News
Blue Origin launches first suborbital tourists after six years and 15 test flights
More than six years after New Shepard’s first test flight and nine years after a pad abort featuring a prototype of the rocket’s capsule, Blue Origin has launched its first crew of suborbital tourists.
Almost exclusively funded by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ stock sales over more than 21 years of operations, Blue Origin has been working towards New Shepard’s first crewed launch for approximately a decade. Aside from a pad abort test of the rocket’s relatively simple ‘crew capsule’ in October 2012, New Shepard – purported to be fully reusable – has performed 15 uncrewed test flights since April 2015. At least according to Blue Origin, of those 15 tests, 14 were fully successful and 11 crossed the 100 km (~62 mi) Karman Line – a largely arbitrary line drawn between Earth’s atmosphere and space.
Six years and three months after New Shepard’s first flight, the rocket lifted off on its 16th suborbital mission and inaugural crewed launch. Along for the ride were Jeff Bezos himself, brother Mark Bezos, hedgefund multimillionaire Joes Daemen’s son Oliver Daemen, and trailblazing pilot and aviator Mary “Wally” Funk.
While New Shepard NS-16 reached an apogee of 107 km (66 mi) and a maximum speed of 2233 mph (1 km/s / Mach 2.9), less than 13% of the way to orbit, the mission did mark a number of “spaceflight” firsts insofar as its passengers did technically spend between 70 and 150 seconds in “space.” Notably, NS-16 passengers Oliver Daemon and Wally Funk are now respectively the youngest and oldest people in history to reach space. While Blue Origin hasn’t disclosed the value of his second-place bid, Oliver Daemen was technically a paying customer, making New Shepard the first rocket in history to launch a paying passenger on its first crewed flight.
In June, Blue Origin held a tone-deaf auction that ultimately resulted in a mystery buyer winning the first ticket on New Shepard at a jaw-dropping cost of $28 million – just shy of the $30M Richard Garriott paid to ride a Soyuz rocket to space, spend almost two weeks in orbit, and scream back to Earth at Mach 25. Bizarrely, the company still hasn’t revealed the winner, at no point mentioned that there would be runners-up, inexplicably swapped the mystery winner for Oliver Daemen with “scheduling issues” as the comical excuse, and has yet to reveal what Daemen paid for his ticket. In general, Blue Origin still refuses to provide any information about the price of seats on New Shepard.
Meanwhile, although Blue Origin did provide invite-only access to some media outlets and offered numerous interview opportunities with the NS-16 crew, there have been virtually zero chances for reporters and journalists to ask real questions. Beyond New Shepard, which raises dozens of questions on its own, Blue Origin’s orbital New Glenn rocket is years behind schedule and apparent issues with the BE-4 engine meant to power both it and the United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) Vulcan has also significantly delayed the latter rocket’s launch debut.
For the last several years, Vulcan and New Glenn were both aiming for a launch debut sometime in 2020. Both targets eventually slipped to 2021 and as of 2021, Vulcan is now expected to launch no earlier than early 2022 and New Glenn’s debut has slipped to “late 2022” – likely meaning 2023.
On its own, New Shepard has had one of the most bizarre development paths of any rocket in history. Despite virtually unlimited resources from Bezos’ average sale of billions of Amazon stock each year and the fact that New Shepard is a fully reusable rocket that demonstrated the ability to fly twice in ~60 days in 2016, Blue Origin has only launched the rocket 15 times in the 75 months before NS-16. The company has never once implied that New Shepard suffered major issues during any of its test flights, save for NS-1’s failed booster recovery (though Blue has generally glossed over or ignored that lone failure).
Somewhat coincidentally, New Shepard’s first test flight occurred just a few weeks before SpaceX attempted the first major test of a partially integrated Crew Dragon prototype, resulting in a successful pad abort test in May 2015. Despite several significant, documented delays, less than four years later, Crew Dragon aced an uncrewed orbital launch to the ISS and back to Earth. 14 months after Demo-1, SpaceX became the first private company in history to launch astronauts to orbit. Less than six months after that historic launch and four months after Crew Dragon returned two NASA astronauts to Earth, SpaceX launched its first operational four-astronaut mission to the ISS.
In the same period that Blue Origin completed five uncrewed New Shepard test flights, SpaceX launched Crew Dragon’s Demo-1, In-Flight Abort, Demo-2, Crew-1, and Crew-2 missions, carrying six astronauts to orbit and back and delivering another four to the ISS (where they still are). Not only did SpaceX also launch five Crew Dragons, but April 2021’s Crew-2 mission marked the first time in history that astronauts launched on a flight-proven liquid rocket booster and a flight-proven space capsule, beating Blue Origin to the punch despite the far greater challenges and risks posed by orbital spaceflight.
