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 wins big as NHTSA drops three-year, 120k unit probe against Model Y
In all, 120,089 Model Ys were impacted, but in two cases, drivers reported the complete detachment of the steering wheel from the steering column while the vehicle was in motion. NHTSA’s initial review revealed that the vehicles had been delivered without the critical retaining bolt that secures the steering wheel to the splined steering column.
A probe into over 120,000 2023 Tesla Model Y units has been closed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The probe ends without the agency requiring any action from Tesla.
The probe, designated PE23-003, opened in March 2023 and stemmed from just two consumer complaints involving low-mileage Model Y SUVs.
In all, 120,089 Model Ys were impacted, but in two cases, drivers reported the complete detachment of the steering wheel from the steering column while the vehicle was in motion. NHTSA’s initial review revealed that the vehicles had been delivered without the critical retaining bolt that secures the steering wheel to the splined steering column.
NHTSA has ended a probe into over 120,000 Tesla Model Y vehicles after claims that the steering wheel could detach from the steering column due to a missing retaining bolt
There is no action needed by Tesla pic.twitter.com/YpAO3bKugA
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 28, 2026
Factory records showed each car had undergone an “end-of-line” repair at Tesla’s facility, during which the steering wheel was removed and reinstalled. The bolt was apparently omitted after the repair, leaving only a friction fit between the wheel and column to hold it in place temporarily.
According to NHTSA documents, this friction fit maintained the connection during initial low-mileage driving until forces during normal operation caused the wheel to detach. Both vehicles that were impacted were repaired under warranty with no injuries reported, and no additional incidents surfaced during the agency’s three-year review.
After analyzing manufacturing processes, complaint data, and field reports, NHTSA concluded the issue was isolated to those two post-repair vehicles rather than indicative of a systemic defect in Tesla’s production or quality control.
The closure means the agency has determined no recall or further enforcement is warranted for this specific missing-bolt condition.
This outcome marks the second NHTSA investigation into Tesla closed without action this month, as a recent probe into the company’s “Actually Smart Summon” feature was also resolved in April.
The two resolutions provide some relief for Tesla amid the continuous and somewhat unfair regulatory scrutiny of its vehicles, including open inquiries into driver assistance systems.
Importantly, the closed probe does not involve or affect Tesla’s separate May 2023 voluntary recall of certain 2022-2023 Model Y vehicles. That recall addressed a different issue—steering-wheel fasteners that were installed but not torqued to specification—prompted by a service technician’s observation of a loose wheel during unrelated repairs.
Tesla identified a small number of related warranty claims and proactively addressed the matter without NHTSA mandate.
The Model Y remains one of the world’s best-selling vehicles, and Tesla continues to refine its lineup, including the recent “Juniper” refresh. While federal oversight of the electric vehicle pioneer remains intense, this decision underscores that isolated manufacturing anomalies do not always translate into broader safety defects requiring recalls.
News
Tesla Model Y L gets biggest hint yet that it’s coming to the U.S.
Over the past week, a noticeable wave of American Tesla influencers descended on China and Australia, each posting in-depth YouTube reviews of the Model Y L within days of one another.
The Tesla Model Y L is perhaps the most wanted vehicle in the company’s lineup in the United States, especially now that it is void of a true family vehicle with the removal of the Model X.
In China, Tesla currently offers a longer, more family-friendly version of the Model Y, known as the Model Y L, which is longer in terms of its wheelbase and larger in terms of interior space, making it the perfect option for those with a need for a tad more room than what the all-electric crossover offers in its Standard, Premium, and Performance trims.
However, there seems to be a hint that the Model Y L could be on its way to the United States. Over the past week, a noticeable wave of American Tesla influencers descended on China and Australia, each posting in-depth YouTube reviews of the Model Y L within days of one another:
Not saying that this means anything more than Tesla China simply inviting a handful of American influencers to see this car….
….but this seems like a good strategy for an eventual offering in the U.S. https://t.co/XS3PyBdnNd
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 27, 2026
The timing has sparked some intense speculation as to whether Tesla is quietly preparing to bring the long-wheelbase, three-row family SUV to North America after months of requests from fans.
The Model Y L stretches the wheelbase by about five inches compared to the standard Model Y.
This delivers dramatically more rear legroom, optional captain’s chairs in the second row, and a true six- or seven-seat configuration ideal for growing families. Reviewers praise its refined ride, upgraded interior features like a rear touchscreen and premium audio, and competitive range—up to roughly 466 miles in some configurations.
Many observers see the coordinated influencer trip as more than a coincidence. Tesla China appears to have hosted the group, possibly tied to the Beijing Auto Show, giving U.S.-focused creators early access to hands-on footage aimed squarely at North American audiences.
