News
SpaceX President breaks silence on rumored Zuma mission failure
After some 24 hours of total silence from all parties involved, dubious rumors began to trickle out on the afternoon of January 8 suggesting that SpaceX’s launch of Northrop Grumman’s highly secretive Zuma payload had somehow failed. Without hesitation, otherwise reputable outlets like CNBC and the Wall Street Journal immediately published separate articles claiming that lawmakers had been updated about the mission and told that the satellite had been destroyed while reentering Earth’s atmosphere. Having completely failed to both make it to orbit and “perfectly” separate from SpaceX’s Falcon 9 second stage, these articles implicitly placed the blame on SpaceX.
Claims of Zuma’s failure to properly separate from the second stage of the rocket led immediately to suggestions that SpaceX was at fault. The satellite’s manufacturer, Northrop Grumman, also refused to comment due to the classified nature of the mission, and the company may well have had their hands tied by requirements of secrecy from their customer(s). Immediately following these quick revelations, SpaceX was understandably bombarded with requests for comment by the media and furnished a response that further acknowledged the off-limits secrecy of the mission. However, SpaceX also stated that the company’s available data showed that Falcon 9 completed the mission without fault.
Falcon 9 1043 and its Zuma payload are ready for launch once again, this time from the brand-new LC-40 pad. (Tom Cross/Teslarati)
Without any background knowledge of spaceflight, this flurry of reporting and corporate comments would seem to be perfectly reasonable and unsurprising. However, the barest application of simple logic and orbital mechanics (what is actually involved in launching satellites to orbit) would have almost completely invalidated the information purportedly given to them.
Around the same time as claims of complete failure and satellite reentry were published, amateur spy satellite trackers had already begun the routine task of tracking and cataloging Zuma’s launch and orbit. Following Ars Technica’s breaking (and thankfully even-keeled) article on whispers of failure, reputable journalist Peter B. de Selding corroborated the rumors with reports that Zuma could be dead in orbit after separation from SpaceX’s upper stage. These facts alone ought to have stopped dead any speculation that Zuma had reentered while still attached to the Falcon 9 upper stage, and this was strengthened further by Dr. Marco Langbroek, who later published images provided to him that with very little doubt showed the second stage in a relatively stable orbit similar to the orbit that might be expected after a nominal launch.
This is the image taken by Dutch pilot Peter Horstink, from his aircraft over Khartoum near 3:15 UT, 2h 15m after launch.
This is probably the Falcon 9 venting fuel.#Zuma pic.twitter.com/EEsl7e1sQP— Dr Marco Langbroek (@Marco_Langbroek) January 8, 2018
Further complicating claims that the satellite failed to separate, Northrop Grumman had explicitly required that they be allowed to furnish the payload adapter for the Zuma mission, meaning that SpaceX was not responsible for connecting the satellite to the second stage, nor separating it after launch. In other words, if the satellite failed to separate, it would appear that SpaceX could not be easily blamed. However, regardless of these facts, SpaceX’s COO Gwynne Shotwell issued a thoroughly blunt and explicit statement earlier this morning, January 9. In no simple terms, she pegged rumors implicating SpaceX as the source of failure as “categorically false.” More importantly, she reiterated the simple facts that Falcon Heavy’s static fire and launch campaign were proceeding apace, and further stated that an upcoming launch of a communications satellite for SES and the Luxembourg government was also proceeding nominally for a launch around the end of January.
[Source: Chris G via Twitter]
Quite simply, if SpaceX’s hardware had suffered any form of anomaly, let alone issues serious enough to destroy a customer’s payload, all future launches would be immediately and indefinitely postponed, and all customers would be simultaneously notified of Falcon 9’s grounding. The last thing that a launch company would do in such an event is to allow a respected executive blatantly and publicly lie to the media about a long-time customer’s imminent launch date. For satellite communications companies like SES, delayed launches can cause major problems for shareholders and throw a multitude of wrenches into the fiscal gears, as delayed launches cost money on their own. They also delay the point at which any given satellite can begin to generate revenue.
A composite long exposure showing the launch, landing, and second stage burns during the Zuma mission. (Tom Cross/Teslarati)
But wait…
While current information almost unequivocally suggests that SpaceX is in the clear, there has yet to be any official confirmation that the Zuma satellite is in any way dead or has actually failed. This is par for the course of classified government launches, and Zuma’s launch campaign was even more secretive and eccentric than usual – we still have no idea what government agency or agencies are responsible for the mission. And the satellite’s manufacturer was explicitly provided only a few minutes before its launch. Any publication with experience dealing with military topics and news would explicitly understand that any ‘leaked’ information on highly classified topics is inherently untrustworthy and ought to be handled with the utmost rigor and skepticism.
