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
SpaceX’s triple-rocket that launched a Tesla into space is back on a mission
SpaceX Falcon Heavy returns after 18 months away to deliver a satellite that only it could carry.
After an 18-month absence, SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy is returning to mission on Monday morning when it’s scheduled to lift off from Launch Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center at 10:21 a.m. EDT.
The mission is called ViaSat-3 F3, and the heavy satellite payload needs to reach geostationary orbit, sitting 22,236 miles above Earth where its speed matches the planet’s rotation. Getting a satellite that heavy to that altitude demands more thrust than a single-core Falcon 9 can deliver.
This marks the Falcon Heavy’s 12th flight overall since its debut in February 2018, and its first since NASA’s Europa Clipper mission in October 2024.
Arguably, the most exciting element for spectators will be watching the booster recoveries in action when the two side boosters, B1072 and B1075, will attempt simultaneous landings at Landing Zone 2 and the newer Landing Zone 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, while the center core will be expended over the ocean.
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
Following satellite deployment, expected roughly five hours after launch, ViaSat-3 F3 will spend several months traveling to its final orbital slot before undergoing in-orbit testing, with service entry expected by late summer 2026
As Teslarati reported, NASA awarded SpaceX a $175.7 million contract on April 16, 2026 to launch the ESA Rosalind Franklin Mars rover aboard a Falcon Heavy no earlier than late 2028, which would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars. That contract came on top of an already deep pipeline that includes the Roman Space Telescope, the Dragonfly Saturn mission, and multiple national security payloads.
SpaceX executed 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. With Starlink surpassing 10 million subscribers and an IPO targeting a $1.75 trillion valuation still ahead, Monday’s launch is one more data point in a company that has quietly become the backbone of both commercial and government space access worldwide.
Tesla is launching its solution to end Supercharger fights once and for all, eliminating any confusion on who is to charge next at a congested location.
Last year, a notable incident at a Tesla Supercharger led to a fight, and it all stemmed from a disagreement over who arrived at the location first.
Congestion at Tesla Superchargers is a pretty infrequent occurrence for most of us, but there are more congested and popular areas where wait times can be extensive. An unfortunate growing pain of EV ownership is the plain fact that chargers are not as available as gas pumps, and there are, at times, lines to charge.
This can cause tensions to flare and people to get entitled when visiting Superchargers. Nobody wants to spend hours at a Supercharger, but now, there will be no more confusion when there is a queue, and that’s thanks to Tesla’s new Virtual Queue for Superchargers.
Tesla is finally starting to build out the Virtual Supercharger Queue, according to Not a Tesla App, but it still relies on drivers to make it work.
When a driver is near a Supercharger that is full, a message will pop up on the Tesla App, using the driver’s location to determine their eligibility to join the virtual queue.
The app states:
“While the app is closed, Tesla uses your location to notify you of accurate wait times at Superchargers when you arrive.”
Another message within the app states:
“There is a waitlist to charge. Are you sure you want to start a charging session now?”
This sounds as if it will require drivers to act appropriately and only plug in when the app prompts them to do so, by letting them know it is their turn.
The app will notify the driver of their position in the queue, as well as how many vehicles are ahead of them.
Tesla launches first ‘true’ East Coast V4 Supercharger: here’s what that means
The company announced a while back that it would be working on a solution for this issue. Personally, I’ve only had to wait at a Supercharger for a charge on one occasion, and there was a line of between 3 and 10 cars during this singular occurrence.
I’m out at the Lancaster, PA Supercharger and showed up with a queue of three vehicles.
It’s now up to five and there have been several issues with order of arrival and confusion about who is first.
Any update on Supercharger queue? @elonmusk @aelluswamy @r_jegaa
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 31, 2026
There were no conflicts or arguments about who had arrived first, but there was some discussion between several drivers during my time there about who was to charge first. Throw a non-Tesla EV into the mix, one that can only charge at a pull-in spot, and that causes even more of a complication.
News
Tesla offers awesome Free Supercharging incentive on an unexpected vehicle
In the past, Tesla has used Free Supercharging to incentivize the purchase of its expensive vehicles, like the Model S and Model X. However, those vehicles are leaving the company lineup, and Tesla saw a benefit from applying the incentive to another car.
Tesla is offering an awesome new Free Supercharging incentive on a vehicle that is sort of unexpected.
In the past, Tesla has used Free Supercharging to incentivize the purchase of its expensive vehicles, like the Model S and Model X. However, those vehicles are leaving the company lineup, and Tesla saw a benefit from applying the incentive to another car.
Tesla North America has introduced a compelling new incentive aimed at boosting Model 3 sales. Starting with orders placed on or after April 24, buyers of the Model 3 Premium (Long Range) and Performance variants in the United States will receive one full year of complimentary Supercharging.
The offer applies exclusively to new vehicle orders and does not extend to existing owners or other trims like the base Rear-Wheel Drive model.
New orders of Model 3 Premium & Performance now come with 1 year of free Supercharging 🇺🇸
Also, all Teslas pay the lowest Supercharging rates – all others pay a ~40% premium or need a subscription
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) April 24, 2026
The announcement underscores Tesla’s continued dominance in EV charging infrastructure.
While the incentive provides 12 months of zero-cost access to the Supercharger network, Tesla also reiterated its pricing structure: all Tesla vehicles receive the lowest Supercharging rates.
Non-Tesla EVs, by contrast, pay approximately 40 percent more per kWh or must purchase a subscription to access the network at standard rates. This tiered approach highlights the strategic value of owning a Tesla, where seamless integration with the world’s largest and most reliable fast-charging network remains a key differentiator.
For prospective buyers, the savings can be substantial. Depending on driving habits, a typical Model 3 owner might log 12,000–15,000 miles annually.
With average Supercharging costs around $0.40–$0.50 per kWh, one year of free sessions could translate to $800–$1,200 in avoided expenses.
That effectively lowers the total cost of ownership and makes long-distance travel more affordable from day one. Early delivery customers have already noted similar past incentives, with one Cybertruck owner reporting over $2,400 saved in just six months under similar offers that Tesla has deployed in the past.
The timing of the offer appears strategic. Tesla faces growing competition from other automakers expanding their own charging networks and offering aggressive EV incentives.
By bundling free Supercharging rather than discounting the vehicle’s MSRP, Tesla preserves perceived value while directly addressing one of the biggest barriers for new EV adopters: charging costs and convenience.
The move also encourages higher-mileage use of the network, generating valuable real-world data for Tesla’s autonomous driving development.
Why Tesla would apply this incentive to the Model 3 is pretty interesting. It usually is a pretty good incentive to move units out the door, so there’s some speculation whether Tesla is planning to launch new upgrades to the mass-market sedan in the coming months, and the company wants to move what will be outdated units from its inventory.
However, there is also just the idea that Tesla could be attempting to stimulate some early quarter demand for the Model 3, especially as the Model Y continues to sell very well. Tesla’s loss of the $7,500 EV tax credit last year had an impact on sales, and Tesla might be testing some formidable options to see if it can add some demand once again.
SpaceX’s triple-rocket that launched a Tesla into space is back on a mission
The FCC just said ‘No’ to SpaceX for now
