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
SpaceXAI just launched into your kitchen with their new app
SpaceXAI just powered its first consumer app and it predicts what you want to buy.
SpaceXAI just made its first move into consumer AI, and it involves your grocery cart. On June 3, 2026, Gopuff and SpaceXAI announced the launch of Go, a Grok-powered shopping assistant built directly into the Gopuff app that predicts what you need before you even start searching for it.
Gopuff is an instant delivery platform that operates more than 400 micro-fulfillment centers across the U.S., delivering everyday essentials, snacks, drinks, and household items in as little as 15 minutes. It is not a restaurant delivery app or a marketplace. It owns its inventory, controls its warehouses, and handles its own logistics, which means it has built one of the most detailed consumer behavior datasets in retail over its 13-year history.
Go combines SpaceXAI’s advanced reasoning, voice, and image generation models with Gopuff’s dataset of hundreds of millions of orders and real-time cultural signals from X to prepare a suggested cart the moment a customer opens the app. It learns each shopper’s habits and automatically builds a personalized cart based on time of day, location, order history, and real-time indicators. Returning customers can check out with a single tap.
Rather than searching for specific items, users can describe a situation like a game-day party or the desire for a healthy breakfast and Go will assemble a cart automatically. It can also predict when shoppers are running low on items like coffee or paper towels and have them packed and delivered in under 15 minutes. Grok voice integration lets users talk to the app in plain conversational language and check out completely hands-free.
Gopuff co-founder and co-CEO Yakir Gola said: “Today, we believe the greatest friction left in commerce is not delivery or instantaneous access to the essentials customers need. It’s the moment before: the thinking, the deciding, the remembering. We’re combining Gopuff’s demand intelligence with xAI’s frontier reasoning to create an everyday shopping experience that feels like a true extension of you.”
Why SpaceX just made a $60 billion bet on AI coding ahead of historic IPO
The timing carries context beyond the product launch. SpaceXAI was formed after SpaceX completed an all-stock merger with Elon Musk’s xAI earlier this year, folding one of the most advanced AI labs in the world into the same corporate structure as the company preparing what could be the largest IPO in history. SpaceXAI is dipping into consumer-focused AI just as it prepares for its public debut, and while Musk has openly discussed building an everything app, this launch uses Grok to power another company’s product rather than launching a standalone consumer platform. Every consumer-facing deployment of Grok ahead of the IPO roadshow adds tangible evidence that SpaceXAI is not just an infrastructure play but a direct competitor in the AI application layer where OpenAI and Google are already fighting for dominance.
Tesla has introduced an enhanced visualization in its Supercharger navigation system, building directly on the Site Maps feature rolled out a few months ago.
This latest software update adds detailed 3D icons that represent specific vehicle models parked at charging stalls, offering drivers a more precise view of site occupancy and layout.
The Site Maps debuted in Tesla’s 2025 Holiday Update, providing 3D overviews of select Supercharger locations with real-time stall availability.
Tesla supplements Holiday Update by sneaking in new Full Self-Driving version
Drivers could see which spots were open, occupied, or out of service when navigating to supported stations.
Now, the system takes this capability further by rendering accurate representations of Tesla vehicles, including distinctions between models such as the Model 3, Model Y, Model S, Model X, and Cybertruck. These icons appear as lifelike 3D renderings, complete with recognizable shapes and proportions that match the actual cars charging at the site:
Supercharger update now shows type of Tesla at charger as well.
Pretty cool. pic.twitter.com/J3NRSIgM0m
— DennisCW | wen my L (@DennisCW_) June 2, 2026
This refinement improves the user experience during road trips and daily charging stops. As drivers approach a Supercharger, the navigation display now shows not just generic occupied markers but identifiable vehicle types plugged into each stall.
Blue indicators highlight active charging sessions, while other visual cues denote availability or maintenance status. The feature integrates seamlessly with the existing map interface, allowing quick assessment of the best available spot based on vehicle size and positioning.
Tesla continues to expand the availability of these detailed Site Maps across its global network. Initially piloted at a limited number of locations, the rollout has progressed steadily, with more stations gaining support in recent software versions.
