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 Cybercab has taken a significant step toward production with new technical details emerging from 2026 EPA certification documents.
The filings, which include a Certificate of Conformity issued in late May, provide the most comprehensive public look yet at the purpose-built autonomous vehicle designed for high-volume, low-cost ride-hailing operations.
At its core, the Cybercab is a front-wheel-drive electric vehicle powered by a single 163 kW (219 horsepower) AC permanent magnet motor. Despite its modest output, prioritizing efficiency and cost over neck-snapping acceleration, the vehicle boasts a strong power-to-weight ratio thanks to its lightweight curb weight of 3,113 pounds and a GVWR of 3,730 pounds.
It operates on a 326-volt electrical architecture with a compact ~48 kWh lithium-ion battery pack. The standout revelation is the vehicle’s exceptional efficiency, which Tesla has routinely flexed in the past.
EPA lab tests list an equivalent all-electric range of 418 miles combined and 375 miles on the highway. Tesla has previously targeted around 300 miles of real-world range, and analysts expect the final EPA-rated figure to land near 280-300 miles after adjustment factors.
At a certified 165 Wh/mi in earlier testing, the Cybercab is reportedly the most efficient EV ever produced, significantly outperforming vehicles like the Lucid Air Pure.
New information about @Tesla‘s Cybercab has been revealed in public EPA documents.
• Front-wheel drive
• Battery capacity: ~48 kWh
• 219 horsepower
• Curb weight: 3,113 lbs
• GVWR: 3,730 lbs
• Motor power: 163kW
• Voltage: 326vEquivalent All Electric Range is listed at… pic.twitter.com/D4gkJJTj25
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 15, 2026
This efficiency stems from deliberate design choices tailored for robotaxi duty. The two-seater features a highly aerodynamic shape, minimal weight, which is aided by structural battery integration of what are likely 4680 cells, and no steering wheel or pedals in its fully autonomous configuration.
For ride-hailing fleets, where average trips are short, and can be just five or ten miles, the smaller battery enables faster charging cycles, lower material costs, and reduced vehicle price, a key to Tesla’s goal of a ~$30,000 production cost.
Implications for Autonomous Mobility
These specs underscore Tesla’s strategy: maximize utilization and minimize operating expenses. A ~48 kWh pack could support dozens of short rides per charge, with energy costs potentially dropping below 20 cents per mile at scale. Front-wheel drive simplifies manufacturing and maintenance compared to dual-motor AWD setups in passenger Teslas.
The 219 hp motor provides ample performance for urban and highway speeds without excess, addressing questions about why such power is needed in a “slow” autonomous vehicle. Quick merges and hill climbing still matter for safety and passenger comfort.
Production has already begun at Giga Texas, with EPA certification clearing the path for U.S. deployment. While unsupervised Full Self-Driving remains the critical hurdle, these details paint a compelling picture of a vehicle engineered from the ground up for the robotaxi future: affordable to build, cheap to run, and capable of delivering strong range on a fraction of the battery capacity found in today’s EVs.
As Tesla ramps toward volume output, the Cybercab could reshape urban transportation economics.
Tesla Cybercab, the all-electric ride-hailing-geared vehicle void of a steering wheel and pedals, has achieved a significant regulatory milestone. The vehicle has officially secured an EPA Certificate of Conformity for the 2026 Cybercab, classifying it as a battery electric Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV).
This certification confirms full compliance with federal Clean Air Act emission standards, paving the way for legal sales and operation across the United States.
A Certificate of Conformity (CoC) is a critical document issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to vehicle manufacturers. It certifies that a specific class of vehicles meets all applicable federal emission requirements for the model year.
We have reported on several of them in the past, and it’s a good sign that a vehicle is close to being available to the public.
Every vehicle sold in the U.S. must carry this approval, which covers exhaust emissions, evaporative emissions, and refueling standards. For battery electric vehicles like the Cybercab, it verifies zero tailpipe emissions and compliance with stringent testing protocols. The certificate, issued and effective May 26, 2026, was part of the EPA’s recent bi-weekly upload, detailing the Cybercab’s evaporative/refueling family and exhaust compliance.
