I dug around and didn't find an official SpaceX statement. The cause was a poorly constructed struct they bought from a 3rd party company.

> Compare their statements about the cause of the CRS-7 explosion to NASA's.

Did NASA's and SpaceX's statements differ in content?

SpaceX statement: https://www.spacex.com/news/2015/07/20/crs-7-investigation-u...

NASA accident investigation report: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/public_...

TBF the NASA report came much later than the SpaceX explanation. However it might be of interest to compare:

SpaceX explanation of why looking at the right telemetry is hard vs "Technical Finding 4" from NASA.

SpaceX explanation of the strut's "certifications" and max load vs "Technical Finding 1" (and the longer explanation earlier in the document, you can do a control-f for "Where the IRT differs with SpaceX is in regards to the initiating cause")

"SpaceX chose to use an industrial grade (as opposed to aerospace grade) ... cast part"

Hmm.. Isn't this a common cost-cutting strategy for Musk's companies? The touchscreen in the Model 3s was (is?) also industrial grade, if I recall correctly.

> The touchscreen in the Model 3s was (is?) also industrial grade, if I recall correctly.

Isn't that exactly what it should be? Or would you expect aerospace grade material there? Or is there yet another grade in between called 'automotive'?

Yup! I think the common electronic tolerances go: commerical, industrial, automative, military, aerospace, and then space, though I may be missing one or two.