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 analyst sees Full Self-Driving adoption rates skyrocketing: here’s why
“You’ll see increased adoption as people are exposed to it. I’ve been behind the wheel of several of these and the different iterations of FSD, and it is getting better and better. It’s something when people experience it, they will be much more comfortable utilizing FSD and paying for it.”
Tesla analyst Stephen Gengaro of Stifel sees Full Self-Driving adoption rates skyrocketing, and he believes more and more people will commit to paying for the full suite or the subscription service after they try it.
Full Self-Driving is Tesla’s Level 2 advanced driver assistance suite (ADAS), and is one of the most robust on the market. Over time, the suite gets better as the company accumulates data from every mile driven by its fleet of vehicles, which has swelled to over five million cars sold.
The suite features a variety of advanced driving techniques that many others cannot do. It is not your typical Traffic-Aware Cruise Control (TACC) and Lane Keeping ADAS system. Instead, it can handle nearly every possible driving scenario out there.
It still requires the driver to pay attention and ultimately assume responsibility for the vehicle, but their hands are not required to be on the steering wheel.
It is overwhelmingly impressive, and as a personal user of the FSD suite on a daily basis, I have my complaints, but overall, there are very few things it does incorrectly.
Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised) v14.1.7 real-world drive and review
Gengaro, who increased his Tesla price target to $508 yesterday, said in an interview with CNBC that adoption rates of FSD will increase over the coming years as more people try it for themselves.
At first, it is tough to feel comfortable with your car literally driving you around. Then, it becomes second nature.
Gengaro said:
“You’ll see increased adoption as people are exposed to it. I’ve been behind the wheel of several of these and the different iterations of FSD, and it is getting better and better. It’s something when people experience it, they will be much more comfortable utilizing FSD and paying for it.”
Tesla Full Self-Driving take rates also have to increase as part of CEO Elon Musk’s recently approved compensation package, as one tranche requires ten million active subscriptions in order to win that portion of the package.
The company also said in the Q3 2025 Earnings Call in October that only 12 percent of the current ownership fleet are paid customers of Full Self-Driving, something the company wants to increase considerably moving forward.
News
Tesla scores major court win as judge rejects race bias class action
The ruling means the 2017 lawsuit cannot proceed as a class action because plaintiff attorneys were unable to secure testimony commitments from at least 200 workers.
Tesla scored a significant legal victory in California after a state judge reversed a class certification in a high-profile race harassment case involving 6,000 Black workers at its Fremont plant. The ruling means the 2017 lawsuit cannot proceed as a class action because plaintiff attorneys were unable to secure testimony commitments from at least 200 workers ahead of a 2026 trial, a threshold the judge viewed as necessary to reliably represent the full group.
No class action
In a late-Friday order, California Superior Court Judge Peter Borkon concluded that the suit could not remain a class action, stating he could not confidently apply the experiences of a much smaller group of testifying workers to thousands of potential class members. His ruling reverses a 2024 decision by a different judge who had certified the case under the belief that a trial of that size would be manageable, as noted in a Reuters report.
The lawsuit was originally filed by former assembly-line worker Marcus Vaughn, who alleged that Black employees at Tesla’s Fremont factory were exposed to various forms of racially hostile conduct, including slurs, graffiti, and instances of disturbing objects appearing in work areas. Tesla has previously said it does not tolerate harassment and has removed employees found responsible for misconduct. Neither Tesla nor the plaintiffs’ legal team immediately commented on the latest ruling.
Tesla’s legal challenges
While the decertification narrows the scope of this particular case, Tesla still faces additional litigation over similar allegations. A separate trial involving related claims brought by a California state civil rights agency is scheduled just two months after the now-vacated class trial date. The company is also contending with federal race discrimination claims filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alongside several individual lawsuits it has already resolved.
For now, the reversal removes the large-scale exposure Tesla would have faced in a unified class trial, shifting the dispute back to individual claims rather than a single mass action. The case is Vaughn v. Tesla, filed in Alameda County Superior Court.
News
Tesla Holiday Update is incoming, and the wishlist is Merry and Bright
There are a handful of big wishes, and we’ve seen a lot of different requests out there based on what owners are saying on social media. Nevertheless, what Tesla should bring and what Tesla will bring are two different things.
