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 has scaled back driver monitoring to be less naggy with the latest version of the Full Self-Driving (Supervised) suite, which is version 14.3.3.
The latest version is already earning praise from owners, who are reporting that the suite is far less invasive when it comes to keeping drivers from taking their eyes off the road. The first to mention it was notable Tesla community member on X known as Zack, or BLKMDL3.
14.3.3 nags less too https://t.co/IuiWzuYO6O
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 18, 2026
Musk confirmed that v14.3.3 was made to nag drivers significantly less, something that Tesla has worked toward in the past and has said with previous versions that it is less likely to push drivers to look ahead, at least after looking away for a few seconds.
This refinement aligns with Tesla’s ongoing push toward unsupervised FSD. The update also brings faster Actual Smart Summon (now up to 8 mph), reliable “Hey Grok” voice commands, richer visualizations, smoother Mad Max acceleration, and an intervention streak counter that rewards consistent use. Reviewers describe the drive as more human-like and confident, with fewer twitches or unnecessary maneuvers.
Musk has repeatedly signaled this direction. In late 2025, he stated that FSD would allow phone use “depending on context of surrounding traffic,” noting safety data would justify relaxing rules so drivers could text in low-risk scenarios like stop-and-go traffic.
We tested this, and even still, the cell phone monitoring really seems to be less active in terms of alerting drivers:
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.1 texting and driving: we tested it
Earlier, ahead of v14, Musk promised the system would “nag the driver much less” once safety metrics improved.
In 2023, he confirmed the steering wheel torque nag would be “gradually reduced, proportionate to improved safety,” shifting reliance to the cabin camera. Subsequent updates like v13.2.9 and v12.4 further loosened monitoring, cracking down on workarounds while easing legitimate distractions.
These steps reflect Tesla’s data-driven approach: FSD’s safety record—reportedly averaging millions of miles per crash—now outpaces human drivers in many scenarios, giving the company confidence to dial back interventions. Reduced nags improve usability and trust, encouraging more drivers to rely on the system rather than disengaging out of frustration.
However, there are certainly still some concerns. In many states, it is illegal to handle a cell phone in any way, requiring the use of hands-free devices. In Pennsylvania, it is illegal to use your cell phone at stop lights, which is definitely a step further than using it while the car is actively in motion.
v14.3.3 represents tangible progress. Making FSD less adversarial and more seamless is definitely a step forward, but drivers need to be aware of the dangers of distracted driving. FSD is extremely capable, but it is in no way fully autonomous, nor does its performance warrant owners to take their attention off the road.
Tesla has officially expanded its Full Self-Driving (FSD) suite in Europe once again, as it will now be offered to customer vehicles in Lithuania, marking a significant milestone as the second European Union country to offer the system.
Tesla confirmed FSD’s rollout in Lithuania this morning:
FSD Supervised now rolling out to Teslas in Lithuania 🇱🇹!
Making European roads safer, one by one pic.twitter.com/Uuj0bNG7pP
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) May 20, 2026
Tesla showed several clips of Full Self-Driving navigation in Lithuania to mark the announcement, while Lithuanian Transport Minister Juras Taminskas highlighted the system’s potential to assist with lane-keeping, speed adjustment, and traffic tasks on longer drives, while emphasizing that drivers must stay alert and ready to intervene.
Just a few weeks ago, Tesla officially entered Europe with Full Self-Driving in the Netherlands. The expansion of FSD on the continent is now officially underway.
Full Self-Driving’s European Journey
Europe has long posed one of the toughest regulatory challenges for Tesla’s autonomy ambitions due to stringent safety standards under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) framework, particularly UN Regulation 171 for Driver Control Assistance Systems.
The Netherlands’ RDW authority granted the pioneering approval after over 18 months of rigorous testing, including 1.6 million kilometers on European roads and extensive data submissions.
This approval enables mutual recognition across the EU, allowing other member states to adopt it nationally without full re-testing. Lithuania quickly leveraged this mechanism, becoming the second adopter. Tesla positions FSD Supervised as a tool to incrementally improve road safety, with the company claiming it reduces incidents when used properly.
Bottlenecks slowing broader European deployment include fragmented national regulations, varying levels of regulatory skepticism, and requirements for robust driver monitoring. Some EU officials have raised concerns about performance in adverse conditions like icy roads or speeding scenarios, alongside frustrations over Tesla’s public advocacy approach.
Additional hurdles involve data privacy, liability frameworks, and the need for EU-wide harmonization. While countries like Belgium appear to be fast-tracking adoption, larger markets such as Germany, France, and Italy are expected to follow in the coming months, with potential EU-wide progress targeted for later in 2026.
Tesla Full Self-Driving Across the World
As of May, Full Self-Driving (Supervised) is available in approximately ten countries.
In North America, it has been live for years in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Puerto Rico. Asia-Pacific additions include Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea, while China utilizes what Tesla calls “City Autopilot.” In Europe, the Netherlands and now Lithuania join the list, with more countries mulling the possibility of also approving FSD.
Tesla offers FSD via monthly subscriptions (around €99 in Europe) or one-time purchases (with deadlines approaching in many markets), shifting toward recurring revenue models. Today is the final day Europeans will be able to purchase the suite outright.
This expansion underscores Tesla’s push for global autonomy, starting with supervised and building toward greater capabilities. With Lithuania now online, momentum is building across Europe, though regulatory caution will continue shaping the pace. Owners in approved regions report smoother highway and urban driving, but the system remains Level 2, which requires human oversight.
Elon Musk
Tesla ditches India after years of broken promises
Tesla has ditched its plans to build a factory in India after years of failed negotiations.
Tesla’s long-running effort to establish a manufacturing presence in India is officially over. India’s Minister of Heavy Industries H.D. Kumaraswamy confirmed on May 19, 2026 that Tesla has informed authorities it will not proceed with a manufacturing facility in the country.
Tesla first signaled serious interest in India around 2021, when it began hiring local staff and lobbying the Indian government for lower import tariffs. The ask was straightforward: reduce duties enough for Tesla to test the market with imported vehicles before committing capital to a local factory. India’s position was equally firm, with an ask of Tesla to commit to manufacturing first, then receive tariff relief. Neither side moved, and the talks quietly collapsed.
Tesla to open first India experience center in Mumbai on July 15
India had offered a policy that would reduce import duties from 110% down to 15% on EVs priced above $35,000, provided companies committed at least $500 million toward local manufacturing investment within three years. Tesla declined to participate. The tariff standoff was only part of the problem. Analysts pointed to significant gaps in India’s local supply chain, inadequate industrial infrastructure, and a mismatch between Tesla’s premium pricing and the purchasing power of India’s automotive market as additional factors that made the investment difficult to justify.
First signs of an unraveling relationship came in April 2024, when Musk abruptly cancelled a planned trip to India where he was set to meet Prime Minister Modi and announce Tesla’s market entry. By July 2024, Fortune reported that Tesla executives had stopped contacting Indian government officials entirely. The government at that point understood Tesla had capital constraints and no plans to invest.
The more fundamental issue is that Tesla’s existing factories are currently operating at approximately 60% capacity, making a commitment to building new manufacturing capacity in a new market difficult to defend to investors. Tesla will continue selling imported Model Y vehicles through its existing showrooms in Mumbai, Delhi, Gurugram, and Bengaluru, but local production is no longer part of the plan.
Tesla scales back driver monitoring with latest Full Self-Driving release
Tesla Full Self-Driving expands in Europe, entering its second country
