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.
In a remarkable demonstration of how advanced vehicle technology can intersect with family care and rapid response, a Tesla Model Y equipped with Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised helped save a driver’s life during a severe heart attack. The incident, which occurred on November 15, 2025, highlights the life-saving potential of Tesla’s connected ecosystem.
John Brandt, 55, was driving his new 2026 Model Y Launch Edition on Interstate 20 from Atlanta toward Birmingham early that morning. He had recently received the FSD v14.1.3 update. Around 3:50 a.m., he began experiencing severe chest pain. Barely conscious and unable to safely control the vehicle, John managed to call his son, Jack Brandt.
FSD Supervised remained engaged, keeping the car steadily on course while John reached out for help.
As an authorized driver on his father’s Tesla account, Jack quickly sprang into action from his own phone. He located Tanner Medical Center in Carrollton, Georgia—a facility equipped for cardiac emergencies—via Google Maps and shared the destination directly through the Tesla app.
A Model Y driver started experiencing a medical emergency with chest pain mid-drive & called his son.
His son then remotely rerouted the car – which had FSD Supervised enabled – to the nearest hospital & let them know the vehicle was en route. ER staff were standing by on… pic.twitter.com/yi1tHISK9y
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) June 16, 2026
The Model Y responded immediately, rerouting: it took the next exit, turned around on I-20, navigated local roads, and pulled directly up to the emergency room entrance. Jack also alerted hospital staff that a heart attack patient was en route in a Tesla.
Doctors diagnosed John with a massive STEMI heart attack, requiring immediate intervention on three blocked arteries. They later confirmed that without the swift reroute, John likely would not have survived—whether he had pulled over to wait for an ambulance or attempted to continue driving. He received life-saving treatment and is now recovering fully.
Tesla shared the story on X, including an interview video featuring John and Jack reflecting on the event. John described the terrifying onset of symptoms, while Jack detailed the ease of remote intervention thanks to the app’s features. Only authorized users with vehicle access can change navigation destinations, adding a layer of security and family coordination.
This case underscores Tesla’s emphasis on connectivity and supervised autonomy. Features like remote navigation allow loved ones to assist in real-time emergencies, while FSD handles complex driving tasks reliably. Tesla notes that FSD Supervised requires active driver supervision and is not fully autonomous; this was a specific incident, not a general emergency protocol.
The story has resonated widely, with many praising Tesla’s technology for bridging gaps in critical moments. Jack previously shared details on social media in February 2026, and Tesla’s recent post has amplified its reach. As vehicles become smarter and more connected, such integrations could redefine personal safety on the road—turning cars into proactive partners in health crises.
For Tesla owners, the incident serves as a powerful reminder to add trusted family members as authorized drivers and explore FSD capabilities. While no technology replaces professional medical care, this blend of AI-assisted driving and seamless app control proved invaluable. John’s survival stands as a testament to innovation that prioritizes human life.
In a bold declaration on X, xAI CEO Elon Musk announced that its model will be capable of creating full movies by the end of the year. Quoting an xAI post showcasing a stunning AI-generated trailer for Homer’s The Odyssey, Musk simply stated: “Full movies by the end of the year.”
The quoted video, created entirely with the newly released Grok Imagine Video 1.5, demonstrates the rapid strides in AI video generation. Crafted by creator David Thompson, the 2-minute-plus trailer reimagines the ancient epic in the style of a 1970s classical Hollywood blockbuster. It features 36 meticulously consistent shots that form a cohesive narrative world.
Full movies by the end of this year https://t.co/kkBrngWA0X
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 17, 2026
Its realistic nature is truly mind-blowing, and it’s pretty amazing to think that it cool to think it could create an entire movie soon.
The trailer reimagines The Odyssey as a whole, and opens with a concept board outlining the vision: a retelling of the story using 35mm film aesthetics, classical framing, and other elements.
There are a handful of things that truly outline Grok’s capabilities:
- Scale and Physics: A bloodied Spartan helmet rests on a sandy battlefield amid smoke, marching armies, and flocks of birds. Horses gallop, chariots charge, and warriors clash with believable weight and motion.
- Emotional Depth and Dialogue: Close-ups capture intense expressions, as characters deliver lines like a warrior’s grief-stricken speech on a rocking ship.