Tesla’s Holiday Update is going to be on its way soon, and although we have no idea what the company is planning to implement into vehicles with the 2025 iteration.
However, the wishlist is extensive, and owners are hoping to get a vast array of new features, both useful and artificial. That’s the fun thing about owning a Tesla — not everything is necessary, and it’s okay for your car to be fun.
There are a handful of big wishes, and we’ve seen a lot of different requests out there based on what owners are saying on social media. Nevertheless, what Tesla should bring and what Tesla will bring are two different things.
🚨 All I Want for Christmas (in the Tesla Holiday Update) is:
1. More streaming platforms
2. Summon for Cybertruck
3. Easier Navigation adjustment for a preferred route instead of the optimal choiceWhat else? pic.twitter.com/qapS1jXAuB
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 16, 2025
In past years, Tesla has brought both useful things and fun things with the Holiday Update. The Custom Lock Sound, new Light Shows, and even High Fidelity Park Assist have all come in past updates, among many other things. But for 2025, people want even more, and here’s what we have seen most frequently thus far:
More Streaming Platforms
This is a personal request of ours, and it’s something that we feel is long overdue.
Sure, Netflix, Disney+, and Hulu are all great — but there’s a lot of meat left on that bone. HBOMax, Paramount+, and even YouTube TV would be a great option for those of us who have subscriptions and want to watch Live Events while Supercharging or eating in our cars.
The fact that Tesla has not added more platforms to its in-car Theater in a few years has been, dare I say, disappointing?
Full Self-Driving for Europe
This is something not even Santa can help with. Although his Elves are known for their high productivity, we’re not even sure they could convince European regulators to open the door for FSD’s entrance into the market.
Tesla deploys Unsupervised FSD in Europe for the first time—with a twist
FSD is definitely capable of handling European driving conditions, but regulators are truly dragging their feet through the mud with the approval process. Tesla has tested FSD in several countries in Europe, but nothing has been set in stone yet.
Deeper Grok Integration
Many owners have said something about how Grok is truly not super in-tune with the vehicles. This is something any owner will experience.
It seems Grok should be capable of handling all in-car requests; everything from changing the A/C to a specific temperature to adding a stop within the Navigation should be handled by Grok.
Instead, Grok cannot handle those things currently. You have to speak to the car itself using the microphone button on the steering wheel.
Interestingly, some vehicles already have the Grok logo replacing the microphone. It is likely the most realistic request of all.
‘Learn’ Mode for Full Self-Driving Arrival Options
Although it is great for public destinations, FSD still does not allow you to choose a set parking spot at your residence. It also does not allow you to choose preferences for parking in large parking lots.
Renters, and even those who live in purchased townhomes, often have assigned parking spots. Full Self-Driving v14 has done a great job of doing half the work, but there have been too many times when I’ve arrived home, the car pulls me into a spot, and I’m forced to manually back out and park in my assigned space.
Many people also do not like to park toward the entrance of a store, me included. Parking away from the front of a store eliminates parking congestion and usually is a safer bet for your vehicle to keep from being dinged by careless drivers who swing their doors open.
Navigation Adjustments
Sometimes you don’t want to turn left on the street the navigation chooses. Maybe you want to go a block down and check out that new Portuguese restaurant that just opened on the way to your next destination.
This is only possible currently by inputting a waypoint that would take you that way. Instead, the center screen could be opened, and the driver should be able to select an alternative route by simply touching a street they’d rather travel on.
Tesla analyst sees Full Self-Driving adoption rates skyrocketing: here’s why
Tesla scores major court win as judge rejects race bias class action
Tesla Holiday Update is incoming, and the wishlist is Merry and Bright
-
News2 weeks agoTesla shares rare peek at Semi factory’s interior
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoTesla says texting and driving capability is coming ‘in a month or two’
-
News1 week agoTesla makes online ordering even easier
-
News1 week agoTesla Model Y Performance set for new market entrance in Q1
-
News2 weeks agoTesla Cybercab production starts Q2 2026, Elon Musk confirms
-
News1 week agoTesla is launching a crazy new Rental program with cheap daily rates
-
News2 weeks agoTesla China expecting full FSD approval in Q1 2026: Elon Musk
-
News2 weeks agoTesla Model Y Performance is rapidly moving toward customer deliveries