Put simply, it’s disappointing but not exactly surprising that Blue Origin continues to go to great lengths to avoid having to answer questions that haven’t been obviously vetted or preselected.
Tesla has launched a direct campaign targeting its customers in New Jersey, sending emails that warn of pending legislation that could effectively block true driverless technology in the state.
The email focuses on Senate Bill S.1677 and Assembly Bill A.3968, measures intended to create a three-year autonomous vehicle pilot program but laden with requirements that Tesla argues make unsupervised Robotaxis impossible.
Tesla is sending out this email to New Jersey Tesla owners, warning them that NJ could block autonomous vehicles, and to take action.
“Proposed legislation moving through Trenton right now would impose restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.… pic.twitter.com/2bmY646AUL
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 16, 2026
According to the email, the bills impose “restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.” Specific hurdles include mandates for human safety drivers during operations, multimillion-dollar insurance minimums, reportedly $5 million, and thresholds like 100,000 miles of demonstrated safe autonomous driving before any driverless approval.
Tesla contends these are arbitrary barriers that ignore real-world performance data and favor entrenched competitors over innovative technologies like its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The push comes as Tesla has started expanding Robotaxi operations in states like Texas, where unsupervised vehicles are already providing rides in several cities. New Jersey, by contrast, risks falling behind. The company highlights in the email communication that more than 94 percent of serious crashes result from human error, meaning impairment, distraction, or fatigue. These are all problems that Robotaxis eliminate entirely.
In 2025, New Jersey recorded 582 traffic deaths, underscoring the human cost of delayed adoption.
Tesla’s outreach stresses the transformative potential of robotaxis. For families, they could offer safer school runs without drowsy or distracted drivers. For seniors and people with disabilities, robotaxis promise independence and reliable mobility.
In areas with limited public transit, they could deliver affordable, on-demand transportation, reducing congestion, emissions, and overall transportation costs. Economically, the company warns that restrictive rules could cost New Jersey jobs, innovation investment, and billions in potential growth as autonomous ride-hailing scales elsewhere.
Supporters of the legislation, including Sen. Andrew Zwicker, describe the pilot as a cautious framework with strong safety oversight, including incident reporting, expert task forces, and restrictions in sensitive zones like school areas. They view it as balancing innovation with public protection.
Tesla and pro-AV advocates counter that the bill lacks technology neutrality, creates insurmountable entry barriers for commercial deployment, and prioritizes process over outcomes — effectively functioning as a de facto ban on services like Robotaxi.
This latest clash echoes Tesla’s past battles in New Jersey over direct vehicle sales. The email directs owners to Tesla’s advocacy platform, where they can send customized messages to legislators calling for amendments: outcome-based safety standards, open competition, and clear pathways for fully driverless commercial operations.
As hearings approach, Tesla’s campaign frames the issue as a choice between protecting the status quo and embracing life-saving progress. With robotaxi technology already proving itself in permissive states, New Jersey owners are being asked to ensure their state doesn’t lock out the future of transportation.
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
A Tesla Cybertruck driver in the United Kingdom had their all-electric pickup seized by local police in the Greater Manchester area after the department cited “legitimate concerns.”
Last Thursday, police saw the pickup on the roads and decided to pull the driver over. Greater Manchester Police said:
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a collision with the Cybertruck.”
🚨 A Tesla Cybertruck, which is illegal to drive in the UK due to safety concerns, has been seized by police in Greater Manchester
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a… pic.twitter.com/cqhdPok3DM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
The Cybertruck in question was, according to the BBC, registered and insured abroad and was confiscated. The driver, who is a UK resident, was reported.
The Greater Manchester Police Department then added:
“The Tesla Cybertruck is not road-legal in the UK and does not hold a certificate of conformity.”
The Cybertruck cannot be legally driven in the UK because it has no UK Type Approval for operation in the country. This is due to some safety concerns, which are related to its angular shape and design. The stainless steel exoskeleton has sharp edges and projections that violate UK/EU rules on pedestrian protection.
Tesla has considered creating what it referred to as an “international version” that would be approved for operation in Europe. However, there has been no real movement on that front by the company, as it has been focused on the Robotaxi rollout primarily.
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
Tesla’s Navigation Nightmare: Why the easiest part of FSD might be the hardest
