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.
Elon Musk
SpaceX’s amended S-1 is sparking a major Tesla merger conversation
A single line in SpaceX’s amended S-1 just sent Tesla stock down 5% in one day.
A single line buried in SpaceX’s amended S-1 filing is doing more to move Tesla’s stock price than anything Tesla itself has announced in months. The clause, disclosed as SpaceX prepares for what could be the largest IPO in Wall Street history, states that the company “may issue a significant amount of equity in connection with future transactions.” While this may be seen as boilerplate language in S-1 filings, the historical ties between SpaceX and Tesla, and with Elon Musk reportedly discussing a possible merger with close colleagues, investors are interpreting it as something closer to a signal.
The concern among institutional investors like Gary Black, managing director of The Future Fund, pointed directly to the amended filing on X, saying it “strongly suggests more SPCX equity will be issued,” which could potentially be used to acquire Tesla. He estimated such a deal could be 28% dilutive to Tesla shareholders since SpaceX would likely command a significantly higher valuation multiple. Black added that institutional investors he knows hate the idea of a combination because they prefer pure plays over conglomerates, which he said “nearly always gravitate to the lowest common multiple.”
The Tesla and SpaceX merger everyone is talking about is quietly building
The bull case runs the math differently. Tesla influencer and retail shareholder advocate AleXandra Merz pushed back on what she called a widespread misunderstanding of how merger-of-equals deals actually work. Rather than simply splitting the difference between two market caps, a merger exchange ratio is negotiated based on relative fair market values, meaning the lower valued company typically sees its stock reprice upward toward the deal value.
Under her model, SpaceX enters at a $2.5 trillion valuation and Tesla at $1.6 trillion, producing a combined entity worth $4.1 trillion split evenly between both shareholder groups. That implies Tesla’s side of the deal would be valued at $2.05 trillion, a gain of roughly $450 billion from its current market cap. She cited Dow-DuPont and CBS-Viacom as historical examples of how markets reprice both companies toward the announced exchange ratio after a deal is unveiled.
What does a Merger of Equals mean to Elon’s compensation packages?
Well, it changes everything.
Enjoy https://t.co/uekCldyITw pic.twitter.com/kolq1C9qTu
— AleXandra Merz 🇺🇲 (@TeslaBoomerMama) June 1, 2026
The SpaceX S-1 amendments also revealed just how much financial infrastructure already binds the two companies together. As Teslarati has reported, SpaceX purchased $697 million in Tesla Megapacks, $131 million in Cybertrucks, and the two companies have shared supply chain resources, and semiconductor fabrication plans since well before any merger conversation became public. A retail poll by Tesla influencer Sawyer Merritt is finding that 36% of respondents do not plan to buy SpaceX shares at IPO and 15.3% saying their decision depends on the valuation.
Do you plan on buying @SpaceX stock at its IPO?
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 1, 2026
Whether the merger happens or not, the amended filing is seemingly moving markets and sharpened a debate that is no longer theoretical. SpaceX is weeks away from trading publicly, and Tesla shareholders are now watching every word of every filing for clues about what Musk plans to do next.
Tesla is staging a powerful rebound in Europe. New vehicle registrations surged dramatically across multiple key markets in May 2026, signaling a strong recovery from the challenges of 2025.
Data released this week show double- and triple-digit year-over-year gains in several countries, driven by refreshed Model Y production, supportive policies, high fuel prices, and renewed consumer interest in electric vehicles.
In France, registrations exploded 655 percent to 5,446 vehicles, marking Tesla’s best May performance ever in the country. Norway, a longtime EV stronghold, saw 3,345 new Teslas registered, up 29 percent from May 2025. The company even captured a commanding 21.5 percent market share there, according to Detroit News.
Growth extended to other markets as well. Sweden posted a 71 percent increase to 858 registrations. Denmark jumped 136 percent to 1,750 units, where the Model Y became the top-selling vehicle overall. Spain climbed 113 percent to 1,690 sales, while Portugal soared nearly 350 percent to 1,463.
RELATED:
Tesla Full Self-Driving expansion in Europe continues with new addition
The May results build on a broader turnaround for Tesla in Europe. The company’s sales on the continent had declined sharply in 2025, dropping between 27 and 28 percent amid production shifts, intense competition from Chinese rivals like BYD, and shifting consumer sentiment.
