News
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon explosion response praised by NASA in new briefing
During a recent NASA council meeting, SpaceX’s response to a Crew Dragon capsule’s April 20th explosion was repeatedly praised by the agency’s senior Commercial Crew Program (CCP) manager, her optimism clearly rekindled after several undeniably challenging months.
On October 29th and 30th, NASA held its second 2019 Advisory Council (NAC) meeting, comprised of a number of (more or less) independent advisors who convene to receive NASA updates and provide a sort of third-party opinion on the agency’s programs. Alongside NASA’s SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft, Commercial Crew continues to be a major priority for NASA and is equally prominent in NAC meetings, where program officials present updates.
On October 30th, CCP manager Kathy Lueders presented one such update on the progress being made by Commercial Crew providers Boeing and SpaceX, both of which are just weeks away from multiple crucial tests. Boeing is scheduled to perform a pad abort test of its Starliner spacecraft as early as November 4th, while SpaceX is targeting a static fire of a Crew Dragon capsule on November 6th. If that test fire is successful, the same capsule could be ready to support SpaceX’s In-Flight Abort (IFA) test in early-December, and Boeing’s Starliner could attempt its orbital launch debut (OFT) no earlier than (NET) December 17th.
For both SpaceX and Boeing, the results of their respective In-Flight Abort and Orbital Flight Test will determine just how soon NASA will certify each company to attempt their first commercial launches with astronauts aboard. If Boeing’s Pad Abort goes perfectly and Starliner’s NET December 17th OFT is also a total success, the company could be ready for its Crewed Flight Test (CFT) anywhere from 3-6+ months after (March-June 2020).
If SpaceX’s IFA test goes perfectly next month, Crew Dragon’s Demo-2 astronaut launch could occur as early as February or March 2020. In April 2019, SpaceX suffered a major setback when flight-proven Crew Dragon capsule C201 violently exploded milliseconds before a planned abort thruster static fire test, reducing the historic spacecraft to a field of debris. Before that failure, C201 had been assigned to perform the in-flight abort test, while capsule C205 was in the late stages of assembly for Demo-2.
Had that explosion never happened and the C201 IFA gone perfectly, Demo-2 could have potentially been ready for launch as early as August or September 2019. Instead, C201’s demise forced SpaceX to change capsule assignments, reassigning C205 to support Crew Dragon’s IFA, while C206 was moved to Demo-2. Nevertheless, as both SpaceX and NASA officials have noted, C201’s on-pad explosion has been viewed as a gift, for the most part, as the capsule failed in a largely controlled and highly-instrumented environment.
In fact, NASA manager Kathy Lueders complimented NASA’s involvement in the anomaly resolution process and repeatedly praised SpaceX’s response to Dragon’s explosion. Although the explosion was an undesirable result, SpaceX’s relentless prioritization flight hardware testing prevented a failure from occurring in flight. Performed alongside NASA, SpaceX’s subsequent investigations and experimentation have essentially brought to light a new design constraint, the knowledge of which many space agencies and companies will likely benefit from.
Most notably, however, Lueders detailed how impressed she was at the incredible speed with which SpaceX was able to respond to Crew Dragon’s catastrophic static fire anomaly.
“So the nice thing is that the SpaceX folks had a bunch of vehicles in flow. So even though we lost Demo-1 [capsule C201], … [SpaceX] was able to pull up what was going to be our Demo-2 vehicle, outfit it, make [necessary] changes [and upgrades] to the vehicle, and get it ready for [flight] with a six-month slip — a pretty phenomenal turnaround.“
Kathy Lueders – NASA – 10/30/19
Crew Dragon C201 exploded on April 20th, 2019. Five months and seven days later, a new Crew Dragon capsule and trunk – having undergone significant modifications as a result of the C201 explosion investigation – were delivered to SpaceX’s Florida facilities for their new role, Dragon’s In-Flight Abort test. Meanwhile, despite the upset and general instability, Crew Dragon capsule C206 – previously assigned to the flight after Demo-2 – is in the late stages of assembly and integration and is expected to ship to Florida for preflight preparations in early-December.
Altogether, those turnaround times are almost unheard of for such complex systems. For example, Boeing’s Starliner service module – generally less complex than the crew capsule – suffered a serious anomaly during a June 2018 static fire test. As a result, Boeing had to fully replace the service module with new hardware and repeat the same test before it could proceed to Starliner’s Pad Abort, at the time expected a few weeks later (Q2 2018).
Like SpaceX, Boeing was forced to cannibalize future launch hardware to re-attempt its static fire test, which was ultimately completed some 11 months after the anomaly on May 24th, 2019. The Pad Abort previously expected in mid-2018 is now expected no earlier than November 4th, 2019, a delay of 12-16 months. In simpler terms, the six or so months that Crew Dragon C201’s explosion has delayed SpaceX’s In-Flight Abort test is an undeniably “phenomenal turnaround” relative to both NASA’s expectations and SpaceX’s peers.
A happy partnership
The day prior, famed ex-NASA engineer and Space Shuttle program manager Wayne Hale – now serving as NAC chair – brought up SpaceX in an entirely different context, deeming the company as a whole a “sterling example” of NASA’s ability to incubate and incentivize commercial spaceflight.
Indeed, SpaceX has radically reshaped almost every aspect of the global spaceflight industry in the ten years since NASA awarded the company its first major contract, proving that orbital-class commercial rockets can be built, landed, and reused – all for far less money than NASA or competitors believed was possible.
All things considered, NASA appears to be more content than ever with the results its fruitful SpaceX partnerships are producing, and a number of senior NASA officials seem to be increasingly willing to unbridle their enthusiasm as a result.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
