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.
TESLARATI Premium Membership
$19.99 USD
News
Tesla Robotaxi fleet gets a brain upgrade ahead of Cybercab launch event
Tesla’s Robotaxi service now runs longer hours nationwide as its unsupervised fleet quietly grows larger.
Tesla’s Robotaxi service just got easier to catch, with the company’s official Robotaxi account noting that rides are now available from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., seven days a week, across its operating footprint. The account also said its unsupervised fleet is “a lot bigger” than before, though without specifics. The bigger change is what Tesla says upgraded intelligence in vehicle distribution and routing is what’s actually cutting wait times, not a new Full Self-Driving version.
While Tesla did not name the team behind the upgrade, the language points to its AI and fleet software group rather than the driving stack itself. Vehicle distribution and routing in Robotaxi has functioned mostly as a dispatch problem with the software deciding which idle car goes to which rider, and how far it has to travel to get there. “Upgraded intelligence” suggests a smarter version of that dispatch logic, likely using demand forecasting to position idle cars near where riders are about to request them rather than reacting once a request comes in. Tesla’s AI division has built similar prediction systems for other parts of the business, including the neural networks that power FSD itself, so applying that same approach to fleet logistics would be a natural extension rather than a new discipline for the team.
Robotaxi now runs 6am to 10pm, 7 days/week
Unsupervised fleet is a lot bigger
Also, upgraded intelligence in vehicle distribution & routing means you wait less pic.twitter.com/UFZ4bqg2dZ
— Tesla Robotaxi (@robotaxi) August 26, 2026
Tesla is also about a week away from a separate robotaxi milestone. The company plans to launch Cybercab, its purpose built two seat robotaxi with no steering wheel or pedals, in Austin on September 3. Cybercab has been giving employees rides on public and private roads for weeks, and the September event is expected to fold those vehicles into the existing Robotaxi fleet within days of the launch.
Thank you so much @Tesla for inviting us to the Cybercab launch in Austin! 🤠 pic.twitter.com/F1rAR8zd5O
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 22, 2026
Austin previously ran Robotaxi from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m. as of last September, a schedule set before the service expanded into Dallas, Houston, Miami, Tampa, Orlando and the Bay Area. Wednesday’s post did not specify whether that extended overnight window still applies in Austin specifically or whether 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. is now the standard across every market. Tesla’s post, visible on its official Robotaxi account, framed the change simply as fewer riders waiting around for a car.
Whether the wider hours hold once Cybercab enters the fleet next week is the next thing worth watching. Tesla has tended to expand Robotaxi in increments, first geofence, then hours, then fleet size, and each step so far has arrived without much advance notice.
Tesla Cybertruck’s three configurations are all the same on the outside from an appearance perspective, but they differ slightly in price, range, performance, and other features. After yesterday’s price adjustment, Tesla’s Base All-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck is now priced at $74,990, a far cry from the $59,990 it started at several months ago.
At $60,000, the Cybertruck All-Wheel-Drive is a steal: no pickup, electric or gas-powered, comes close in terms of overall driving capability thanks to Steer-by-Wire; no truck is more fun to drive at that price, and add in Full Self-Driving for $99 per month, and you truly have the best possible pickup on the market, at least if you’re planning to use it for driving.
I unfortunately didn’t have the equipment to test towing and payload and how it impacts the truck.
But at $75,000, is it still worth it? Obviously, the question gets to be more difficult because of the $15,000 difference. But there’s still an argument.
I spent the last week with this awesome truck, and when I took it back, I was sad because it truly is the best Tesla in the lineup. I formerly said the Model S was my favorite Tesla, but after a week with Cybertruck, I can easily say it would be my choice over the now-defunct all-electric sedan.
What makes it so great? Well, a lot of things, and there are some things that I’d like to see change. However, this is a truck that truly has a serious argument for those who are thinking of trying something completely different.
Exterior and Interior
This build comes with 18″ Molten Wheels as the standard offering, but 20″ Core Wheels with 35″ tires are also available. The standard wheel option on this affordable model is not my favorite, but it can be easily swapped for something more attractive.
Overall, this particular build did have some panel gap issues that were especially noticeable between the hood and both front quarter panels. This is obviously not an “across the board” issue, as the Cyberbeast I took home for comparative reasons was significantly better overall.
It’s 📐 week. Cybertruck AWD!!! pic.twitter.com/0hkmTQDQYk
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 19, 2026
The interior is different, with its textile material instead of the vegan leather. Personally, I missed the leather due to the ventilated seats, but I prefer the textile as I personally felt like they were more comfortable. This is something I’d definitely consider if I were between the three trim levels and money was not really an issue.