Early 2026 showed signs of life, with registrations rising about 45 percent across Europe in the first quarter and continuing upward momentum through April, up over 46 percent region-wide.
Europe’s overall electrified vehicle market (including BEVs, PHEVs, and hybrids) grew about 21 percent in May, providing a favorable tailwind. Tesla’s gains align with this trend, boosted by government incentives and high fuel costs that make EVs more attractive.
Earlier data from March and April already hinted at strength in Germany, where registrations had surged dramatically in prior months.
Analysts note that while competition remains fierce, Tesla’s refreshed lineup and Europe’s policy support for EVs are helping the company regain ground. The May surge suggests the worst of the 2025 downturn may be behind it, positioning Tesla for stronger performance in the second half of 2026.
This rebound is welcome news for the EV pioneer, demonstrating resilience in a competitive and evolving market. As more data rolls in, investors and industry watchers will be closely monitoring whether this momentum can sustain through the summer and beyond.
Tesla is planning to improve one of the best features on its lineup of cars, a new patent shows. Tesla’s massive glass roof on its premium models is among the coolest additions to the all-electric vehicles, but the design certainly has its complaints, especially from those who live in even slightly warm climates.
Tesla has published a new patent that promises to transform cabin comfort in its electric vehicles, particularly those equipped with the expansive glass roofs.
The document, identified as US20260091643A1 and titled “Airflow Optimization for Cabin Comfort“, addresses that common complaint. Sunlight streaming through windshields and panoramic roofs creates localized hot air pockets near the dashboard and headliner. These pockets generate significant temperature gradients that conventional heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems struggle to manage evenly.
The exposure to direct sunlight can make the cabin extremely warm, and even after cooling down the interior temperature, combating the continuous stream of sunlight and heat is a challenge. It uses precious energy that is especially pertinent to range and efficiency.
The patent explains how standard dashboard vents push cool air upward, only to entrain warmer air from these stagnant zones and distribute it throughout the occupied cabin space. This process forces the blower to operate at higher speeds, increasing energy consumption and reducing overall efficiency.
In electric vehicles, where every watt impacts driving range, such inefficiencies prove costly.
🚨 THE MODEL Y L IS THE MOST WATCHED EV LAUNCH OF 2026. ITS GLASS ROOF HAS ONE WEAKNESS — AND A PATENT PUBLISHED THIS WEEK SHOWS @TESLA BUILT THE FIX
The Model Y L launched in China and is now arriving in Korea, Japan, and across Asia-Pacific. It also has a glass roof. So does… https://t.co/wr6XnBn1Oc pic.twitter.com/5sYpniXJbU
— SETI Park (@seti_park) April 5, 2026
Research from AAA indicates that air conditioning can diminish range by up to 17 percent under hot conditions. Tesla’s innovation shifts the approach by extracting heat at its source rather than attempting to dilute it after mixing occurs.
Engineers describe a suction HVAC unit connected to dedicated intakes positioned strategically on the upper dashboard surface and within the headliner.
These intakes link to a hot air pocket extraction duct that channels the warmest air directly into the system’s plenum for conditioning. As the blower activates, it simultaneously draws recirculated cabin air and targeted hot pocket air through filters and cooling coils before redistributing conditioned airflow.
It seems somewhat reminiscent of the Tesla heat pump, which aims to combat colder temperatures.
Tesla highlights Model Y’s heat pump innovations in new promotional video
This method reduces entrainment, lowers peak temperatures, and achieves more uniform comfort levels. Testing data reveals that facial temperature gradients drop from 21 degrees Celsius, or 69.8 degrees Fahrenheit, in conventional setups to just 12 degrees Celsius (53.6 degrees F) with the new system. Blower speeds and compressor power requirements decrease appreciably as a result.
The design incorporates smart controls that monitor sunlight intensity and internal temperature distributions in real time. Suction activates selectively only where needed, optimizing energy use without constant high demand. Furthermore, the extraction duct serves a dual purpose.
In the summer months, it pulls hot air inward for cooling; in winter, it reverses to direct warm air outward for rapid windshield defrosting. This versatility allows the reuse of existing hardware with minimal modifications, potentially enabling retrofits in current Tesla fleets.
SpaceX’s amended S-1 is sparking a major Tesla merger conversation
Tesla’s European Comeback: Registrations soar in May as recovery gains momentum
