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
Tesla Full Self-Driving impressions after three weeks of ownership
I will be fair and tell you all what I truly enjoy, as well as what frustrates me about Full Self-Driving.
Tesla Full Self-Driving is amongst the most robust and refined semi-autonomous driver assistance systems on the market today. After three weeks of ownership, I’ve driven around half of my miles using it, and my impressions put me right in the middle of it being very impressive and needing some work.
Of course, if it were perfect, it would be driving us all around all the time while we sleep, scroll our phones, or watch movies in the cockpit. It does a lot of things very well, and it has managed to impress everyone I’ve put in the passenger’s seat.
However, there are some things that are obvious pain points, situations that need improvement, and areas where I believe it has a long way to go. Regardless, these are things I have noticed, and they may differ from your opinions based on your location or traffic situations.
Tesla Model Y ownership two weeks in: what I love and what I don’t
I’ll try to keep it pretty even and just highlight the things that are truly noticeable with Full Self-Driving. I won’t be too critical of the things that it is bad at, and I won’t try to give it too much of a pat on the back.
I will be fair and tell you all what I truly enjoy, as well as what frustrates me about it.
*Disclaimer: These Full Self-Driving examples were in use with v13.2.9.
Where Tesla Full Self-Driving is Great
Highway Driving
I have yet to have a critical intervention of any kind on the highway. I have driven on easy highways like Rt. 30 in Pennsylvania, and I have driven on congested four-lane parking lots like I-695 near Baltimore, Maryland.
Tesla FSD does a tremendous job on all of it. I usually use the “Hurry” setting of FSD with an offset of between 25 and 40 percent, depending on what I’m doing and where I’m going. Sometimes, I want to push it a bit, and at other times, I’m okay with taking my time and enjoying the drive.
I find the driving style of Hurry is more similar to the traffic around me than the Standard, which tends to drive like an 80-year-old on their way to Bingo.
It does a great job of being considerate, maintaining an appropriate rate of travel, getting over for cars that are tailgating in the left lane after passing traffic, and it always is where it needs to be when it needs to be there.
Taking the Stress Out of Driving
A few nights ago, I was having some trouble sleeping, and I was up at 3 a.m. I decided it would be a good time to get up, grab a breakfast burrito and a coffee, and head to the Supercharger.
(If you don’t know, I do not have home charging, and I will be diving into EV ownership without that in a future article.)
I let FSD drive me to the Supercharger and back while I was done. I was able to enjoy a beautiful sunrise without having to focus all my attention on the traffic around me, while still maintaining enough attention to the road to keep the driver monitoring happy.
It was really nice. I enjoyed the ride, and it felt like I was in an Uber with a very careful driver while I enjoyed the rest of my coffee and peeked at the sky every few seconds.
Learning and Improving
A few weeks ago, I approached an “Except Right Turn” stop sign. I have discussed how these are a Pennsylvania specialty, and the first time FSD encountered one in my Model Y, it stopped, even though we were heading right.
I took over, submitted a voice memo to Tesla about it, and went on with my evening. A week later, the car approached the same turn, and, to my surprise, it proceeded through the Stop Sign correctly, safely, and at an appropriate speed.
It was nice to see this improvement, especially since this is one of those regional issues that Tesla will need to address before FSD is fully autonomous. The change even impressed my Fiancé, who was with me during both instances we came upon this turn.
Where Tesla Full Self-Driving Could Be Better
Auto Wipers
Good gravy, these Auto Wipers always seem to give me a good laugh.
They never really have the right speed; they are either way too fast or not fast enough. There’s never been a happy medium.
It also loves to activate a single wipe of the blade at the strangest times. I’ve noticed that it actually seems to activate at the same spots on the road sometimes. There’s a hanging branch near my house, and every time we go under it and FSD is activated, the wipers wipe once.
It would be nice to set your own intervals for the wipers, but I am okay with the current presets. I do hope the Auto Wipers improve, because it could be one of the best features the car has if it’s more accurate.
It Struggles with Signs That Require Reading
The “Except Right Turn” sign is one example, but another is a “Stop Here on Red” sign that is recessed from an intersection at a stop light if it’s a tighter turn. Recently, I had to slam on the brakes as it was headed straight through one of these signs.
It can recognize Stop Signs and Yield Signs, but signs with instructions for an intersection appear to present a greater challenge for FSD.
Sometimes, It Just Does Things I Don’t Like
There is a four-lane light near my house; the two right lanes go straight, but the lane furthest right is for turning into businesses past the intersection. Some people tend to go in that far right lane, even if they have no intention of turning right into the businesses, and take off quickly from the light to cut ahead.
I’m not saying it’s illegal or even wrong, but I personally prefer not to do it. I am never in that much of a hurry.
FSD tried to do that the other day; I intervened and kept it in the lane that is designed to go straight. I wouldn’t say this is technically an intervention. I would just say it’s a move I wasn’t super comfortable with because I know people tend to get frustrated with those who cut the line. It’s an etiquette issue, and I didn’t want FSD to do it.
I also am not a huge fan of when there is no traffic in the right lane, yet it continues to cruise in the fast lane. I was taught to drive in the right lane and pass in the left lane. There are states where cruising in the left lane is illegal, and it sometimes tends to stay in the passing lane too long for my liking. I will turn on my right signal and get back into the correct lane.
