News
Boeing Starliner abort test (mostly) a success as SpaceX nears Crew Dragon static fire
On November 4th, Boeing completed a crucial pad abort test of its reusable Starliner spacecraft, successful in spite of an unintentional partial failure of its parachute recovery system. Three days later, Boeing revealed what it believed to be the cause of that anomaly in a November 7th press conference.
Meanwhile, SpaceX – having completed Crew Dragon’s pad abort test in 2015 – is preparing for an equally important In-Flight Abort (IFA) test and is perhaps just a day or two away from static firing the Crew Dragon capsule assigned to the test flight.
According to a NASA press release after the test, it “was designed to verify [that] each of Starliner’s systems will function not only separately, but in concert, to protect astronauts by carrying them safely away from the launch pad in the unlikely event of an emergency prior to liftoff.” Although the test wasn’t without flaws, the pad abort test successfully demonstrated the ability of the four launch abort engines and control thrusters to safely extricate astronauts from a failing rocket.
Those theoretical astronauts would have almost certainly survived the ordeal unharmed despite the failed deployment of one of Starliner’s three main parachutes, testing the spacecraft’s abort capabilities and redundancy quite a bit more thoroughly than Boeing intended. To put it bluntly, Boeing’s above tweet and PR claim that the failed deployment of 1/3 parachutes is “acceptable for the test parameters and crew safety” is an aggressive spin on a partial failure that NASA undoubtedly did not sign off on.
Boeing and SpaceX have both suffered failures while testing parachutes, leading NASA to require significantly more testing. However, in a November 7th press conference, Boeing revealed that Starliner’s parachute anomaly wasn’t the result of hardware failing unexpectedly under planned circumstances, but rather a consequence of a lack of quality assurance that failed to catch a major human error. Boeing says that a critical mechanical linkage (a pin) was improperly installed by a technician and then not verified prior to launch, causing one of Starliner’s three drogue chutes to simply detach from the spacecraft instead of deploying its respective main parachute.
Space is Parachutes are hard
Parachutes have been a major area of concern for the Commercial Crew Program. Both SpaceX and Boeing have now suffered failures during testing and have since been required to perform a range of additional tests to verify that upgraded and improved parachutes are ready to reliably return NASA astronauts to Earth. Although the Starliner pad abort test did indeed demonstrate the ability to land the capsule safely under two main chutes, an inadvertent test of redundancy, the series of Boeing actions that lead to the failure will almost certainly be scrutinized by NASA to avoid reoccurrences.
Boeing believes that the parachute failure won’t delay the launch of Starliner’s Orbital Flight Test (OFT), currently targeting a launch no earlier than (NET) December 17th. However, it can be said with some certainty that it will delay Starliner’s crewed launch debut (CFT), at least until Boeing can prove to NASA that it has corrected the fault(s) that allowed it to happen. SpaceX is similarly working to qualify upgraded Crew Dragon parachutes for astronaut launches, although the company has thus far only suffered anomalies related to the structural failure of parachute rigging/seams/fabric.
-
Abort tests galore
Boeing’s Starliner pad abort test occurred just days prior to a different major abort test milestone – this time for SpaceX. SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule C205 will perform a static fire test of its upgraded SuperDraco abort system, as well as its Draco maneuvering thrusters.
SpaceX has made alterations to the SuperDraco engines to prevent a failure mode that abruptly reared its head in April 2019, when a leaky valve and faulty design resulted in a catastrophic explosion milliseconds before a SuperDraco static fire test. Prior to its near-total destruction, Crew Dragon capsule C201 was assigned to SpaceX’s In-Flight Abort test, and its loss (and the subsequent failure investigation) delayed the test’s launch by at least six months. Crew Dragon’s design has since been fixed by replacing reusable check valves with single-use burst discs, nominally preventing propellant or oxidizer leaks.
If capsule C205’s static fire testing – scheduled no earlier than November 9th – goes as planned, SpaceX may be able to launch Crew Dragon’s in-flight abort (IFA) test before the end of 2019e. Likely to be a bit of a spectacle, Crew Dragon will launch atop a flight-proven Falcon 9 booster and a second stage with a mass simulator in place of its Merlin Vacuum engine, both of which will almost certainly be destroyed when Dragon departs the rocket during peak aerodynamic pressure.