In reality, the most we will ever likely know about these mysterious events will be provided in a handful of weeks by amateur satellite trackers: if they find a new object motionless in the expected orbit, leaks of Zuma’s abject failure will be largely corroborated. If nothing appears in that orbit once the satellite is expected to be visible, it can be reasonably assumed that Zuma reentered the atmosphere at some point, also hinting at a total failure. It can be said with some certainty that if Zuma failed to detach from Falcon 9’s second stage, SpaceX would delay its planned reentry indefinitely until all conceivable attempts to salvage the mission had been analyzed. Observations from pilots and people on the ground suggest without a doubt that the second stage reached a stable orbit, and once in that orbit, reentry could be delayed for weeks or months if the stage was not intentionally deorbited. Dr. Langbroek discusses these possibilities in greater detail in an article posted to his blog.
Ultimately, there are still numerous odd aspects surrounding the launch of Zuma that do not wholly mesh with publicly available information. For example, initial reports about the launch made it clear that the customer had explicitly contracted Zuma’s launch for no later or earlier than November 2017. This was delayed until January after SpaceX reportedly discovered issues with at least one Falcon 9 payload fairing, although the launch of Iridium-4 just over a month later was not delayed, and a replacement fairing was never spotted at Cape Canaveral (not that unusual). Why November 2017, and why delay the launch for nearly two months after that window was missed?
-
- Falcon 9 B1043 lifts off for the first time with Zuma on January 7. (Tom Cross/Teslarati)
-
- Falcon 9 lifts off with Zuma on January 7. (Tom Cross/Teslarati)
Of note, anonymous comments on Reddit were also corroborated by Eric Berger of Ars Technica, suggesting that Elon Musk did actually tell SpaceX employees that the launch of Zuma was possibly the most expensive and/or important contract SpaceX had yet to win. This raises a huge number of questions, as the payload was clearly small enough for Falcon 9 to return to Landing Zone-1 for recovery. This caps the mass of Zuma at about that of SpaceX’s Cargo Dragon spacecraft, indeed a fairly hefty capsule at around 10,000 kg, but still far from a satisfying explanation of its apparent value. While it seems unlikely that Zuma alone cost $1 billion or more, as many outlets have been suggesting (assuming?), it might be more reasonable to assume that the potential value of Zuma comes from future missions it might act as a proof of concept for – a highly secretive defense-related satellite constellation, in other words. This, too, slips uncomfortably far into the realm of “crazy government conspiracy theories,” but other explanations are far not forthcoming.
Sadly, the secrecy surrounding Zuma means that the general public will almost certainly remain in the dark for the indefinite future, at least until some future administration chooses to declassify it. The question of whether Zuma failed and whether that failure can be attributed to Northrop Grumman, SpaceX, or some combination of the two will nevertheless be answered imminently by delays or the lack-thereof for SpaceX’s upcoming launch manifest of Falcon Heavy, GovSat-1/SES-16, and PAZ, all scheduled within the next four weeks, give or take.
News
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 began rolling out to some owners earlier this week, and there are some notable improvements that came with this update.
There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.
Overall operation saw a handful of slight improvements, especially with parking performance, which has been the most notable difference with the arrival of FSD v14.3. However, there are still some very notable shortcomings, most notably with region-specific signage and navigation.
Tesla Assisted Smart Summon (ASS) improvements
There are noticeable improvements to ASS operation, which has definitely been inconsistent in terms of performance. Tesla wrote in the release notes for v14.3.2:
“Unified the model between Actually Smart Summon, FSD, and Robotaxi for more capable and reliable behavior.”
As recently as this month, I used Summon with no success. It had pulled around the parking lot I was in incorrectly, leaving the range at which Summon can be operated and losing a signal while moving in the middle of the lot.
This caused me to sprint across the lot to retrieve the vehicle:
It was pouring when I left the gym so I tried to Summon my Model Y
It turned the opposite way and drove out of range, stopping here and forcing me to walk even further across the lot in the rain for it 🤣
One day pic.twitter.com/iD10c8sriB
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 5, 2026
Unfortunately, Summon was not dependable or accurate enough to use regularly. It appears Tesla might have bridged the gap needed to make it an effective feature, as two tests in parking lots proved that Summon was more responsive and faster to navigate to the location chosen.
