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 has launched a new solution to a rare but relevant Supercharger problem with a new Virtual Waitlist, a remedy that will solve sequencing confusion when there is a line to charge at one of the company’s locations.
Teslarati reported on what we called the Virtual Queue last month. In rare occurrences, there were physical altercations at Superchargers when someone might have cut in line to charge. Tesla started to develop some sort of system that would resolve this issue, and now it is finally rolling it out.
Tesla launches solution to end Supercharger fights once and for all
It will start with a Pilot Program, and Tesla is calling it the ‘Waitlist.’
Announced on May 11 on the official TeslaCharging X account, the pilot program is currently active at sites in Los Gatos, Mountain View, and San Francisco in California, as well as San Jose, CA, and the Bronx, NY (East Gun Hill Road). Drivers are encouraged to share feedback directly through the Tesla app to refine the system before a potential broader rollout.
We’re now testing a new waitlist feature at 5 Supercharger sites. Share feedback through the Tesla app to help us make it better.
– Los Gatos, CA – Los Gatos Boulevard
– Mountain View, CA – El Monte Avenue
– San Francisco, CA – Lombard Street
– San Jose, CA – Saratoga Avenue
-… pic.twitter.com/epTVzpJxgW— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) May 11, 2026
Tesla released the video above to showcase the feature, which automatically joins the waitlist when your vehicle has the Supercharger with the wait as the destination in the navigation. There is also a notification that lets you know your place in line.
In this specific example, the video shows that the wait is less than five minutes, and that there are two cars ahead of the one in the video:
Credit: Tesla
Having a wait at a Supercharger is relatively rare, but it does happen. It is even more frequent now that there are more EVs allowed to use the Supercharger Network. Those non-Tesla EVs can also join the queue, as Tesla added in its social media release of the pilot program that they can join the waitlist using the Tesla app.
The release of this program should help alleviate the rare risk of incidents at Superchargers. Tesla will expand this program as it sees fit, and it gathers valuable data and reviews from users.
Investor's Corner
Tesla Optimus is already benefiting investors, top Wall Street firm says
Piper Sandler has updated its detailed valuation model for Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA), concluding that at recent share prices around $400–$420, investors are essentially acquiring the company’s ambitious Optimus humanoid robot project at no extra cost.
Tesla Optimus is already benefiting investors from a fiscal standpoint, at least that is what Alexander Potter at Piper Sandler, a top Wall Street firm covering the company, says.
Piper Sandler has updated its detailed valuation model for Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA), concluding that at recent share prices around $400–$420, investors are essentially acquiring the company’s ambitious Optimus humanoid robot project at no extra cost.
Analyst Alexander Potter, in the firm’s latest “Definitive Guide to Investing in Tesla,” built a comprehensive framework covering 17 separate product lines.
This granular approach values Tesla’s core businesses—including electric vehicles, energy storage, Full Self-Driving (FSD) software, in-house insurance, Supercharging network, and a standalone robotaxi operation—at approximately $400 per share, without assigning any value to Optimus or related inference-as-a-service opportunities.
“At $400/share, we think investors can buy Optimus for ‘free,’” Potter stated in the note. Piper Sandler maintained its Overweight rating on Tesla shares and a $500 price target, which implicitly attributes roughly $100 per share to the robot-related businesses— a figure the analyst views as potentially conservative.
The updated model incorporates elements often overlooked by other sell-side analysts, such as detailed forecasts for Tesla’s insurance operations, Supercharger revenue, and a distinct valuation for the robotaxi business separate from FSD software licensing. It also accounts for Tesla’s 2025 CEO compensation plan for the first time.
Potter acknowledged that his estimates for 2026 and 2027 fall below Wall Street consensus, citing factors like declining deliveries from certain discontinued models and reduced regulatory credit income.
However, he expressed limited concern, noting that traditional vehicle delivery metrics are expected to matter less over time as FSD subscriber growth and robotaxi deployment metrics gain prominence. On Optimus specifically, Potter suggested the humanoid robot program, combined with inference services, “arguably will be worth more than Tesla’s other businesses combined,” though the firm has not yet produced formal long-term forecasts for these segments.