It also revealed some other very important information, as the Cybercab’s “Charge Depleting Range” was rated at just over 418 miles. This was for city driving, while the highway range depletion test revealed just over 375 miles of range:
Highway miles for Charge Depleting Range was just over 375 miles
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 15, 2026
This EPA approval is a foundational step for Tesla’s autonomous ambitions. While emission certification is standard for any new EV, it signals that the Cybercab is progressing through the full federal compliance process.
Tesla has already equipped prototypes with federal compliance stickers affirming adherence to safety, bumper, and theft-prevention standards via self-certification under FMVSS rules. This bypasses the traditional 2,500-vehicle exemption cap that previously constrained low-volume autonomous testing.
Production of the Cybercab ramped up at Giga Texas starting in early 2026, with volume targets aiming for hundreds of units per week and long-term ambitions of millions annually. The two-seater, steer-by-wire vehicle, lacking a steering wheel and pedals, features a sleek, minimalist design optimized for Robotaxi service.
Priced under $30,000 at unveiling, it promises operating costs as low as $0.20–$0.40 per mile once scaled. Tesla has routinely flexed it as one of the most efficient vehicles of all time.
Regulatory progress extends beyond the EPA. The NHTSA has streamlined approvals for control-free vehicles, benefiting the Cybercab. Tesla operates supervised and unsupervised Robotaxi services in Texas cities like Austin, Dallas, and Houston using its fleet. California recently updated rules for driverless operations, including enforcement mechanisms for violations. Additional state-by-state approvals will be needed for nationwide rollout.
This EPA green light reduces a key barrier, building confidence among regulators, partners, and investors.
It underscores Tesla’s strategy of designing the Cybercab from the ground up for full compliance rather than retrofitting existing platforms. Challenges remain in scaling unsupervised autonomy, mapping approvals, and public acceptance, but the certification marks tangible momentum toward transforming urban mobility.
With prototypes already testing on public roads and production accelerating, the Cybercab edges closer to redefining transportation. Tesla’s integrated approach—combining hardware simplicity, software prowess, and regulatory diligence—positions it uniquely in the robotaxi race.
SpaceX executed its first Falcon 9 launch since going public on June 15, a routine yet symbolically powerful Starlink mission from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California.
Liftoff of the Falcon 9 booster B1093, on its 14th flight, occurred at approximately 8:34 a.m. PDT from Space Launch Complex 4E (SLC-4E), deploying 24 Starlink V2 Mini Optimized satellites into low-Earth orbit.
The first stage successfully landed on the droneship “Of Course I Still Love You” in the Pacific Ocean, underscoring the company’s unmatched reusability track record.
Watch Falcon 9 launch 24 @Starlink satellites to orbit from California https://t.co/meDwb05qOE
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) June 15, 2026
This mission comes just three days after SpaceX’s historic IPO on June 12, which shattered records as the largest ever. The company raised $75 billion by pricing shares at $135, with trading under ticker SPCX on Nasdaq opening at $150 and closing at $160.95—a 19 percent gain—valuing SpaceX at over $2.1 trillion.
The launch highlights the seamless transition from private innovator to public powerhouse. SpaceX, founded in 2002, has revolutionized access to space with over 650 Falcon 9 flights and a massive Starlink constellation now serving millions globally.
As a public company, it faces new pressures: quarterly earnings, shareholder scrutiny, and expectations to accelerate Starship development for Mars ambitions and deeper NASA partnerships. Yet the market response signals strong confidence in its dominance, as launch costs are slashed by 95 percent, rapid satellite deployment, and a backlog of government and commercial contracts.
SpaceX maintains bold advertising push for Starlink, contrasting Tesla’s minimalistic approach
Analysts view today’s flight as business as usual, but it carries extra weight. With shares volatile in early trading days, successful operations reassure investors that core capabilities remain unaffected by public status.
SpaceX now operates under heightened transparency, potentially unlocking capital for ambitious goals like Starship orbital tests and global broadband expansion.
Challenges loom, including regulatory hurdles for megaconstellations, competition in reusable rockets, and orbital debris concerns. Nevertheless, this morning’s flawless execution reinforces SpaceX’s trajectory.
As Musk often notes, the company’s mission—to make humanity multiplanetary—now aligns with Wall Street’s growth demands. The stars, it seems, are aligning for both.
Tesla Cybercab specs revealed: range, curb weight, range ratings, and more
Tesla Cybercab snags huge regulatory green light that readies it for public roads