It also did so without hesitation, confidently, and at a comfortable speed. I was able to test it twice at different distances:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 ASS testing part 1
This was a significant improvement than recent tries using ASS. The parking lot was pretty empty but getting it to come to my location in one singular motion and maneuver was encouraging. https://t.co/vF7TS48GGV pic.twitter.com/sYt8tyHgNn
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 ASS testing part 2 https://t.co/lxfWfnLUxf pic.twitter.com/2R0r3ohI3M
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
I plan to test this more thoroughly and regularly through the next few weeks, and I avoided using it in a congested parking lot initially because I have not had overwhelming success with Summon in the past. I wanted to set a low baseline for it to see if it could simply pull up to the place I pinned in the Tesla app.
It was two for two, which is a big improvement because I don’t think I ever had successful Summon attempts back-to-back. It just seems more confident than ever before.
New Disengagement Categories
This is a really good idea from Tesla, but there are some issues with it. The categories you can select are Critical, Comfort, Preference, and Other.
I think the reasons why people choose to take over would be a better way to prompt drivers, like, “Traveling Too Fast,” “Incorrect Maneuver,” “Navigation Error,” would be more beneficial.
I say this because it seems that how we each categorize things might be different. For example, I shared a video of an intervention because the car had navigated to an exit to a parking lot and put its left blinker on, despite left turns not being allowed there.
I disengaged and chose Critical as the reason; it’s not a comfort issue, it’s not a preference, it’s quite literally an illegal turn, and it’s also dangerous because it cuts across several lanes of traffic and is 180 degrees.
I chose to label this Navigation error as “Critical” while testing FSD v14.3.2
Here’s why:
✅ This intervention wasn’t “preference,” as the maneuver FSD routed was illegal
✅ If a police officer saw this maneuver, it would result in a ticket https://t.co/znhHb4haAo pic.twitter.com/bZOiLwWmQa— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Some said I should not have labeled this as Critical, but that’s the description I best characterized the disengagement as.
Categorizing interventions is a good thing, but it’s kind of hard to determine how to label them correctly.
Inconsistency with Regional Traffic Patterns
Tesla Full Self-Driving is pretty inconsistent with how it handles regional or local traffic patterns and road rules. The most frequent example I like to use is that of the “Except Right Turn” stop sign, which has become a notorious sighting on our social media platforms.
In the initial rollout of v14.3, my Model Y successfully navigated through one of these stop signs with no issues. However, testing at two of these stop signs yesterday proved it is still not sure how to read signs and navigate through them properly.
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 attempts the “Except Right Turn” stop sign: https://t.co/W5MjAybaNK pic.twitter.com/P6oeUsk4PN
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Off camera, I approached another one of these signs and felt the car coming to a stop, so I nudged it forward with the accelerator pedal pressed.
This helped the car go through the sign without stopping, but I could feel the bucking of the vehicle as the car really wanted to stop.
Musk said on the earnings call earlier this week that unsupervised FSD would probably be available in some regions before others, including a state-to-state basis in the U.S.
“It’s difficult to release this like to everyone everywhere all at once because we do want to make sure that they’re not unique situations in a city that particularly complex intersection or — actually, they tend to be places where people get into accidents a lot because they’re just — perhaps there’s — and like I said, an unsafe intersection or bad road markings or a lot of weather challenges. So I think we would release unsupervised gradually to the customer fleet as we feel like a particular geography is confirmed to be safe.”
This could be one of those examples that Tesla just has to figure out.
Highway Operation
Full Self-Driving is already pretty good at routine roadway navigation, so I don’t have too much to report here.
However, I was happy with FSD’s decision-making at several points, including its choice not to pass a slightly slower car and remain in the right lane as we approached the off-ramp:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 highway operation: generally happy with the performance here, especially behavior near the exit
Love that the car got over in the right lane after its final pass, and stayed there as the off ramp was approaching https://t.co/qVRVhg6XGR pic.twitter.com/1ELwHf2XKS
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Better Maneuvering at Stop Signs
Many FSD users report some strange operations at stop signs, especially four-way intersections where there is a stop sign and a line on the road, and they’re not even with one another.
I experienced this quite frequently and found that FSD would actually double stop: once at the stop sign and again at the line.
This created some interesting scenarios for me and I had many cars honk at me when the second stop would happen. Other vehicles that had waved me on to proceed through the intersection would become frustrated at the second stop.
FSD seems to have worked through this particular maneuver:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 with a singular stop at the correct spot
No double stopping anymore in my experience https://t.co/Wd0TaNjc1R pic.twitter.com/CdQPvJHaAM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
FSD should know to go to the more appropriate location (whichever provides better visibility), and proceed when it is the car’s turn to move. The double stop really ruined the flow of traffic at times and generally caused some frustration from other drivers.
