

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.
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
Elon Musk is now a remote DOGE worker: White House Chief of Staff
The Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is no longer working from the West Wing.

In a conversation with the New York Post, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles stated that Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is no longer working from the West Wing.
As per the Chief of Staff, Musk is still working for DOGE—as a remote worker, at least.
Remote Musk
In her conversation with the publication, Wiles stated that she still talks with Musk. And while the CEO is now working remotely, his contributions still have the same net effect.
“Instead of meeting with him in person, I’m talking to him on the phone, but it’s the same net effect,” Wiles stated, adding that “it really doesn’t matter much” that the CEO “hasn’t been here physically.” She also noted that Musk’s team will not be leaving.
“He’s not out of it altogether. He’s just not physically present as much as he was. The people that are doing this work are here doing good things and paying attention to the details. He’ll be stepping back a little, but he’s certainly not abandoning it. And his people are definitely not,” Wiles stated.
Back to Tesla
Musk has been a frequent presence in the White House during the Trump administration’s first 100 days in office. But during the Q1 2025 Tesla earnings call, Musk stated that he would be spending substantially less time with DOGE and substantially more time with Tesla. Musk did emphasize, however, that DOGE’s work is extremely valuable and critical.
“I think I’ll continue to spend a day or two per week on government matters for as long as the President would like me to do so and as long as it is useful. But starting next month, I’ll be allocating probably more of my time to Tesla and now that the major work of establishing the Department of Government Efficiency is done,” Musk stated.
Elon Musk
Tariff reprieve might be ‘Tesla-friendly,’ but it’s also an encouragement to others
Tesla stands to benefit from the tariff reprieve, but it has some work cut out for it as well.

After Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick made adjustments to the automotive tariff program that was initially announced, many quickly pointed to the reprieve as “Tesla-friendly.”
While that may be the case right now, it was also a nudge of encouragement to other companies, Tesla included, to source parts from the U.S. in an effort to strengthen domestic manufacturing. Many companies are close, and it will only take a handful of improvements to save themselves from tariffs on their cars as well.
Yesterday, Sec. Lutnick confirmed that cars manufactured with at least 85 percent of domestic content will face zero tariffs. Additionally, U.S. automakers would receive credit up to 15 percent of the value of vehicles to offset the cost of imported parts.
Big Tesla win? Sec Lutnick says cars with 85% domestic content will face zero tariffs
“This is ‘finish your cars in America and you win’,” Lutnick said.
Many were quick to point out that only three vehicles currently qualify for this zero-tariff threshold: all three are Teslas.
However, according to Kelley Blue Book’s most recent study that revealed who makes the most American cars, there are a lot of vehicles that are extremely close to also qualifying for these tariff reductions.
Tesla has three vehicles that are within five percent, while Ford, Honda, Jeep, Chevrolet, GMC, and Volkswagen have many within just ten percent of the threshold.
Tesla completely dominates Kogod School’s 2024 Made in America Auto Index
It is within reach for many.
Right now, it is easy to see why some people might think this is a benefit for Tesla and Tesla only.
But it’s not, because Tesla has its Cybertruck, Model S, and Model X just a few percentage points outside of that 85 percent cutoff. They, too, will feel the effects of the broader strategy that the Trump administration is using to prioritize domestic manufacturing and employment. More building in America means more jobs for Americans.