NASA made in-flight abort tests an optional step for its Commercial Crew providers and Boeing decided to perform a pad abort only and rely on modeling and simulations to verify that Starliner’s in-flight abort safety. Assuming that NASA is happy with the results of Starliner’s pad abort and Boeing can alleviate concerns about the parachute anomaly suffered during the test, Starliner’s uncrewed orbital flight test (OFT) could launch as early as December 17th. Starliner’s crewed flight test (CFT) could occur some 3-6 months after that if all goes as planned during the OFT.
If SpaceX’s In-Flight Abort (IFA) also goes as planned and NASA is content with the results, Crew Dragon could be ready for its crewed launch debut (Demo-2) as early as February or March 2020.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes.
-
Tesla has started rolling out a broader change to the ride experience for its Robotaxi fleet by silencing turn signals, but the change is certainly polarizing.
Tesla has generally made it clear that its purpose-built ride-hailing platform, Robotaxi, will cater to the rider in nearly every way possible. This includes having climate preferences, music, and other personal settings loaded up in the car as the rider enters.
But Tesla is taking it a step further by muting turn signal chimes altogether, a change that appears to be a way to make the ride more peaceful:
Tesla has finally turned off the blinker/turn signal noises in their Model Y Robotaxis.
This is a small update, but will definitely be noticeable for riders. It didn’t really make much sense to leave the turn signal sound on when it’s Unsupervised. pic.twitter.com/ITwx60PAMO
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) July 27, 2026
However, there are a handful of people who are not thrilled about this change. Turn signals are a conditioned part of the human mind for those who ride in a car regularly.
Taking a turn without one feels strange and odd, and not hearing it click while activated could set off some alarms for riders, who might use the noise as confirmation that other drivers know of their intention to turn.
I kind of like it being on, threw me off when riding with Zoox who has had it disabled
— Dan Burkland (@DBurkland) July 27, 2026
Turn signal noises are still audible in customer cars, so if you use FSD in your personal vehicle, you will still hear the turn signal.
The move is certainly one that is unique, but not one that separates it from other ride-sharing services. In a normal car, the clicking sound confirms to the driver that the blinker is active. In a fully driverless Robotaxi, that feedback serves no purpose for passengers, other than peace of mind.
Tesla released Full Self-Driving version 14.3.6 last week, and after what was potentially one of the best FSD releases in v14.3.5, there has been a bit of a regression. While there are some bright spots, the changes made to v14.3.6 seem to have backtracked some behaviors.
Overall, it is hard to really complain about FSD in any sense; it has revolutionized how I travel literally anywhere. According to my self-driving app, the last time I went a day without using it was 59 days ago.
However, I think it’s also important to recognize when things are just plain bad with FSD. There are times it does truly mind-boggling things, and I’ll dive into those here. Additionally, I only had these issues on local roads, not on highways. Highway operation, generally, is always incredible other than the occasional complaint about speed or left lane camping.
With those things being said, my personal experience may not represent others’ experiences. A handful of people have said they have had a similar experience on v14.3.6, while others have said it is more than normal.
Turning Hesitancy, Inaccuracy
I’ve noticed more inaccuracy turning into multi-lane stretches of road than in any version I can remember. I’ve had at least three instances of FSD turning into a stretch of roadway that has two or more lanes, and not selecting a lane confidently as it has in past versions.
I think Tesla FSD v14.3.6 is a regression from previous .3 branches
This version in particular has been incredibly hesitant, jerky, and indecisive at times. There’s actually been two drives that I have decided to not used FSD for the remainder of the trip. These were local trips… pic.twitter.com/YobHDOKRS6
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 26, 2026
Instead, the car will drive over one of the dashed road lines, and the steering wheel will jerk back and forth before picking the lane. It should be said that it has always picked the correct lane when choosing based on the navigation, but it is still very indecisive. The steering wheel jerking is reminiscent of some of the later versions of v13.
I admit I really hate to see the steering wheel jerking come back. However, I think when Tesla releases v14.3.7, it won’t be present. When there are occurrences of it in FSD versions, it is usually resolved by the following release.
FSD Disregards Manual Turn Signals
This is my biggest bone to pick with FSD other than Navigation issues, but this one seems like it would be such an easy fix.
If Tesla is going to put the word “Supervised” on the end of “Full Self-Driving,” then when I tell the car to do something, it should do it. If I input an increase in speed by pressing the accelerator, the car will immediately respond. It does not disregard my input because it feels it is traveling at the right speed.
FSD should never disobey and turn off turn signals that the driver inputs. Trying to direct the car into the correct lane, I had initiated the left turn signal not once, not twice, but three times, with the car turning it off all three times and continuing in a lane that would end in just one block. The only solution at this point would be to zipper merge.
