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’s dedicated factory for building up to ten million Optimus units is officially under construction at Gigafactory Texas.
Drone footage released on May 27 by Giga Texas observer Joe Tegtmeyer captures the significant milestone of the first steel structure officially standing at Tesla’s new Optimus factory on the North Campus of the facility.
Phase two of land reclamation is advancing steadily, and the progress will let the new building extend nearly the full length of the main Giga Texas factory, potentially exceeding 4,000 feet, while measuring somewhere between 50 and 70 meters narrower. Extensive foundation work is proceeding as well.
Big news at the new Optimus 10m/y factory construction site today! The 1st steel structure has been erected & as expected the second phase of land reclamation is underway.
This will allow this new factory to grow to nearly the same length as the main Giga Texas factory,… pic.twitter.com/FidRLV6XpU
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) May 27, 2026
This facility forms a central element of Tesla’s broader North Campus expansion at Giga Texas. The project will add more than 5.2 million square feet of new industrial space. It sits alongside other advanced developments, including a Terafab for next-gen AI chips. The scale reflects Tesla’s commitment to transforming humanoid robotics into a core pillar of the company’s future.
Musk has said that Optimus will be the biggest product in the world on several occasions. He believes it will be Tesla’s biggest valuation contributor.
Tesla prepares to expand Giga Texas with new Optimus production plant
Tesla plans to build about 10 million robots at the site annually once it is completed, which would be about 27,000 units each day.
The Optimus plant at Giga Texas is part of Tesla’s phased strategy for Optimus manufacturing. In an effort to start production of the robot well before the Giga Texas plant is complete, Tesla ended production of the Model S and Model X vehicles, which were built in Fremont, California, to make way for initial Optimus manufacturing efforts.
Production there will start in either July or August of this year, and early units will support internal factory tasks while the team gathers real-world data to refine processes. The Gigafactory Texas facility will house a second-gen production line. It targets high-volume output starting in Summer 2027.
Musk has repeatedly described Optimus as potentially more valuable than Tesla’s entire vehicle business. Current versions are already completing minor tasks around various facilities, while Tesla continues to refine its abilities and add new features.
Tesla’s total investment could reach several billion dollars. Significant challenges lie ahead, including the creation of an entirely new manufacturing ecosystem, the refinement of AI systems for dependable autonomy, and the development of reliable supply chains for actuators, sensors, and other components.
Nevertheless, the visible progress at Giga Texas highlights Tesla’s capacity to translate ambitious concepts into physical reality.
Tesla’s Optimus factory stands as much more than a simple expansion project, as it is quite literally the second phase of what could potentially be the biggest product ever. With construction beginning, 2027 is poised to become a transformative year for Tesla, as it evolves even further from an electric vehicle leader into a pioneer of intelligent, general-purpose machines.
Tesla Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, Lars Moravy, recently revealed the company has thought about introducing a Plaid powertrain on the Model 3, but there could be some challenges involved.
On the Ride the Lightning podcast, Moravy revealed that he thinks about a Plaid Model 3 “all the time,” and it certainly has a place in Tesla’s potential lineup of future vehicles.
Now that the Plaid powertrain is technically defunct due to the newfound absence of the Model S and Model X, Tesla could find a way to reintroduce the lightning-quick trim level to its mass-market vehicles.
But there are going to be some challenges with it. Moravy said that the Model 3 Plaid would likely adopt the carbon-sleeved motors that the Model S Plaid had. However, packaging would be a major challenge, as Moravy said on the podcast, it would be a “tight engineering squeeze.”
It’s important to note that there are no active production plans for the Model 3 Plaid at this point, but it’s also worth noting that with the Model S and Model X Plaid no longer available, Tesla would likely be willing to introduce something that is even more white-knuckle than the Model 3 Performance, which already boasts a 2.9-second 0-60 MPH acceleration rate and a top speed of 163 MPH.
Of course, there is the Roadster, but we don’t know when that will exactly make it to market, and we know that, for sure, it will not be accessible to many.
Tesla unveils juicy new detail on the Roadster and hints at new unveil timeline
Tesla has prided itself in building some of the best cars out there, but they’re also interested in building cars that are simply fun to be in.
A Plaid Model 3 could truly push the limits and could end up being one of the best cars Tesla will ever build, especially if it can shave off at least half of a second from its 0-60 MPH time and increase its top speed slightly.
More than anything, the real changes will be in the ride and aerodynamics. Tesla improving things like the suspension, handling, and downforce will be the true trademarks of its Plaid powertrain; putting it in the Model 3 could be a great move for the company and for customers interested in high-end performance.
Elon Musk
NASA’s first human outpost on the Moon starts now – SpaceX on deck
NASA named the rovers, landers, and vendors that will build America’s first Moon Base.
NASA has laid out its most detailed Moon Base plan to date, describing a permanent outpost near the Moon’s south pole that the agency intends to build over the coming decade as a direct stepping stone to Mars. “The Moon Base will be America’s and humanity’s first outpost on another celestial world,” NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said, adding that every mission crewed and uncrewed “will be a learning opportunity as we return to the lunar surface, build the infrastructure to stay, and master the skills required to live and operate in one of the most demanding and dangerous environments imaginable.”
The plan is structured in three phases involving both uncrewed and crewed missions to deliver equipment, vehicles, and infrastructure to the surface, with the first three moon base missions targeted to launch before the end of 2026.
Moon Base I, targeting fall 2026, will use Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Mark 1 lander to deliver scientific instruments to the Shackleton Connecting Ridge, the same region where Artemis astronauts will land. Moon Base II will send Astrobotic’s Griffin lander carrying more than 1,100 pounds of cargo including Astrolab’s FLIP rover to begin developing mobility systems on the surface. Moon Base III will carry the Lunar Vertex science mission on Intuitive Machines’ Nova-C Trinity lander to study lunar swirls near the south pole, with ESA and Korean science payloads aboard.
On the rover side, NASA awarded Astrolab $219 million and Lunar Outpost $220 million to build the first phase of Lunar Terrain Vehicles, with both rovers targeted for deployment to the lunar surface by 2028. Astrolab’s crewed rover weighs roughly 2,000 pounds and can reach over 6 mph. Lunar Outpost’s Pegasus rover can operate autonomously or via remote control at over 9 mph. Blue Origin separately received $188 million with an option worth $280.4 million to deliver cargo landers for rover transport.
NASA also confirmed that MoonFall, a mission deploying four survey drones to scout Artemis landing sites, has selected Firefly Aerospace to build the transport spacecraft, with a 2028 launch target.
SpaceX sits at the center of that commercial layer. SpaceX holds the NASA Human Landing System contract for the Starship-derived lander that will put astronauts on the surface under Artemis IV, currently targeting 2028. Before that can happen, SpaceX must demonstrate in-orbit propellant transfer at scale, a process requiring multiple Starship tanker launches to fuel a single mission. Water ice at the lunar south pole is central to the base’s long-term viability, as it can be converted into drinking water, breathable oxygen, and rocket fuel, directly reducing dependence on Earth resupply. That resource loop becomes far more practical if Starship can land and be refueled on or near the Moon itself.
Elon Musk has publicly stated that Starship V3, which recently completed its first flight, should be capable enough for initial Mars missions. The Moon Base plan announced Tuesday is the infrastructure layer that connects everything between those two ambitions, and SpaceX is the only American company currently contracted to build the rocket that gets humans to either destination.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory construction officially underway at Giga Texas
Tesla teases going Plaid Mode with the Model 3
