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
How Tesla’s Standard models will help deliveries despite price disappointment
“What a giant miss,” one person said.
“With all due respect, no way is this what y’all have been hyping for 6 quarters…” another one claimed.
“So…where are the affordable models?” another reply read.
When Tesla unveiled its Standard versions of the Model 3 and Model Y this week, reactions were mixed. Many liked the addition of two new models, but they were also concerned about the price.
“What a giant miss,” one person said.
“With all due respect, no way is this what y’all have been hyping for 6 quarters…” another one claimed.
“So…where are the affordable models?” another reply read.
Tesla launches two new affordable models with ‘Standard’ Model 3, Y offerings
There’s no arguing it: $36,990 and $39,990 for the Model 3 Standard and Model Y Standard were not what consumers had in mind.
But, despite Tesla getting its new offerings to a price that is not necessarily as low as many expected, the two cars still have a chance to assist with quarterly deliveries.
Here’s how:
First-time Tesla buyers will lean toward Standard models
Tesla owners have become accustomed to expecting all the bells and whistles in their cars. Heated seats, ventilated seats, acoustic glass, vegan leather, industry-leading performance, world-class range, and a glass roof are all expected by current or past owners.
But what about new owners?
New owners do not have these high expectations, so to many of those who have not sat in a Tesla or driven one before, they are going to be blown away by the minimalistic looks, capabilities, and features of the Standard models.
The Premium models will feel like the high-end offerings that other automakers also have for sale, except they’ll only be a few thousand dollars more than Tesla’s base models. With other companies, the price for these higher-end trims is $10,000 or more.
The more affordable Standard models will be there, but if buyers want the extra features, they’ll likely be able to justify the extra few thousand dollars.
Tesla’s Standard Models fall under the U.S. Average Transaction Price
Kelley Blue Book releases a new report each month showing the average transaction price (ATP) of all vehicles sold in the U.S. for that month.
The latest report, released on September 10 for the month of August, revealed an ATP of $49,077. This was up 0.5% from July ($48,841) and higher year over year by 2.6%.
Technically, Tesla’s new Standard models fall well under that ATP, meaning they technically do qualify as “affordable.” However, realistically speaking, affordable does not mean “under the national average.”
It means accessible for low-income families, single-parent households, and other groups. This would likely be under $30,000.
Déjà Vu with the Cybertruck Rear-Wheel-Drive
When Tesla offered the Cybertruck RWD, it stripped out many of the best features of the Cybertruck, such as the adjustable air suspension, powered tonneau cover, and interior materials, just to name a few.
It was $10,000 less than the Cybertruck AWD, but many people essentially viewed it as a way to push consumers toward the more expensive variants, since the discount was a better value than missing out on features.
Tesla released the Cybertruck RWD to make the AWD look like a deal
Something similar could happen with the Standard models. With it only being a few thousand dollars less than the Premium Model 3 and Model Y, some consumers will see it as a better option to go with the more expensive trim levels.
Even if they don’t, many car buyers will see it as a deal to grab the Standard versions.
News
Tesla bull sees a new path to 600,000 deliveries per quarter
“We believe the launch of a lower cost model represents the first step to getting back to a ~500k quarterly delivery run-rate, which will be important to stimulate demand for its fleet with the EV tax credit expiring at the end of September.”
Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) bull Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities published a new note to investors on Thursday evening, which seemed to open up the possibility of the automaker returning to a growth rate in terms of deliveries.
After nearly two years of leveling off with deliveries, which was expected, Tesla is now slated to potentially return to growth, Ives says, as it has introduced new, more affordable models. It launched its Standard offerings for the Model 3 and Model Y this week, a strategy to bring cheaper cars to customers amid the loss of the $7,500 tax credit.
🚨 Wedbush’s Dan Ives put up a new Tesla $TSLA note:
“The AI valuation will start to get unlocked in the Tesla story and we believe the march to an AI driven valuation for TSLA over the next 6-9 months has now begun in our view with FSD and autonomous penetration of Tesla’s…
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 10, 2025
In his note to investors, Ives said:
“We believe the launch of a lower cost model represents the first step to getting back to a ~500k quarterly delivery run-rate, which will be important to stimulate demand for its fleet with the EV tax credit expiring at the end of September.”
Although these cars come in only slightly under $40,000, there is some belief that they will do two things: attract car buyers looking for an under-$40k EV with Tesla’s technology and infrastructure, or push those on the fence to the now-Premium models, which are simply the Long Range Rear-Wheel-Drive and Long Range All-Wheel-Drive.