Credit: Tesla
However, other companies that are very close to the 85 percent cutoff are only a few components away from also saving themselves the hassle of the tariffs.
Ford has the following vehicles within just five percent of the 85 percent threshold:
- Ford Mustang GT automatic (80%)
- Ford Mustang GT 5.0 (80%)
- Ford Mustang GT Coupe Premium (80%)
Honda has several within ten percent:
- Honda Passport All-Wheel-Drive (76.5%)
- Honda Passport Trailsport (76.5)
Jeep has two cars:
- Jeep Wrangler Rubicon (76%)
- Jeep Wrangler Sahara (76%)
Volkswagen has one with the ID.4 AWD 82-kWh (75.5%). GMC has two at 75.5% with the Canyon AT4 Crew Cab 4WD and the Canyon Denali Crew Cab 4WD.
Chevrolet has several:
- Chevrolet Colorado 2.7-liter (75.5%)
- Chevrolet Colorado LT Crew Cab 2WD 2.7-liter (75.5%)
- Chevrolet Colorado Z71 Crew Cab 4WD 2.7-liter (75.5%)
These companies are close to reaching the 85% threshold, but adjustments need to be made to work toward that number.
Anything from seats to fabric to glass can be swapped out for American-made products, making these cars more domestically sourced and thus qualifying them for the zero-tariff boundary.
Frank DuBois of American University said that manufacturers like to see stability in their relationships with suppliers and major trade partners. He said that Trump’s tariff plan could cause “a period of real instability,” but it will only be temporary.
Now is the time to push American manufacturing forward, solidifying a future with more U.S.-made vehicles and creating more domestic jobs. Tesla will also need to scramble to make adjustments to its vehicles that are below 85%.
News
Tesla Cybertruck RWD production in full swing at Giga Texas
Videos of several freshly produced Cybertruck LR RWD units were shared on social media platform X.

It appears that Tesla is indeed ramping the production of the Cybertruck Long Range Rear Wheel Drive (LR RWD), the most affordable variant of the brutalist all-electric pickup truck.
Videos of several freshly produced Cybertruck LR RWD units were shared on social media platform X.
Giga Texas Footage
As per longtime Tesla watcher Joe Tegtmeyer, Giga, Texas, was a hotbed of activity when he conducted his recent drone flyover. Apart from what seemed to be Cybercab castings being gathered in the complex, a good number of Cybertruck LR RWD units could also be seen in the facility’s staging area. The Cybertruck LR RWD units are quite easy to spot since they are not equipped with the motorized tonneau cover that is standard on the Cybertruck AWD and Cyberbeast.
The presence of the Cybertruck LR RWD units in Giga Texas’ staging area suggests that Tesla is ramping the production of the base all-electric pickup truck. This bodes well for the vehicle, which is still premium priced despite missing a good number of features that are standard in the Cybertruck AWD and Cyberbeast.
Cybertruck Long Range RWD Specs
The Cybertruck LR RWD is priced at $69,990 before incentives, making it $10,000 more affordable than the Cybertruck AWD. For its price, the Cybertruck Long Range RWD offers a range of 350 miles per charge if equipped with its 18” standard Wheels. It can also add up to 147 miles of range in 15 minutes using a Tesla Supercharger.
Much of the cost-cutting measures taken by Tesla are evident in the cabin of the Cybertruck LR RWD. This could be seen in its textile seats, standard console, seven-speaker audio system with no active noise cancellation, and lack of a 9.4” second-row display. It is also missing the motorized tonneau cover, the 2x 120V and 1x 240V power outlets on the bed, and the 2x 120V power outlets in the cabin. It is also equipped with an adaptive coil spring suspension instead of the adaptive air suspension in the Cybertruck AWD and Cyberbeast.
-
News1 week ago
Tesla’s Hollywood Diner is finally getting close to opening
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Tesla doubles down on Robotaxi launch date, putting a big bet on its timeline
-
News6 days ago
Tesla is trying to make a statement with its Q2 delivery numbers
-
Investor's Corner1 week ago
LIVE BLOG: Tesla (TSLA) Q1 2025 Company Update and earnings call
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Tesla reportedly suspended Cybercab and Semi parts order amid tariff war: Reuters
-
SpaceX2 weeks ago
SpaceX pitches subscription model for Trump’s Golden Dome
-
News2 weeks ago
Driverless Teslas using FSD Unsupervised are starting to look common in Giga Texas
-
News3 days ago
NY Democrats are taking aim at Tesla direct sales licenses in New York