the Model S and Model X, over the past few weeks. The Model X, the company’s original SUV, is officially gone.
Tesla has officially closed the book on its most exclusive send-off for the Model X. The limited-run Model X Signature Edition—priced at $159,420 before fees and limited to just 100 units—is now sold out, with reservations closed as of April 16.
The $160,000 Model X Signature Edition is officially sold out.
Reservations are now closed. pic.twitter.com/4D5FSkTZTa
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) April 16, 2026
The Signature Edition was no ordinary Model X Plaid. Offered exclusively by invitation to select existing Tesla owners, it represented the final production batch of the current-generation Model X before manufacturing at Fremont ends.
Every unit featured an exclusive Garnet Red exterior paint, unique badging, and a standard six-seat configuration. With full Plaid powertrain specs—Tri-Motor All-Wheel Drive, over 1,000 horsepower, and blistering acceleration—it was positioned as a collector’s item for loyalists who wanted one last shot at owning a piece of Tesla history.
The timing is no coincidence.
Tesla announced earlier this year that it would discontinue regular production of both the Model S and Model X to repurpose the Fremont factory’s dedicated lines for mass production of its Optimus humanoid robots.
Elon Musk has repeatedly emphasized that Optimus could ultimately become more valuable to the company than its vehicle business, with ambitions to build hundreds of thousands of units annually.
The Signature Editions served as a final “runout” series: 250 for the Model S and only 100 for the Model X, all built to the highest Plaid specification before the line is converted.
Deliveries of the remaining Signature units are scheduled to begin in May 2026. For buyers who secured one, it’s the ultimate swan song for a vehicle that helped define Tesla’s early luxury EV dominance.
Launched in 2015, the Model X introduced falcon-wing doors, a panoramic windshield, and class-leading performance that turned heads and set benchmarks. While newer models like the Cybertruck and refreshed Model Y have taken center stage, the Model X Plaid remained a halo product for those seeking maximum range, space, and speed in an SUV package.
With inventory of standard Model X units already nearly exhausted across the U.S., the rapid sell-out of the Signature Edition underscores enduring demand for Tesla’s premium flagships even as the company pivots toward robotics and autonomy.
For enthusiasts, these 100 garnet-red SUVs will likely become instant collector’s items—tangible reminders of the vehicles that built the brand before Tesla’s next chapter fully begins. The last chance is gone, but the legacy endures.
Elon Musk
Tesla Optimus V3 hand and arm details revealed in new patents
Two new patents, which were coincidentally filed on the same day as the “We, Robot” event back in October 2024, protect Tesla’s mechanically actuated, tendon-driven architecture.
Tesla is planning to soon reveal its latest and greatest version of the Optimus humanoid robot, and a series of new patents for the hands and arms, with the former being, admittedly, one of the most challenging parts of developing the project.
Two new patents, which were coincidentally filed on the same day as the “We, Robot” event back in October 2024, protect Tesla’s mechanically actuated, tendon-driven architecture.
The designs relocate heavy actuators to the forearm, route cables through a sophisticated wrist design, and employ innovative joint assemblies to achieve human-like dexterity while enabling lightweight construction and high-volume manufacturing.
Core Tendon-Driven Hand Architecture
The primary patent, which is titled “Mechanically Actuated Robotic Hand,” details a cable/tendon-driven system.
Actuators are positioned in the forearm rather than the hand. Each finger features four degrees of freedom (DoF), while the wrist adds two more.
Tesla’s Optimus V3 robot hand looks to have been revealed in a new international patent published today.
The patent describes a tendon/cable-driven hand:
• Actuators in the forearm
• Each finger has 4 degrees of freedom
• The wrist has 2 degrees of freedom
• Tendon-driven… pic.twitter.com/eE8xLEYSrx— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) April 16, 2026
Three thin, flexible control cables (tendons) per finger extend from the forearm actuators, pass through the wrist, and connect to the finger segments. Integrated channels within the finger phalanges guide these cables selectively—routing behind some joints and forward of others—to enable independent bending without unintended motion.
Patent diagrams illustrate thick cable bundles emerging from the wrist into the palm and fingers, with labeled pivots and routing guides. This setup closely mirrors human forearm-muscle and tendon anatomy, where most hand control originates proximally.
Advanced Wrist Routing Innovation
One of the standout features is the wrist’s cable transition mechanism. Cables shift from a lateral stack on the forearm side to a vertical stack on the hand side through a specialized transition zone.
Boom! @Tesla_Optimus 의 3세대 구조로 추정되는, 로봇 팔 및 관절에 대한 특허가 공개되었습니다.
아티클 작업에 들어가겠습니다.
1년 넘게 기다려 온, 정말 귀한 특허인데, 조회수 100만대로 터져줬으면 좋겠네요. 😉@herbertong @SawyerMerritt@GoingBallistic5 @TheHumanoidHub pic.twitter.com/CCEiIlMFSX
— SETI Park (@seti_park) April 16, 2026
This geometry significantly reduces cable stretch, torque, friction, and crosstalk during combined yaw and pitch wrist movements — common failure points in simpler tendon systems that cause imprecise or jerky motion.