After 610 miles on Monday in this thing, I did not feel any different than I did when I left my house that morning. It feels like a living room on wheels; after a long drive, you truly do not feel as if you’ve been in a car all day long.
My biggest interior complaints were that I’d like at least two USB-C ports in the front; you are confined to just one, and it’s hidden in the center console. The rear row has two ports. Additionally, the windshield is super difficult to clean, so if you end up buying one of these, save your back and get something that extends.
Driving Performance and Comfort
One of the most surprising things about Cybertruck is the fact that it is perhaps the smoothest ride of any Tesla available. Most believe it might be rough, stiff, and rugged like most trucks, maybe not as forgiving on the back and bottom as you sit in it for an extended period of time.
I’m here to tell you, you won’t regret sitting in a Cybertruck for a long drive.
I put as many people who dislike EVs, don’t like Cybertrucks, or use trucks for work, and judge the Cybertruck in this thing in the past week. Every single person who got in this truck loved it: they loved the speed, the handling, FSD, the space, the capability, and the feel.
As previously noted, even after hundreds of miles and 14 hours spent driving around Pennsylvania, I didn’t feel tired, exhausted, or in any hurry to come home. I would have driven another 300 miles without question.
Final Thoughts
If I had my choice of the three Cybertruck trims, I think I’d take the All-Wheel-Drive for a few reasons. Initially, the price is more attractive, it is not that stripped of features, and it has everything I need.
Is it worth it at $75,000? I believe it is. I’ve driven trucks that are at a higher price point and consider this to be a better product from a driving and experience perspective. However, other pickups on the market have more towing capacity, payload capacity, and range. They do not have FSD or steer-by-wire, the two things that truly make the Cybertruck in a league of its own.
I can’t think of a time in recent memory that I’ve been this excited to drive a vehicle each day, and I literally look for excuses to drive my Model Y on a daily basis. This Cybertruck just blows the Model Y out of the water in every possible way, at least in my opinion. With the size, performance, and driving experience, there is no better Tesla out there.
You can check out the full video review below. If you have any questions about the Cybertruck AWD, be sure to reach out and let me know:
🚨FULL REVIEW of the unbelievable Tesla Cybertruck AWD 📐 pic.twitter.com/S0wHALl87K
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 26, 2026
Elon Musk
County vote hands Elon Musk’s Vegas tunnel network a huge new target
Clark County approved 19 more Vegas Loop stations, pushing Boring Company’s entitled total to 123.
The Boring Company just got permission to nearly double how far Vegas Loop can reach. Clark County commissioners approved 19 additional stations for the underground transit system, bringing the total entitled to 123, the company said in a post on X thanking the county for the vote. Elon Musk’s tunneling company also flagged the direction it sees the project heading long term. “Because Loop is point-to-point with no intermediate stops, in the limit, one could have a Loop station in every driveway,” the company wrote.
That framing captures how far the ambitions have moved. The Vegas Loop opened its first stretch of tunnel in 2021 and has grown its footprint through a string of county approvals since. In 2023, commissioners signed off on 18 additional stations, part of a plan that later doubled the system’s target to 69 stations across 65 miles. By the end of that year the company was describing a build out closer to 93 planned stations. Last year the long term design called for 104 stations across 68 miles of tunnel. The new approval pushes that number to 123, another jump in a project that keeps outgrowing its own blueprints.
The Boring Company gets approval for more stations in Las Vegas
Station count on paper is still well ahead of what riders can actually use. As Teslarati reported earlier this month, the network has about 11 open stations and has carried more than 4 million passengers since it began running, with newer stops at Fontainebleau and Sahara among the latest additions to the Strip corridor. A tunnel connection to Harry Reid International Airport remains under construction and has already slipped past its original first quarter target. The company is also racing to finish a Westgate to Paradise Road segment that Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority CEO Steve Hill has said it hopes to have running in time for November’s Formula 1 race.
The gap between entitled stations and operating ones is where the real story sits. Regulatory approval gives Boring Company the legal runway to keep tunneling toward new resorts, residential pockets and eventually the airport, but building each connection still comes down to boring machines, fire safety sign offs and construction timelines that have slipped before. The company’s Prufrock series machines set an internal record in March with a 2.28 mile tunnel near Westgate, evidence that construction has been picking up even as the list of approved destinations grows faster than the tunnels themselves.
Musk’s driveway comment reads as aspirational rather than a near term plan, but it fits how Boring Company has talked about Vegas Loop from the start: treat every approval as a floor, not a ceiling, and keep pushing county officials for room to dig.
Tesla Robotaxi fleet gets a brain upgrade ahead of Cybercab launch event
Tesla Cybertruck AWD is a steal at $60k, is it still at $75k? Full Review
