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.
Just hours after Starship Flight 13 achieved a successful soft splashdown of its upper stage in the Indian Ocean on July 24, Elon Musk announced an ambitious next step for the company’s next launch of the rocket.
“Unless we discover problems after mission data review, SpaceX will attempt to catch the ship with the tower on [the] next flight,” the SpaceX CEO posted on X on Friday.
That “next flight” is expected to be Flight 14. The plan involves returning the Starship upper stage, commonly called the “ship,” to the Starbase launch tower in Texas and catching it mid-air using the same mechanical “chopsticks” arms that have already proven themselves with the Super Heavy booster.
Unless we discover problems after mission data review, SpaceX will attempt to catch the ship with the tower on next flight
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 25, 2026
A successful catch would mark the first time an orbital-class upper stage has been recovered this way, advancing SpaceX’s goal of full and rapid reusability for the entire vehicle.
SpaceX has already demonstrated the tower-catch technique multiple times with Super Heavy. The first successful catch came on Flight 5 in October 2024, when Booster 12 was plucked from the sky by the Mechazilla arms. Subsequent flights, including those involving Boosters 14 and 15, repeated the feat. Several of those recovered boosters were later inspected, refurbished, and flown again, proving the system’s viability for quick turnaround.
Traditional reusable rockets, such as SpaceX’s own Falcon 9 or Blue Origin’s New Shepard, land on legs either on land or droneships. Rocket Lab has recovered its small Electron first stages by helicopter, but those are far lighter vehicles.
SpaceX Starship just nailed something it’s never done before
The China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT), a subsidiary of the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corp. (CASC), completed a catch of its booster on July 10. They are the only entity besides SpaceX to attempt and complete the feat.
Flight 13 provided encouraging data. The ship executed a controlled reentry, flipped, and soft-landed intact in the ocean after deploying Starlink satellites, offering the first clear post-splashdown views of an undamaged heat shield. The Super Heavy booster, meanwhile, experienced a harder splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico.
Musk has previously stressed that ship catches would only follow multiple successful soft ocean landings to minimize risk of debris over land.
If Flight 14 succeeds, SpaceX would take a major stride toward routine, rapid reuse of both stages—critical for lowering launch costs and supporting ambitious plans for lunar and Mars missions. For now, teams are reviewing the Flight 13 data. Should everything check out, the next Starship flight could deliver one of the most spectacular recoveries in aerospace history.
In a move echoing its earlier commitment to open innovation, Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced recently that the company plans to make the design and software of its Model S and Model X fully open source.
This follows the same approach Tesla took with its original Roadster, releasing all available design, engineering, and diagnostic materials in November 2023 so that “whatever we have, you now have.”
Just as Tesla made the original Roadster design & software open source, we plan to do the same with Model S & X
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 24, 2026
The Model S, introduced in 2012, was Tesla’s first mass-produced vehicle and a groundbreaking luxury electric sedan. It offered impressive range, rapid acceleration, and over-the-air software updates that redefined expectations for electric cars.
The Model X, launched in 2015, built on that foundation as a high-performance electric SUV notable for its distinctive falcon-wing doors, spacious interior, and advanced safety features. Both models served as flagships that helped establish Tesla as a leader in the EV industry and popularized long-range battery-electric vehicles.
Production of the Model S and Model X was wound down earlier in 2026, with manufacturing ending in the second quarter. Tesla redirected the Fremont factory space previously used for these vehicles toward higher-priority projects, including Optimus humanoid robots and the Cybercab autonomous vehicle.
By the time of Musk’s open-source announcement, custom orders had closed and only remaining inventory was available.
Open-sourcing the designs and software offers several clear advantages. Owners of these aging but still capable vehicles gain better access to technical documentation, diagnostic tools, and software resources, making independent repairs and modifications easier and more affordable.
Independent repair shops and third-party specialists can support the large existing fleet without relying solely on Tesla’s service network. Enthusiasts and engineers can study real-world implementations of Tesla’s battery, powertrain, and software systems, potentially accelerating broader industry progress in electric mobility.
The step aligns with Tesla’s 2014 patent pledge and its overall mission to advance sustainable transport by sharing hard-won knowledge rather than locking it behind proprietary walls.
By releasing these materials now that the models have left production, Tesla ensures continued support for its early adopters while freeing internal resources for future technologies. The open-source release of the original Roadster already enabled simulations, community projects, and deeper technical understanding.
Extending that practice to the Model S and Model X should deliver similar benefits on a larger scale, helping keep these influential vehicles relevant and repairable for years to come
Tesla flexed one incredible Robotaxi metric during the Q2 Earnings Call that skeptics have to hate to hear. The company’s platform has already driven more than 380,000 miles of unsupervised ride-hailing across several states with no notable incidents.
During the company’s Q2 Earnings Call on Wednesday, Vice President of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said:
“First of all, I’d like to state that the Robotaxi program has been operating extremely well. Especially in terms of safety, the program has had an impeccable safety record. We have driven more than 380,000 miles of unsupervised Robotaxi, now across six cities in two different states. We have had zero notable incidents. Any reports have been of other actors impacting us when we were stationary. I like to emphasize how safe the operation has been so far. Zero notable incidents over 380,000 miles.”
Elluswamy’s claim over Robotaxi miles is a significant milestone for Tesla in the grand scheme, especially considering this is a sizeable number of miles without any incident.
0 notable incidents across over 380,000 miles traveled by Robotaxi
— Tesla (@Tesla) July 22, 2026
Tesla’s self-driving approach is much different than that of other companies. Tesla has maintained that vision is the only thing needed to have a solid and effective self-driving suite. Many self-driving companies utilize things like LiDAR, sensors, and other elements to improve performance, but Elluswamy sent a jab at those who believe it’s needed.
“Historically, the so-called experts have always claimed that you need LiDARs, radars, HD maps, and the entire kitchen sink to drive safely. Here we show that such is not true. You can have safe, comfortable, and affordable autonomy with just cameras. This record should be a huge validation of Tesla’s entire AI approach.”
The feat of accumulating this many miles without any driver behind the wheel is impressive. The thing is, Tesla is also doing this across several different locations, with varying traffic rules, pedestrian levels, weather patterns, and other important factors.
While Tesla is not ready to roll out an unsupervised platform completely, it is a slow but steady indication that the company is well on its way to figuring things out.
The company’s attitude toward expansion is slow, safe, and controlled, and despite this huge milestone, it will still be some time until we see Tesla truly unleash unsupervised rides more aggressively.
SpaceX wants to catch Starship for launch 14, Elon Musk says
Tesla to open source Model S and Model X designs and software
