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
Tesla announces crazy new Full Self-Driving milestone
The number of miles traveled has contextual significance for two reasons: one being the milestone itself, and another being Tesla’s continuing progress toward 10 billion miles of training data to achieve what CEO Elon Musk says will be the threshold needed to achieve unsupervised self-driving.
Tesla has announced a crazy new Full Self-Driving milestone, as it has officially confirmed drivers have surpassed over 8 billion miles traveled using the Full Self-Driving (Supervised) suite for semi-autonomous travel.
The FSD (Supervised) suite is one of the most robust on the market, and is among the safest from a data perspective available to the public.
On Wednesday, Tesla confirmed in a post on X that it has officially surpassed the 8 billion-mile mark, just a few months after reaching 7 billion cumulative miles, which was announced on December 27, 2025.
Tesla owners have now driven >8 billion miles on FSD Supervisedhttps://t.co/0d66ihRQTa pic.twitter.com/TXz9DqOQ8q
— Tesla (@Tesla) February 18, 2026
The number of miles traveled has contextual significance for two reasons: one being the milestone itself, and another being Tesla’s continuing progress toward 10 billion miles of training data to achieve what CEO Elon Musk says will be the threshold needed to achieve unsupervised self-driving.
The milestone itself is significant, especially considering Tesla has continued to gain valuable data from every mile traveled. However, the pace at which it is gathering these miles is getting faster.
Secondly, in January, Musk said the company would need “roughly 10 billion miles of training data” to achieve safe and unsupervised self-driving. “Reality has a super long tail of complexity,” Musk said.
Training data primarily means the fleet’s accumulated real-world miles that Tesla uses to train and improve its end-to-end AI models. This data captures the “long tail” — extremely rare, complex, or unpredictable situations that simulations alone cannot fully replicate at scale.
This is not the same as the total miles driven on Full Self-Driving, which is the 8 billion miles milestone that is being celebrated here.
The FSD-supervised miles contribute heavily to the training data, but the 10 billion figure is an estimate of the cumulative real-world exposure needed overall to push the system to human-level reliability.
News
Tesla Cybercab production begins: The end of car ownership as we know it?
While this could unlock unprecedented mobility abundance — cheaper rides, reduced congestion, freed-up urban space, and massive environmental gains — it risks massive job displacement in ride-hailing, taxi services, and related sectors, forcing society to confront whether the benefits of AI-driven autonomy will outweigh the human costs.
The first Tesla Cybercab rolled off of production lines at Gigafactory Texas yesterday, and it is more than just a simple manufacturing milestone for the company — it’s the opening salvo in a profound economic transformation.
Priced at under $30,000 with volume production slated for April, the steering-wheel-free, pedal-less Robotaxi-geared vehicle promises to make personal car ownership optional for many, slashing transportation costs to as little as $0.20 per mile through shared fleets and high utilization.
Credit: wudapig/Reddit< /a>
While this could unlock unprecedented mobility abundance — cheaper rides, reduced congestion, freed-up urban space, and massive environmental gains — it risks massive job displacement in ride-hailing, taxi services, and related sectors, forcing society to confront whether the benefits of AI-driven autonomy will outweigh the human costs.
Let’s examine the positives and negatives of what the Cybercab could mean for passenger transportation and vehicle ownership as we know it.
The Promise – A Radical Shift in Transportation Economics
Tesla has geared every portion of the Cybercab to be cheaper and more efficient. Even its design — a compact, two-seater, optimized for fleets and ride-sharing, the development of inductive charging, around 300 miles of range on a small battery, half the parts of the Model 3, and revolutionary “unboxed” manufacturing — is all geared toward rapid production.
Operating at a fraction of what today’s rideshare prices are, the Cybercab enables on-demand autonomy for a variety of people in a variety of situations.
Tesla ups Robotaxi fare price to another comical figure with service area expansion
It could also be the way people escape expensive and risky car ownership. Buying a vehicle requires expensive monthly commitments, including insurance and a payment if financed. It also immediately depreciates.
However, Cybercab could unlock potential profitability for owning a car by adding it to the Robotaxi network, enabling passive income. Cities could have parking lots repurposed into parks or housing, and emissions would drop as shared electric vehicles would outnumber gas cars (in time).
The first step of Tesla’s massive production efforts for the Cybercab could lead to millions of units annually, turning transportation into a utility like electricity — always available, cheap, and safe.
The Dark Side – Job Losses and Industry Upheaval
With Robotaxi and Cybercab, they present the same negatives as broadening AI — there’s a direct threat to the economy.
