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 has firmly denied recent media reports suggesting that SpaceX has reduced its target valuation for an upcoming initial public offering.
The denial came directly from the SpaceX and Tesla frontman on his social media platform X, where he responded with a single word, “False,” to a post from ZeroHedge that cited Bloomberg sources.
This swift rebuttal underscores Musk’s ongoing effort to manage speculation surrounding one of the most anticipated market debuts in recent history.
False
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 29, 2026
According to the disputed reports, SpaceX had lowered its IPO valuation goal to at least $1.8 trillion from previous ambitions exceeding $2 trillion.
The claims emerged amid growing anticipation for the company’s confidential S-1 filing, which positions it for a potential public listing as early as June.
Some had pointed to strong revenue growth, particularly from the Starlink satellite internet service, which contributed heavily to the firm’s 2025 figures of $18.7 billion. Yet challenges persist in other areas, including substantial investments and losses tied to ambitious projects like Starship development and artificial intelligence initiatives, which plan to make life multiplanetary eventually.
Musk’s response highlights a pattern in which he actively counters what he views as inaccurate portrayals of his companies’ trajectories.
SpaceX, already valued privately at extraordinary levels, stands as a cornerstone of Musk’s empire alongside Tesla and xAI. The entrepreneur has long emphasized the transformative potential of reusable rockets and global broadband access, factors that fuel investor enthusiasm despite operational hurdles.
By rejecting the valuation downgrade narrative, Musk signals confidence in SpaceX’s fundamentals and its readiness for public markets on terms favorable to its long-term vision. People have been waiting a very long time to invest in SpaceX, and the valuation, as well as the introductory share price, is not going to need adjusting.
They’ll have plenty of suitors.
This episode reflects broader dynamics in the technology sector, where rumors often swirl around high-profile entities. Musk’s direct engagement with media narratives serves to maintain transparency and control the narrative around his ventures.
As SpaceX prepares for greater scrutiny in public markets, the founder’s denial reinforces optimism about its prospects. Supporters argue that the company’s innovative edge positions it for enduring success, far beyond short-term valuation debates. With the denial now public, attention turns to forthcoming regulatory filings that could provide clearer insights into SpaceX’s strategy and financial health.
The coming weeks promise to reveal more about how SpaceX will transition into a publicly traded powerhouse.
Tesla’s dreams of operating a fully autonomous ride-hailing platform just took a massive step toward reality, as two separate events have indicated the company is perhaps closer than ever to achieving self-driving as a product.
On Thursday, Tesla was granted authorization by the State of Texas to operate driverless vehicles in a commercial manner. On May 28, Senate Bill 2807, passed by the 89th Texas Legislature, took effect after being passed back on September 1, 2025.
The bill establishes a statewide regulatory framework requiring authorization from the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles for companies to operate automated vehicles commercially on Texas roads.
This covers driverless, or SAE Level 4+, operations for passenger transport, meaning Robotaxi, or freight.
Tesla and other companies can self-certify their vehicles and tech as long as they:
- Operate in compliance with Texas traffic laws
- Maintain proper registration, title, and insurance
- Use compliant automated driving systems
- Record onboard activity and handle system failures and glitches safely.
The new authorization, which was first reported by James Stephenson on X, allows companies to utilize their own processes to determine if their vehicles are ready to operate without drivers.
🚨BREAKING:
Tesla has been authorized by the State of Texas to operate driverless vehicles commercially under the new law that took effect today, May 28th, 2026. Tesla has officially self-certified the software running on its robotaxis as Level 4. $TSLA pic.twitter.com/KSJdsvlaW5— James Stephenson (@ICannot_Enough) May 28, 2026
It is a rule that expedites the entire approval process, keeping agencies out of a usually long, lengthy, and frustrating task that is essential to technological advancements. It essentially means Tesla can launch commercial Robotaxi operations at this point.
On the very same day, Tesla continued the momentum as CEO Elon Musk shared a video of Cybercab units autonomously driving off the property at Gigafactory Texas. This is a major step in the story of the Cybercab.
Mass production of the Cybercab started at Giga Texas in April, and it is already heading out of the factory on its own.
Cybercab driving itself out of the GigaTexas factory pic.twitter.com/EwAMVVDjYy
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 28, 2026
These two major events mark a drastic step forward in Tesla’s progress toward Cybercab and the permissions it needs to operate a self-driving ride-hailing service. Tesla is now able to operate autonomously under Texas law by self-certifying, and with the potentially imminent rollout of Cybercab, Tesla’s autonomous dreams are starting to take serious shape.
Elon Musk
The Tesla and SpaceX merger everyone is talking about is quietly building
Tesla and SpaceX may be closer to merging than Wall Street or either company is admitting.
Elon Musk has reportedly discussed merging Tesla and SpaceX with people close to him, according to CNBC, which cited sources familiar with the conversation. Tesla employees have long expected such a transaction and the topic is openly discussed internally, according to internal sources. With SpaceX is days away from kicking off its Wall Street roadshow for what could be the largest IPO in market history, this would be the first time the company will have public market currency to execute a stock-for-stock deal with Tesla.
The financial logic for a merger would make sense. A combined SpaceX and Tesla would create a conglomerate spanning rockets, satellites, electric vehicles, AI infrastructure, and energy storage valued at roughly $3.35 trillion to $3.6 trillion based on SpaceX’s IPO target range and Tesla’s current market capitalization. The two companies are already more intertwined than most people realize. SpaceX bought $697 million worth of Tesla Megapack systems for xAI data centers and $131 million worth of Cybertrucks. Tesla invested $2 billion in xAI, which subsequently merged with SpaceX. Past transactions also include Tesla selling solar equipment and parts to SpaceX, and SpaceX helping with Cybertruck materials.
Will Tesla join the fold? Predicting a triple merger with SpaceX and xAI
Musk himself signaled where this was heading in November 2025 when he posted on X, “My companies are, surprisingly in some ways, trending towards convergence.” Tesla and SpaceX announced a joint semiconductor fabrication facility in Austin called Terafab on the Gigafactory Texas campus, covering two advanced chip factories, with one serving Tesla’s AI needs for vehicles and Optimus robots, the other targeting space-based data centers under SpaceX’s infrastructure vision.
Wedbush analyst Dan Ives places the probability of a merger at 80% to 90% with a target completion in the first half of 2027. The mechanics of a deal became possible the moment SpaceX filed its S-1. Legal experts said a merger likely would not spark antitrust issues but would raise concerns among shareholders in each company, with questions around which company would be the parent, how a stock swap would take place, and who determines the appropriate price. Musk holds about 20% of Tesla’s equity but controls 85.1% of SpaceX’s voting power through a super-voting share class, meaning he would largely be negotiating the terms with himself.
Not everyone is convinced the timing is imminent. Traders on Kalshi place only 33% odds that a merger will happen before May 2027. The more immediate concern for Tesla shareholders is whether the SpaceX IPO pulls capital and Musk’s attention away from Tesla before any merger consolidates the upside for both.
What is clear is that the structural groundwork is already being laid. The Terafab announcement, the xAI merger, the shared supply chain, the cross-company balance sheet transactions, and now the IPO all point in the same direction. Whether the merger follows in 2027 or later, the two companies are already operating more like divisions of a single entity than independent competitors.
Elon Musk strikes down reports on SpaceX IPO rumors
Tesla’s Robotaxi dreams just took a massive step toward reality