Tesla shares have traded near the $400 range in recent sessions, reflecting ongoing investor focus on the company’s autonomous driving progress and expansion into robotics and AI. The Optimus project remains in early development stages, with Tesla aiming to deploy the robots initially for internal factory tasks before broader commercial applications.
This Piper Sandler analysis highlights the growing emphasis among some investors and analysts on Tesla’s long-term technology platform potential beyond its current automotive and energy businesses.
As with any forward-looking valuation, outcomes will depend on execution timelines, technological breakthroughs, regulatory approvals for autonomous systems, and market adoption of humanoid robotics—areas that carry significant uncertainty and execution risk.
The note underscores a common theme in Tesla coverage: differing views on how to quantify emerging high-growth opportunities like robotics within the company’s overall enterprise value. Investors are advised to consider their own risk tolerance and conduct thorough due diligence regarding these speculative elements.
News
Tesla Giga Texas buzzing as new Cybertruck appears to enter production
Additionally, the Cybercab manufacturing ramp-up is continuing amidst Tesla’s busy May, which includes a handful of things from an automotive perspective.
Tesla Giga Texas is buzzing with a lot of action, as it appears the new Cybertruck trim that was offered a few months back has entered production. Additionally, the Cybercab manufacturing ramp-up is continuing amidst Tesla’s busy May, which includes a handful of things from an automotive perspective.
Drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer captured striking footage over Giga Texas on the morning of May 11, 2026, revealing fresh batches of Cybertrucks that may mark the start of series production for the long-awaited $59,990 Dual Motor AWD variant.
Tesla launches new Cybertruck trim with more features than ever for a low price
The vehicles lined up in staging areas, and we got a great look at three of the units parked on the property:
Hard to say for sure, but production of the $59K AWD @Cybertruck may be just getting started here on this early and soggy morning at Giga Texas … this version is much harder to visually distinguish from the premium AWD versions, so I’ll come back on Wednesday and we’ll see if… pic.twitter.com/UX7yCQpgeC
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) May 11, 2026
Tegtmeyer notes the difficulty in visually distinguishing this base AWD model from higher-trim versions, unlike the earlier Long-Range RWD that lacked a motorized tonneau cover.
Tesla launched the $59,990 Dual Motor AWD Cybertruck in late February 2026 with a brief introductory pricing window that closed by month’s end.
Initial U.S. delivery estimates of June 2026 quickly slipped to September–October and, for newer orders, as far as April 2027.
The move underscores robust consumer interest in a more accessible all-wheel-drive Cybertruck priced under $60,000 before incentives—positioning it as a volume play for Tesla’s electric pickup lineup while premium AWD and Cyberbeast variants continue to be sold as usual.
Meanwhile, Cybercab production at the same Austin facility shows steady, if deliberate, progress. Tegtmeyer’s latest flyover documented dozens of glossy production-spec Cybercabs parked in the outbound lot—consistent with Tesla’s early statements that initial output would remain modest before scaling later in 2026.
The purpose-built robotaxi, unveiled in 2024 and lacking a steering wheel or pedals, rolled its first unit off the line in February. Volume manufacturing began in April, with early examples already undergoing autonomous testing around the factory grounds.
Elon Musk has repeatedly emphasized that Cybercab and Semi production will start slowly before ramping “exponentially” toward year-end. The presence of multiple finished units signals Tesla’s Unboxed manufacturing process is maturing, even as the company balances Cybertruck output with autonomy milestones.
Recent drone imagery also shows ongoing construction for Optimus and test-track expansions, highlighting Giga Texas’s evolving role as Tesla’s hub for next-generation vehicles.
For Cybertruck buyers, the potential ramp of the $59K AWD offers hope of shorter waits and broader market access. For autonomy enthusiasts, the growing fleet of Cybercabs hints at robotaxi service trials on the horizon.
While official confirmation from Tesla remains pending, Tegtmeyer’s footage provides the clearest public signal yet that both programs are advancing in parallel at Giga Texas.
Tesla launches its solution to rare but relevant Supercharger problem
Tesla Optimus is already benefiting investors, top Wall Street firm says