- Cinematic Workflow: It’s hard to believe AI created this trailer, as editing and suspense are clearly detailed in this trailer
Now, why is this a big deal? AI has been a real threat to the way movies have been made over the past several decades. It’s no secret that the various AI platforms out there are becoming more capable, but Musk has said that he believes things would be “watchable” by the end of this year, and by the end of 2027, Grok would be able to create “really good” movies.
There are several issues that remain, most notably the ability to remain cohesive throughout the length of a film, energy requirements, copyright questions for training data, and artistic intent. Hollywood has created some of the greatest cinematic masterpieces over the past 100 years, but 2026 could be the year AI not only assists but also independently authors cinema.
Tesla is continuing to push the boundaries of vehicle dynamics, as its latest published patent, US12654505B2, or “Suspension Actuator System for a Vehicle,’ which has finally been pushed through.
The design, which is credited to inventors Brian Lee Doorlag, Avraham Kagan, and Justin Sill, introduces a sophisticated hybrid suspension design that blends active motor-driven control with strategic passive elements to deliver superior ride quality, energy efficiency, and resilience against road imperfections, especially potholes.
Suspension Actuator System for a Vehicle@Tesla‘s US20240383297A1 patent introduces an innovative suspension actuator system that transforms vehicle suspension control through an intelligent combination of active and passive control elements.
By implementing both series and… https://t.co/vRvlOu3Dql pic.twitter.com/2WriXgpOvr
— SETI Park (@seti_park) November 27, 2024
At the heart of the system is an active control element powered by an electric motor. This motor drives a belt connected to a ball nut assembly and threaded screw, which adjusts the effective length of the suspension strut in real time.
By extending or retracting, the actuator can lift or lower the wheel more accurately, which can end up countering road disturbances. Sensors, including accelerometers and wheel position monitors, feed data to a suspension control system that processes inputs and commands the motor instantly.
This active component doesn’t work alone. A low-rate air spring mounts in parallel with the actuator. Its primary role is to offset much of the vehicle’s static weight, dramatically reducing the power demand on the motor.
Without this, the active system would constantly fight gravity, draining energy and generating heat. The air spring handles steady-state loads efficiently, allowing the motor to focus on dynamic adjustments.
Complementing this is a series of passive control elements—a spring and an adaptive damper—placed between the actuator and the wheel. This setup filters high-frequency vibrations before they reach the active motor, preventing it from overworking on minor inputs. The adaptive damper, potentially magnetorheological or valve-controlled, further tunes damping electronically for optimal comfort and stability.
How It Differs from Traditional Suspensions
Traditional passive suspensions compromise between comfort and handling, while pure active systems can be power-hungry and complex. Tesla’s hybrid approach resolves this by delegating tasks: the parallel air spring manages weight and low-frequency body motions, the series elements absorb rapid vibrations, and the active actuator tackles larger, lower-frequency events.
The result is a smoother, more isolated cabin experience. High-frequency road noise and harshness diminish, while the vehicle maintains precise control during cornering or acceleration. Energy efficiency improves, too—lower motor loads mean reduced battery drain, potentially extending range in electric vehicles.
How It Mitigates Potholes Specifically
Potholes are a major challenge because they provide a sudden drop to the wheel plunge, jarring the body of the vehicle, risking damage. The patent explicitly addresses this. Upon detecting a pothole (via sensors or predictive mapping), the control system activates
the motor to retract the strut, effectively pulling the wheel upward to minimize downward excursion. The series spring/damper cushions the impact, while the parallel air spring maintains overall support.
This proactive “wheel retraction” prevents sharp jolts, preserving passenger comfort and protecting components. Integrated with Tesla’s road roughness mapping patents, the system could anticipate potholes from fleet data, enabling preemptive adjustments for even smoother navigation.
Future Implications for Tesla Vehicles
This technology builds on Tesla’s existing adaptive dampers and air suspension that is seen in Cybertruck, but advances toward fully active control. It could roll out to future models, including refreshed Cybertrucks or next-gen vehicles, enhancing both daily drivability and off-road capability. By minimizing power use and complexity, it aligns with Tesla’s goals of efficiency and scalability.
In summary, US12654505B2 exemplifies Tesla’s engineering philosophy: intelligent integration over brute force. This hybrid suspension promises quieter, more comfortable rides and robust pothole defense, potentially setting a new standard for automotive comfort. As Tesla iterates, drivers can look forward to roads feeling far less rough.
Tesla Full Self-Driving and App Connectivity save life in medical emergency
Elon Musk predicts Grok will start to challenge Hollywood by the end of 2026