News
Tesla plans to resolve its angriest bunch of owners: here’s how
Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.
Tesla has a plan to make Hardware 3 owners whole after CEO Elon Musk admitted that those with that self-driving chip in their cars will not have access to unsupervised Full Self-Driving.
The company’s strategy is so crazy that it is sort of hard to believe.
Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.
Tesla owners with HW3 finally get their answer: https://t.co/CSZTKKkWXx
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 22, 2026
During the Tesla Q1 earnings call on Wednesday, Musk finally clarified what the company’s plans are for Hardware 3 owners, what they will be offered, and what Tesla will have to do internally to prepare for it.
The answer was somewhat mind-boggling.
Musk said:
“Unfortunately, Hardware 3 — I wish it were otherwise, but Hardware 3 simply does not have the capability to achieve unsupervised FSD. We did think at one point it would have that, but relative to Hardware 4, it has only 1/8 of the memory bandwidth of Hardware 4. And memory bandwidth is one of the key elements needed for unsupervised FSD.”
He continued, stating that HW3 owners would have the opportunity to trade their cars in at a discounted rate in order to get the AI4 chip:
“So for customers that have bought FSD, what we’re offering is essentially a trade-in — like a discounted trade-in for cars that have AI4 hardware, and we’ll also be offering the ability to upgrade the car, to replace the computer. And you also need to replace the cameras, unfortunately, to go to Hardware 4.”
Obviously, Tesla has a lot of people to work with and make this whole thing right. Musk was adamant that HW3 would be capable of FSD, and now that the company has finally admitted that it is not, there are some things that could come of this.
There has been open talk about some sort of class action lawsuit against Tesla. The promises that Tesla made previously could be considered a breach of contract or even false advertising, and that’s according to Grok, Musk’s own AI program.
Musk went on to say that Tesla would likely have to establish new microfactories to effectively and efficiently replace HW3 computers and cameras:
…So to do this efficiently, we’re going to have to set up, like kind of micro factories or small factories in major metropolitan areas in order to do it efficiently. Because if it’s done just at the service center, it is extremely slow to do so and inefficient. So we basically need like many production lines to make the change.”
This is going to be an extremely costly process, especially if Tesla has to buy real estate, properties, and equipment to complete this work. Additionally, there was no wording on pricing, but Musk never said it would be free. It will likely come with some kind of price tag, and HW3 owners, after being left hanging for so long, will have something to say about that.
Elon Musk
SpaceX just got pulled into the biggest Weapons Program in U.S. history
SpaceX joins the Golden Dome software group, deepening its role in America’s most expensive defense program.
SpaceX has joined a nine-company group developing the core operating software for the Golden Dome, America’s next-generation missile defense system. According to a Bloomberg report, SpaceX is focused on integrating satellite communications for military operations and is working alongside eight other defense and artificial intelligence companies, including Anduril Industries, Palantir Technologies, and Aalyria Technologies, to build software connecting missile defense capabilities.
The Golden Dome concept dates back to President Trump’s 2024 campaign, and on January 27, 2025, he signed an executive order directing the U.S. Armed Forces to construct the system before the end of his term. The system is planned to employ a constellation of thousands of satellites equipped with interceptors, with data centers in space providing automated control through an AI network.
FCC accepts SpaceX filing for 1 million orbital data center plan
Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, director of the Golden Dome initiative, has described the software layer as a “glue layer” that would enable officers to manage and control radars, sensors, and missile batteries across services. The consortium is aiming to test the platform this summer.
Trump selected a design in May 2025 with a $175 billion price tag, expected to be operational by the end of his term in 2029, though the Congressional Budget Office projected the cost could reach $831 billion over two decades.
The Golden Dome role is only the latest in a string of military wins for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported, the U.S. Space Force awarded SpaceX a $178.5 million task order on April 1, 2026 to launch missile tracking satellites for the Space Development Agency, covering two Falcon 9 launches beginning in Q3 2027. That came on top of more than $22 billion in government contracts held by SpaceX as of 2024, per CEO Gwynne Shotwell, spanning NASA resupply missions, classified intelligence satellites through its Starshield program, and military broadband.
The accumulation of defense contracts, now including a seat at the table on the most expensive weapons program in U.S. history, positions SpaceX as the dominant infrastructure provider for American national security in space. With a SpaceX IPO still on the horizon, each new contract adds weight to what is already one of the most consequential companies in aerospace history, raising real questions about how much of America’s defense architecture will depend on a single private operator before it ever trades publicly.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla plans to resolve its angriest bunch of owners: here’s how