Uber, Lyft, and traditional taxis will rely on human drivers. Robotaxi will eliminate that labor cost, potentially displacing millions of jobs globally. In the U.S. alone, ride-hailing accounts for billions of miles of travel each year.
There are also potential ripple effects, as suppliers, mechanics, insurance adjusters, and even public transit could see reduced demand as shared autonomy grows. Past automation waves show job creation lags behind destruction, especially for lower-skilled workers.
Gig workers, like those who are seeking flexible income, face the brunt of this. Displaced drivers may struggle to retrain amid broader AI job shifts, as 2025 estimates bring between 50,000 and 300,000 layoffs tied to artificial intelligence.
It could also bring major changes to the overall competitive landscape. While Waymo and Uber have partnered, Tesla’s scale and lower costs could trigger a price war, squeezing incumbents and accelerating consolidation.
Balancing Act – Who Wins and Who Loses
There are two sides to this story, as there are with every other one.
The winners are consumers, Tesla investors, cities, and the environment. Consumers will see lower costs and safer mobility, while potentially alleviating themselves of awkward small talk in ride-sharing applications, a bigger complaint than one might think.
Elon Musk confirms Tesla Cybercab pricing and consumer release date
Tesla investors will be obvious winners, as the launch of self-driving rideshare programs on the company’s behalf will likely swell the company’s valuation and increase its share price.
Cities will have less traffic and parking needs, giving more room for housing or retail needs. Meanwhile, the environment will benefit from fewer tailpipes and more efficient fleets.
A Call for Thoughtful Transition
The Cybercab’s production debut forces us to weigh innovation against equity.
If Tesla delivers on its timeline and autonomy proves reliable, it could herald an era of abundant, affordable mobility that redefines urban life. But without proactive policies — retraining, safety nets, phased deployment — this revolution risks widening inequality and leaving millions behind.
Elon on the MKBHD bet, stating “Yes” to the question of whether Tesla would sell a Cybercab for $30k or less to a customer before 2027 https://t.co/sfTwSDXLUN
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 17, 2026
The real question isn’t whether the Cybercab will disrupt — it’s already starting — it’s whether society is prepared for the economic earthquake it unleashes.
News
Tesla Model 3 wins Edmunds’ Best EV of 2026 award
The publication rated the Model 3 at an 8.1 out of 10, and with its most recent upgrades and changes, Edmunds says, “This is the best Model 3 yet.”
The Tesla Model 3 has won Edmunds‘ Top Rated Electric Car of 2026 award, beating out several other highly-rated and exceptional EV offerings from various manufacturers.
This is the second consecutive year the Model 3 beat out other cars like the Model Y, Audi A6 Sportback E-tron, and the BMW i5.
The car, which is Tesla’s second-best-selling vehicle behind the popular Model Y crossover, has been in the company’s lineup for nearly a decade. It offers essentially everything consumers could want from an EV, including range, a quality interior, performance, and Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite, which is one of the best in the world.
The Tesla Model 3 has won Edmunds Top EV of 2026:
“The Tesla Model 3 might be the best value electric car you can buy, combining an Edmunds Rating of 8.1 out of 10, a starting price of $43,880, and an Edmunds-tested range of 338 miles. This is the best Model 3 yet. It is… pic.twitter.com/ARFh24nnDX
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 18, 2026
The publication rated the Model 3 at an 8.1 out of 10, and with its most recent upgrades and changes, Edmunds says, “This is the best Model 3 yet.”
In its Top Rated EVs piece on its website, it said about the Model 3:
“The Tesla Model 3 might be the best value electric car you can buy, combining an Edmunds Rating of 8.1 out of 10, a starting price of $43,880, and an Edmunds-tested range of 338 miles. This is the best Model 3 yet. It is impressively well-rounded thanks to improved build quality, ride comfort, and a compelling combination of efficiency, performance, and value.”
Additionally, Jonathan Elfalan, Edmunds’ Director of Vehicle Testing, said:
“The Model 3 offers just about the perfect combination of everything — speed, range, comfort, space, tech, accessibility, and convenience. It’s a no-brainer if you want a sensible EV.”
The Model 3 is the perfect balance of performance and practicality. With the numerous advantages that an EV offers, the Model 3 also comes in at an affordable $36,990 for its Rear-Wheel Drive trim level.
Tesla announces crazy new Full Self-Driving milestone
Tesla Cybercab production begins: The end of car ownership as we know it?
