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 Semi gets strange-but-understandable comparison from Jay Leno
In a recent interview with MotorTrend, legendary comedian and automotive enthusiast Jay Leno shared his impressions after driving Tesla’s long-range Semi truck, offering one of the most vivid descriptions to date:
The Tesla Semi recently received a strange-but-understandable comparison from automotive enthusiast and former long-time late-night television show host Jay Leno.
In a recent interview with MotorTrend, legendary comedian and automotive enthusiast Jay Leno shared his impressions after driving Tesla’s long-range Semi truck, offering one of the most vivid descriptions to date:
“It’s like driving an office building.”
The comparison may seem quirky—office buildings evoke images of immobility rather than motion—but it aptly conveys the experience of commanding a massive 23,000-pound Class 8 electric truck that delivers sports-car acceleration.
Lenotested the production-spec Long Range model, which is rated for up to 500 miles of range. He was visibly impressed by its performance, noting how the enormous vehicle moves with surprising urgency.
“It’s as fast as a Tesla, but it’s like driving an office building,” he remarked. “It’s this huge thing that moves like right now. You go 500 miles. You get 60% charge in 30 minutes. You’re saving on fuel costs. It seems quite good.”
Jay Leno in new interview on what it’s like to drive the @Tesla Semi:
“I was quite impressed with that. It’s a fast as a Tesla, but it’s like driving an office building. It’s this huge thing that moves like right now. You go 500 miles. You get 60% charge in 30 mins. You’re… pic.twitter.com/YU7tk6a6pV
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 8, 2026
The reaction highlights the cognitive dissonance at the core of the Tesla Semi. Traditional diesel semi-trucks are slow, noisy, and expensive to run. The Semi rewrites the rules with instant torque from its tri-motor electric powertrain, producing up to 800 kW.
Despite its size, the truck feels agile thanks to full electric steering assist, upgraded actuators borrowed from the Cybertruck, and a 48-volt electrical architecture that improves responsiveness and efficiency.
Tesla reports real-world energy consumption below 1.7 kWh per mile for the Long Range version. Megacharger stations can deliver a 60% charge in roughly 30 minutes, making the truck suitable for long-haul operations.
Additional features include an electric Power Take-Off (ePTO) capable of 25 kW for trailer refrigeration or other equipment, and a driver-focused cab with a central seating position for optimal visibility and a quiet, high-tech interior.
Fleet operators stand to benefit significantly from the economics. Diesel trucks often cost nearly one dollar per mile when including fuel, maintenance, and downtime.
Tesla projects the Semi can reduce operating costs to as low as 15 cents per mile through cheaper electricity, regenerative braking that minimizes brake wear, and reduced service requirements. While early deployments, like Pepsi’s, focused on shorter routes, the 500-mile variant targets cross-country applications.
Obstacles remain. A fully loaded tractor-trailer can reach 80,000 pounds, which reduces real-world range compared to the unloaded test conditions. Building out a nationwide Megacharger network will be essential for broader adoption. The Semi also carries a higher upfront price than conventional diesels, though total cost of ownership and available incentives frequently tip the scales in its favor over time.
Tesla Semi hauls fresh Cybercab batch as Robotaxi era takes hold
Leno’s “office building” description resonates because it captures the unexpected thrill of piloting something so large yet so capable. As the trucking industry faces pressure to cut emissions and control rising fuel expenses, the Semi offers a compelling alternative that excels in performance, comfort, and efficiency.
Coming from a man who has driven everything from vintage classics to modern hypercars, Leno’s genuine enthusiasm adds weight to the verdict.
The Tesla Semi is emerging as more than an experimental EV—it represents a practical vision for the future of heavy-duty transport where massive rigs accelerate instantly, and the numbers finally make sense. If fleet results continue to validate the claims, the era of diesel dominance could be drawing to a close.
News
Tesla expands its mass-market color palette in the U.S.
Delivering a fresh splash of color to its lineup, Tesla is giving U.S. buyers two stunning new blue options that are already turning heads.
Tesla has expanded the color palette it offers on its mass market vehicles in the United States, giving buyers of the Model 3 and Model Y a few additional options than before.
Delivering a fresh splash of color to its lineup, Tesla is giving U.S. buyers two stunning new blue options that are already turning heads. Starting on May 8, the automaker updated its North American configurator to introduce Marine Blue on Model Y Premium trims and Frost Blue exclusively on the Model 3 Performance.
Tesla Model Y and Model 3 Premium get Marine Blue for $1000 in the U.S.!