These are totally disputable, and I am aware of that. Some people might not see a huge issue with these two examples, and I can understand that. My courtesy on the road differs from others, and that’s okay.
All in all, I’m pretty happy with FSD, and I will be continuing my Subscription after the three-month trial ends. In the coming days, I’ll be picking up a camera for FSD videos, and I’ll be able to embed examples of what I mean, as well as share full-length videos of my drive.
News
Tesla gets price target increase on Wall Street, but it’s a head-scratcher
Delaney’s price target on Tesla shares went up to $395 from $300. Currently, Tesla is trading between $420 and $430, making the new price target from Goldman Sachs a bit of a head-scratcher.
Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) received a price target increase from a Wall Street analyst today, who noted in his report that the company’s shares could rise or fall based on its execution in robotics and autonomy.
However, the price target boost still fell below Tesla’s current trading levels.
Mark Delaney of Goldman Sachs said in a note to investors today that Tesla has a significant opportunity to solidify itself as one of the stable and safe plays in the market if it can execute on its two key projects: humanoid robots and autonomy.
In the note, Delaney said:
“If Tesla can have [an] outsized share in areas such as humanoid robotics and autonomy, then there could be upside to our price target.”
Delaney’s price target on Tesla shares went up to $395 from $300. Currently, Tesla is trading between $420 and $430, making the new price target from Goldman Sachs a bit of a head-scratcher.
He went on to say that Tesla could also confront outside factors that would limit the stock’s ability to see growth, including competition and potentially its own lack of execution:
“…although if competition limits profits (as is happening with the ADAS market in China) or Tesla does not execute well, then there could be downside.”
The note is an interesting one because it seems to point out the blatantly obvious: if Tesla performs well, the stock will rise. If it doesn’t, the stock price will decline.
We discussed yesterday in an article that Tesla is one of the few stocks out there that does not seem to be influenced by financials or anything super concrete. Instead, it is more influenced by the narrative currently surrounding the company, rather than the technicals.
Tesla called ‘biggest meme stock we’ve ever seen’ by Yale associate dean
Tesla’s prowess in robotics and autonomy is strong. In robotics, it has a very good sentiment following its Optimus project, and it has shown steady improvement with subsequent versions of the robot with each release.
On the autonomy front, Tesla is expanding its Robotaxi platform in Austin every few weeks, and also has a sizeable geofence in the Bay Area. Its Full Self-Driving suite is among the most robust in the world and is incredibly useful and accurate.
The company can gain significant value if it continues to refine the platform and eventually rolls out a driverless or unsupervised version of the Full Self-Driving suite.
Elon Musk
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
“We’ll have a really good solution for that. I’m not worried about it.”
Tesla is going to adjust one heavily scrutinized part of its vehicles after recent government agencies have launched probes into an issue stemming from complaints from owners.
Over the past few days, we have reported on the issues with Tesla’s door handle systems from both the Chinese and American governments.
In China, it dealt with the Model S, while the United States’ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported nine complaints from owners experiencing issues with 2021 Model Ys, as some said they had trouble entering their car after the 12V battery was low on power.
Bloomberg, in an interview with Tesla Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen, asked whether the company planned to adjust the door handle design to alleviate any concerns that regulatory agencies might have.
Regarding the interior latch concerns in the United States:
- Von Holzhausen said that, while a mechanical door release resolves this problem, Tesla plans to “combine the two” to help reduce stress in what he called “panic situations.”
- He also added that “it’s in the cars now…The idea of combining the electronic and the manual one together in one button, I think, makes a lot of sense.” Franz said the muscle memory of reaching for the same button will be advantageous for children and anyone who is in an emergency.
Regarding the exterior door handle concerns in China:
- Von Holzhausen said Tesla is reviewing the details of the regulation and confirmed, “We’ll have a really good solution for that. I’m not worried about it.”
Franz von Holzhausen (from Tesla’s Robovan) on Tesla’s upcoming redesigned door handles: pic.twitter.com/lnaKve1SlJ
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 17, 2025
The new Model Y already has emergency mechanical door release latches in the back, but combining them in future vehicles seems to be an ideal solution for other vehicles in Tesla’s lineup.
It will likely help Tesla avoid complaints from owners about not having an out in the event of a power outage or accident. It is a small engineering change that could be extremely valuable for future instances.
Tesla Full Self-Driving impressions after three weeks of ownership
Tesla gets price target increase on Wall Street, but it’s a head-scratcher
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
-
News2 weeks agoTesla launches new Supercharger program that business owners will love
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoTesla Board takes firm stance on Elon Musk’s political involvement in pay package proxy
-
News2 weeks agoTesla deploys Unsupervised FSD in Europe for the first time—with a twist
-
News2 weeks agoTesla explains why Robotaxis now have safety monitors in the driver’s seat
-
News2 weeks agoTesla is already giving Robotaxi privileges hours after opening public app
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoElon Musk says Tesla will take Safety Drivers out of Robotaxi: here’s when
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoElon Musk is setting high expectations for Tesla AI5 and AI6 chips
-
News1 week agoTesla is improving this critical feature in older vehicles