This goes back to the fact that self-driving’s biggest bottleneck might be rider preference. A zipper merge might have been more than reasonable, might have saved me time that I spent sitting through an additional light cycle, and might be something many drivers would do. I was in no hurry, I traditionally do not try to zipper merge because it feels inconsiderate, and lastly, the car should have just followed my input.
This caused me to disengage and drive manually the rest of the way home. Sometimes I just do not need FSD to try to pass every car it can at intersections.
Bird Braking is a Thing of the Past
The big complaint with recent versions of Full Self-Driving has been what we’ve coined as “bird braking,” which is when the car will brake suddenly as a bird flies past.
There have been zero issues with this so far in v14.3.6, which is an excellent improvement.
FSD Might Already Be Taking Note of Driver Preferences
Another thing I have noticed over the past few days is that v14.3.6 seems to already be taking my preferences with navigation into account.
This is something that is supposed to be rolling out with the Summer Update, but I have a hunch it’s already present and might have been included in this v14.3.6 build. On Friday, FSD pulled into an entrance to a local convenience store that it had never attempted to go into before.
Typically, I manually pull into this entrance because it avoids heavy cross traffic at the main entrance. FSD has always chosen that congested main entrance.
I don’t want to get anyone excited but my Tesla running FSD v14.3.6 just:
✅ Pulled into an entrance at my local Sheetz that I routinely pull into manually but FSD never has entered
✅ Pulled into my assigned parking space at home despite many other spots being vacant https://t.co/ZUShvknTWO pic.twitter.com/83O5a2S0eh
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
Additionally, FSD has pulled into my assigned parking spot at my townhouse community on multiple occasions with this release. This is something that used to happen ocassionally, but not consistently.
It also navigated back to the same convenience store last night, drove through crazy cars scrambling to gas pumps, navigated out of the parking lot correctly, drove me home, and, once again, parked in my assigned spot.
As previously stated, this release just seems to have a few things that need to be brought to Tesla’s attention, and also to make others who use FSD aware of some things that I’ve experienced. I look forward to the next release that will remedy these issues, just as Tesla has always done in the past.
Elon Musk’s massive Terafab project, which will be the first true conglomeration between each of his major entities, is set to get its final location soon, the CEO said on Tesla’s recent earnings call.
“The Terafab, we expect to announce a location soon, and provide more details about our plans in that regard. We’ll leave that to the product, the launch announcement rather than try to squeeze it into an earnings call,” Musk said last Wednesday.
Tesla Terafab set for launch: Inside the $20B AI chip factory that will reshape the auto industry
Terafab was announced by Musk back in March and was essentially a massive, vertically integrated semiconductor manufacturing project that would provide all the chips the three companies needed for their AI initiatives without needing third-party companies.
The plant will produce over 1 terawatt of AI compute each year, and will help back up projects like Optimus, Full Self-Driving, and other AI-based projects that Musk’s companies are working on.
In April, less than a month after the project was launched, Intel announced it would join the project, contributing manufacturing expertise and consulting to Terafab as a whole. Intel is one of three chip manufacturers that produce sub-5 nanometer chips at scale. TSMC and Samsung are the other two.
However, there was no true indication of where Terafab would end up, but most believe it will likely be somewhere in Texas. Business Insider has reported that SpaceX plans to build out Terafab in Grimes County, Texas, but this is unconfirmed.
Musk confirmed recently that it would not be on Giga Texas property, as it is simply too large.
The sheer scale of TERAFAB is going to be insane.
Elon said it wouldn’t be suitable for anywhere on Giga Texas property because it’s too big:
“We couldn’t possibly fit the Terafab on the GigaTexas campus. It will be far bigger than everything else combined there.
Several… pic.twitter.com/79GbhNNuf4
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 23, 2026
Terafab holds much of Musk’s grand ambitions for the future within its construct. It holds so much responsibility for the future and the biggest projects that Musk’s companies can imagine.
“I think this is a very big announcement and it deserves to have its own day in the spotlight and not be squeezed into an earnings call,” he said. “I do think Terafab is going to be an amazing initiative and a necessary one, and one without which we will be constrained in our ability to scale Optimus production, because we simply won’t have enough AI chips.”
He continued by stating that Terafab is necessary for scaling Optimus, which Musk said could be the biggest product of any kind of all time. “It’s crucial to solve that, and we’ll have to solve memory, logic, and packaging in order to scale Optimus.”
Tesla Robotaxi gets sweeping but polarizing change
Tesla claims supplier is holding Cybertruck production hostage