What do you think? pic.twitter.com/3FqMXcnmru
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 8, 2026
The move replaces the long-running Deep Blue Metallic, a staple for over eight years, and brings previously exclusive shades stateside.
Marine Blue, a deep, rich oceanic hue formerly limited to Europe and Asia-Pacific markets, is now available on Model 3 and Model Y RWD and Long Range AWD Premium variants. Priced at a $1,000 upgrade—standard for Tesla’s premium paints—it delivers a sophisticated, metallic finish that shifts beautifully under light.
Tesla Model Y and Model 3 Premium get Marine Blue for $1000 in the U.S.!
What do you think? pic.twitter.com/3FqMXcnmru
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 8, 2026
Tesla North America highlighted the change directly in an official post, confirming Marine Blue as the new flagship blue for non-Performance models.
Frost Blue, on the other hand, is the real crowd-pleaser for enthusiasts. Previously reserved for the flagship Model S and Model X, this lighter, icy metallic shade is now offered at no extra cost on Model 3 Performance and Model Y Performance trims.
Frost Blue now available on Tesla Model 3 Performance 😤 pic.twitter.com/rLOEh4pTkp
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 8, 2026
Performance buyers effectively get a premium color included in the base price, a smart perk that Tesla has extended to higher-end variants across the board. Early in-person sightings and configurator renders show Frost Blue’s cool, modern vibe popping against the cars’ sleek lines, especially with black wheels and red brake calipers.
The timing couldn’t be better. With Tesla pushing refreshed Model 3 and Model Y refreshes amid growing competition, these updates add visual excitement without major redesigns.
Deep Blue Metallic orders are being transitioned to the new shades, according to customer reports and Tesla communications. In the U.S., Puerto Rico, and Mexico, the options are live now; Canada sees limited Frost Blue availability on the Model 3 Performance.
Tesla’s color strategy continues to evolve, borrowing from higher-end models to refresh mass-market EVs. Now that we bid farewell to the Model S and Model X, some of their colors might be available on the more widely available Model 3 and Model Y.
Elon Musk
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
A California regulatory filing just confirmed the exact battery size inside each Tesla Semi variant.
A regulatory filing published by the California Air Resources Board in April 2026 has put official numbers on what Tesla Semi owners and fleet buyers have long wanted confirmed: the exact battery capacities of both the Long Range and Standard Range Semi truck variants. CARB is California’s independent air quality regulator, and it certifies zero-emission powertrains before they can be sold or operated in the state. When a manufacturer submits a vehicle for certification, the resulting executive order becomes a public document, making it one of the most reliable sources for confirmed production specs on any EV.
The document lists two certified powertrain configurations. The Long Range Semi carries a usable battery capacity of 822 kWh, while the Standard Range version comes in at 548 kWh. Both use lithium-ion NCMA chemistry and share the same peak and steady-state motor output ratings of 800 kW and 525 kW respectively. Cross-referencing Tesla’s published efficiency figure of approximately 1.7 kWh per mile under full load, the 822 kWh pack supports roughly 480 miles of real-world range, which aligns closely with Tesla’s advertised 500-mile figure for the Long Range trim. The 548 kWh Standard Range pack works out to approximately 320 miles, again consistent with Tesla’s stated 325-mile target.
Here is a direct comparison of the two versions based on the CARB filing and published specs:
| Tesla Semi Spec | Long Range | Standard Range |
| Battery Capacity | 822 kWh | 548 kWh |
| Battery Chemistry | NCMA Li-Ion | NCMA Li-Ion |
| Peak Motor Power | 800 kW | 525 kW |
| Estimated Range | ~500 miles | ~325 miles |
| Efficiency | ~1.7 kWh/mile | ~1.7 kWh/mile |
| Est. Price | ~$290,000 | ~$260,000 |
| GVW Rating | 82,000 lbs | 82,000 lbs |
The timing of this certification is not incidental. On April 29, 2026, Semi Programme Director Dan Priestley confirmed on X that high-volume production is now ramping at Tesla’s dedicated 1.7-million-square-foot facility in Sparks, Nevada. A key advantage of the Nevada location is vertical integration: the 4680 battery cells powering the Semi are manufactured in the same complex, eliminating the supply chain bottleneck that had delayed the program for years.
Tesla’s long-term goal is to reach a production capacity of 50,000 trucks annually at the Nevada factory, which would represent roughly 20 percent of the entire North American Class 8 market. With CARB certification now in hand and the production line running, the regulatory and manufacturing groundwork for that target is in place.
Tesla Semi gets strange-but-understandable comparison from Jay Leno
Tesla expands its mass-market color palette in the U.S.