Owners benefit from better planning, as the system helps identify compatible stalls and reduces uncertainty upon arrival. The update reflects Tesla’s ongoing commitment to refining its navigation and charging ecosystem through iterative software improvements.
In addition to model-specific icons, the enhanced maps maintain all prior functionalities, such as integration with nearby amenities and energy usage predictions. This ensures a comprehensive tool for efficient Supercharging.
As Tesla’s fleet grows and the network scales, such features play a key role in optimizing the overall ownership experience. Future updates may extend similar visualizations to additional sites and incorporate even more data points for drivers.
With this piggyback enhancement, Tesla demonstrates how small but thoughtful additions can elevate an already useful tool, making Supercharger visits smoother and more informed for its customers. The company is expected to broaden the feature’s reach in upcoming releases, further solidifying its leadership in EV charging infrastructure.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.3 driver monitoring was reportedly scaled back in recent releases, but a new version that was released in the early hours of June 3 aimed to do a better job of keeping those in control of their cars honest, according to release notes.
The release notes for FSD v14.3.3, via Software Version 2026.14.6.7 added:
“Improved driver monitoring system sensitivity with better eye gaze tracking, eye wear handling, and higher accuracy in variable lighting conditions.”
However, Tesla said this was already enabled in the first rollout of FSD v14.3.3 in late May. We tested it anyway, especially as the Standard Speed Profile seemed less-than-worried about what you were doing during operation.
I decided to try out the Hurry and Mad Max Speed Profiles for this test, and it gave me results that I would have expected. Tesla has evidently ramped up driver monitoring based on the Speed Profile you are using to travel.
The more aggressive the Speed Profile, the more on the hook you will be for taking your attention away from the road. Our testing showed that Mad Max was less likely to allow you to do normal things like change music or adjust navigation without getting an on-screen warning or nag from the driver monitoring system.
Hurry Mode Results
On Hurry, the driver monitoring system on FSD v14.3.3, via Software Version 2026.14.6.7, was more restrictive than Standard but less restrictive than Mad Max. I found that I could scroll through music options for a considerable amount of time, more than 30 seconds:
Roughly :31 between first touching the center screen and getting the first nag
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 3, 2026
Standard gave me about 80 seconds of phone scrolling with absolutely no nags or warnings in a previous test. It is worth noting that this was a previous branch of v14.3.3, but Standard is such a goodie-two-shoes on the road that it is my impression it would not change much.
Here’s an 80-second phone nag test on Tesla FSD v14.3.3.
No alerts, no nagging, no annoyance. https://t.co/1dxvTOw5Cn pic.twitter.com/vYViFpjfoK— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 29, 2026
Mad Max Results
I spent the majority of the drive on Mad Max to see how it truly reacted to the driver having their attention elsewhere. While I did do a short phone test, I am aiming to steer away from those and use the center screen. I think it is a valid criticism that the phone test is dangerous and, not to mention, illegal in Pennsylvania. Changing the navigation and music is a more reasonable, more responsible, and safer test.
With Mad Max being the fastest and most aggressive Speed Profile, I anticipated this being the quickest mode to give me an alert that I needed to look at the road. That was the case with music:
🎥 Testing Tesla FSD v14.3.3 (via 2026.14.6.7) nags on Mad Max https://t.co/qZALU2OujY pic.twitter.com/XddOJ0D47x
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 3, 2026
As well as adjusting Navigation, when I received two nags:
🎥 Testing Tesla FSD v14.3.3 (via 2026.14.6.7) nag while adjusting navigation
Two nags here https://t.co/qZALU2OujY pic.twitter.com/xa3dtaDG1L— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 3, 2026
These nags were more than reasonable, and I think it’s probably good that Tesla is ramping up the driver monitoring. I do believe that it should be relatively strict across all of the Speed Profiles, especially with phone use. When using the center screen, the nag intervals should be based on the speed profile you are utilizing at the time.
These driver monitoring adjustments are a great thing to have while FSD is still under its “Supervised” moniker, but I expect Tesla to continue pushing the limits on what it will allow, especially considering CEO Elon Musk has hinted that phone use is capable with the more recent versions.
You can watch the full drive on YouTube below:
SpaceXAI just launched into your kitchen with their new app
Tesla piggybacks recent Supercharger feature with update that takes it further