Ives said in the note that Tesla’s plans for a $25,000 car are “on hold,” but it seems as if that vehicle will be the Cybercab, which the company unveiled a year ago today.
That project seems to be moving forward as well, based on what we saw at both Fremont and Gigafactory Texas yesterday. At Fremont, the Cybercab was spotted on the Test Track, while crash-tested units were spotted at the factory in Austin.
After the Standard models were rolled out and the Cybercab or another $25,000 unit arrives, Ives believes Tesla could actually get closer to 600,000 deliveries per quarter, he said on CNBC this morning:
BREAKING: DAN IVES SAYS — $TSLA WILL DELIVER ABOVE 600K CARS PER QUARTER 👀
He says Tesla stock is going to $600+ ! pic.twitter.com/fWLfMnH1XH
— TheSonOfWalkley (@TheSonOfWalkley) October 10, 2025
Moving forward, Tesla has much more going for it than its potential growth in quarterly deliveries. Ives recognizes that a majority of what Tesla’s value will come from in the future: AI and autonomy.
Ives said:
“The AI valuation will start to get unlocked in the Tesla story and we believe the march to an AI driven valuation for TSLA over the next 6-9 months has now begun in our view with FSD and autonomous penetration of Tesla’s installed base and the acceleration of Cybercab in the US representing the golden goose for Musk & Co. We believe Tesla could reach a $2 trillion market cap early 2026 in a bull case scenario and $3 trillion by the end of 2026 as full scale volume production begins of the autonomous and robotics roadmap.”
Ives and Wedbush maintained their $600 price target and ‘Outperform’ rating on Tesla stock.
News
The Tesla Model Y Standard is actually a great deal in Europe
A €10,000 delta could very well prove to be a meaningful difference for numerous consumers.
It’s no secret that the Model Y Standard proved polarizing to numerous Tesla watchers in the United States. At just a few thousand dollars less than the Model Y Premium, the entry-level variant seemed like a subpar deal considering all the features that are missing from the vehicle.
In Europe, however, the story might be different, and the Model Y Standard might actually end up being a pretty good deal for numerous car shoppers.
Model Y Standard
Perhaps the biggest complaint against the Model Y Standard in the United States was its price. Listed at $39,990, it was only $5,000 less than the Model Y Premium Rear Wheel Drive (RWD), which starts at $44,990 before options. Considering the list of features and functions that are absent in the Model Y Standard, a good number of Tesla community members noted that the vehicle should have been priced lower, perhaps around $34,990, for it to truly be a good deal.
Otherwise, the entry-level Model Y could end up following in the footsteps of the Cybertruck Rear Wheel Drive, which was priced just below $70,000, but was missing a long list of features that were included on the Cybertruck AWD. The Cybertruck RWD has since been discontinued, likely because of low orders.
Different story in Europe
While the Model Y Standard may not make much sense in the United States, its pricing actually makes it a very good deal in Europe. A look at the order page for the Model Y in The Netherlands, for example, shows that the Model Y Standard is priced at €39,990 before options, €10,000 less than the Model Y Premium Rear Wheel Drive, which is priced at €50,990 before options.
As noted by Tesla watcher @KamermanMenno on social media platform X, a €10,000 delta is a meaningful difference for numerous consumers. Given the significant price difference, the Model Y Standard could become the ideal entry-level vehicle for drivers looking to join the Tesla ecosystem at the lowest possible cost. The fact that the Model Y Standard is a crossover SUV bodes well for the vehicle, given the segment’s popularity as well.
How Tesla’s Standard models will help deliveries despite price disappointment
Tesla bull sees a new path to 600,000 deliveries per quarter
The Tesla Model Y Standard is actually a great deal in Europe
-
News2 weeks agoElon Musk gives update on Tesla Optimus progress
-
News2 weeks agoTesla has a new first with its Supercharger network
-
Investor's Corner2 weeks agoTesla gets new Street-high price target with high hopes for autonomy domination
-
Lifestyle2 weeks ago500-mile test proves why Tesla Model Y still humiliates rivals in Europe
-
News2 weeks agoTesla Giga Berlin’s water consumption has achieved the unthinkable
-
Lifestyle2 weeks agoTesla Model S Plaid battles China’s 1500 hp monster Nurburgring monster, with surprising results
-
News2 weeks agoTesla Model Y makes dramatic comeback in Sweden with 492% rise in registrations
-
News2 weeks agoTesla unveils charging innovation that will make the Semi instantly successful