By minimizing these issues, the design supports smoother, more reliable multi-axis wrist operation, essential for complex real-world tasks.
Companion Patents on Appendage and Joint Design
Two supporting patents provide additional depth. “Robotic Appendage” covers the overall forearm-to-palm-to-finger assembly, with a palm body movably coupled to the forearm and finger phalanges linked by tensile cables returning to forearm actuators. Tensioning these cables repositions the phalanges precisely.
“Joint Assembly for Robotic Appendage” describes curved contact surfaces on mating structures paired with a composite flexible member. This allows smooth pivoting while maintaining consistent tension, enhancing durability, and simplifying assembly for mass production.
Executive Insights on Hand Development Challenges
Tesla executives have consistently described the hand as the most difficult component of Optimus.
Elon Musk has called it “the majority of the engineering difficulty of the entire robot,” emphasizing that human hands possess roughly 27–28 DoF with an intricate tendon network powered largely by forearm muscles. He has likened the challenge to something “harder than Cybertruck or Model X… somewhere between Model X and Starship.”
In mid-2025, Musk acknowledged that Tesla was “struggling” to finalize the hand and forearm design. By early 2026, he stated that the company had overcome the “hardest” problems, including human-level manual dexterity, real-world AI integration, and volume production scalability.
He estimated the electromechanical hand represents about 60 percent of the overall Optimus challenge, compounded by the lack of an existing supply chain for such precision components.
These patents directly tackle the acknowledged pain points: relocating actuators reduces hand mass and inertia for better speed and efficiency; advanced wrist routing and joint geometry address friction and crosstalk; and simplified, stackable parts visible in the diagrams indicate readiness for high-volume manufacturing.
Implications for Optimus Production and Leadership
Collectively, the patents portray the Optimus v3 hand not as a mere prototype, but as a production-oriented system engineered from first principles.
The 22-DoF architecture, forearm-driven tendons, and crosstalk-minimizing wrist deliver a clear competitive edge in dexterity. They align with Musk’s view that high-volume manufacturing is one of the three critical elements missing from most other humanoid projects.
For Optimus to become the most capable humanoid robot, its hand needed to replicate the useful and applicable design of the human counterpart.
These filings demonstrate that Tesla has transformed years of engineering challenges into patented, elegant solutions — positioning the company strongly in the race toward general-purpose robotics.
News
Tesla intertwines FSD with in-house Insurance for attractive incentive
Every mile logged under FSD now carries a documented financial value—lower risk, lower cost—based on Tesla’s internal driving data rather than external crash statistics alone.
Tesla intertwined its Full Self-Driving (Supervised) suite with its in-house Insurance initiative in an effort to offer an attractive incentive to drivers.
Tesla announced that its new Safety Score 3.0 will automatically have a perfect score of 100 with every mile driven with Full Self-Driving (Supervised) enabled.
The change is designed to boost customers’ average safety scores and deliver noticeably lower monthly premiums.
The move marks the clearest link yet between Tesla’s autonomous driving technology and its proprietary insurance product. Tesla Insurance already relies on real-time vehicle data—such as acceleration, braking, following distance, and speed—to calculate a Safety Score between 0 and 100. Higher scores have long translated into cheaper rates.
Under the previous system, however, even brief manual interventions could drag down the average, frustrating owners who rely heavily on FSD. Version 3.0 eliminates that penalty for supervised autonomous miles, effectively treating FSD-driven segments as the safest possible driving behavior.
The incentive is immediate and financial. Drivers who keep FSD engaged for the majority of their trips will see their overall score rise, potentially shaving hundreds of dollars off annual premiums.
Tesla framed the update as a direct response to customer feedback, many of whom had complained that the old scoring model punished the very behavior it was meant to encourage.
For now, the program applies only to new policies in six states: Indiana, Tennessee, Texas, Arizona, Virginia, and Illinois.
Existing policyholders are not yet included, a point that drew swift questions from the Tesla community. Many owners in other states, including California and Georgia, expressed hope that the benefit would expand nationwide soon.
The announcement arrives as Tesla continues to roll out FSD Supervised updates and push for regulatory approval of more advanced autonomy. By tying insurance savings directly to FSD usage, the company is putting its own actuarial weight behind the technology’s safety claims.
Every mile logged under FSD now carries a documented financial value—lower risk, lower cost—based on Tesla’s internal driving data rather than external crash statistics alone.
Tesla has not disclosed exact premium reductions or the full rollout timeline beyond the six launch states.
Still, the message is clear: the more drivers trust FSD Supervised, the more Tesla Insurance will reward them. In an era when legacy insurers remain cautious about autonomous tech, Tesla is betting that its own data will prove the safest miles are the ones driven hands-free.
Tesla’s last chance version of the flagship Model X is officially gone
Tesla Optimus V3 hand and arm details revealed in new patents