Tesla Model Y lineup expansion signals an uncomfortable reality for consumers
Tesla watchers are quick to point out this isn’t the first time such a pattern has emerged.
Just months earlier, American influencers were similarly invited to China to test-drive the refreshed Model Y Performance. Those videos dropped in the lead-up to the variant’s U.S. rollout, generating exactly the kind of pre-launch hype that helped smooth its September arrival in American showrooms.
The parallel is obviously hard to ignore, as Tesla has used overseas influencer trips before as a low-key way to build anticipation without formal announcements. With the Model Y L potentially hitting the U.S. market late this year, according to CEO Elon Musk, the timing would make sense.
Tesla Model Y L might not come to the U.S., and it’s a missed opportunity
Of course, it could still be coincidental. Tesla regularly invites creators to its Shanghai factory and events for broader promotional purposes, and the Model Y L has been on sale in China for some time. No official word has come from Tesla or Elon Musk about U.S. availability, pricing, or timing.
Import tariffs, regulatory hurdles, and production priorities at Fremont or the new Mexican Gigafactory could still delay or alter any stateside plans.
Even so, the buzz is real. U.S. families have long asked for a more spacious, three-row Tesla SUV that doesn’t require stepping up to the larger Model X.
If the influencer campaign is any indication, the Model Y L—or a close North American cousin—could finally answer that call. For now, American Tesla fans are watching closely and wondering whether this latest China trip is just good content… or the opening act for something much bigger stateside.
News
Tesla begins probing owners on FSD’s navigation errors with small but mighty change
Previously lumped under “Other,” these incidents made it harder for Tesla’s AI team to isolate and prioritize map-related issues in their reinforcement learning models. There was a lot of disagreement on how certain interventions should be reported.
Tesla has started probing owners on how often its Full Self-Driving suite has Navigation errors with a small but mighty change last night.
In its latest Software Update, which is Version 2026.2.9.9 featuring Full Self-Driving (Supervised) v14.3.2, Tesla has introduced a targeted improvement to how owners will report interventions.
With the initial rollout of v14.3.2, Tesla introduced a new Intervention Menu that appears when a disengagement occurs. It allowed owners to choose from four different categories: Preference, Comfort, Critical, or Other.
Tesla has voided the Other option and replaced it with a new “Navigation” choice, which seems much more ideal given the complaints owners have had about navigation. This seemingly minor UI tweak, rolled out widely in recent days, marks another step in Tesla’s ongoing effort to refine its autonomous driving stack through precise, crowdsourced data.
“Other” has been replaced with “Navigation” in the Tesla Self-Driving intervention reasons menu pic.twitter.com/mBOi3uYs8C
— Whole Mars Catalog (@wholemars) April 28, 2026
Tesla made this change in direct response to longstanding community feedback. For years, FSD users have noted that navigation errors—such as incorrect speed limits, suboptimal routes, or directing the vehicle to a building’s rear entrance instead of the main one—frequently force interventions.
Previously lumped under “Other,” these incidents made it harder for Tesla’s AI team to isolate and prioritize map-related issues in their reinforcement learning models. There was a lot of disagreement on how certain interventions should be reported:
I chose to label this Navigation error as “Critical” while testing FSD v14.3.2
Here’s why:
✅ This intervention wasn’t “preference,” as the maneuver FSD routed was illegal
✅ If a police officer saw this maneuver, it would result in a ticket https://t.co/znhHb4haAo pic.twitter.com/bZOiLwWmQa— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
By adding a dedicated “Navigation” label, the company can now tag disengagements more accurately, feeding cleaner data into its neural networks. This supports faster iteration on routing algorithms, map accuracy, and intent-aware navigation.
Community consensus around Tesla’s navigation system has been consistent and candid. While the end-to-end AI driving behavior in v14.x earns widespread acclaim for smoothness and safety, navigation remains FSD’s clearest Achilles’ heel.
Owners frequently cite outdated map data, failure to learn from repeated corrections, and routing decisions that feel less intuitive than Google Maps or Apple Maps. Common complaints include phantom speed-limit changes, inefficient local roads, and poor point-of-interest handling.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Many drivers report intervening on navigation far more often than on core driving maneuvers, with some estimating it accounts for the majority of disengagements outside of edge cases.
Long-term users note that the same mapping glitches persist across years and software versions, despite thousands of collective miles of feedback. Yet the addition of the “Navigation” option has been met with optimism. It signals Tesla’s commitment to data-driven progress and suggests navigation improvements could arrive sooner.
For a community that already logs millions of FSD miles monthly, this small change could unlock meaningful gains in reliability and user trust—potentially accelerating the path to unsupervised autonomy.
Tesla wins big as NHTSA drops three-year, 120k unit probe against Model Y
Tesla Model Y L gets biggest hint yet that it’s coming to the U.S.
