Connect with us

News

Elon Musk gifts SpaceX Starship angel investor a piece of Starhopper history

To thank him for his generous support, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has gifted investor Yusaku Maezawa a piece of Starhopper, pictured on the left. (NASASpaceflight - bocachicagal)

Published

on

According to photos posted by the Japanese investor, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has gifted Yusaku Maezawa a significant piece of Starhopper history, a celebration of the rocket prototype’s successful flight tests and a gesture of thanks for Maezawa’s substantial support.

Back in September 2018, Musk revealed that Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa had become the first true customer for SpaceX’s next-generation Starship launch vehicle. In fact, Maezawa announced DearMoon, a private spaceflight venture with the aim of sending a dozen or so artists on the first commercial crewed mission around the Moon – all for free.

In a bid to assist Starship development and simultaneously secure rights to the massive spacecraft’s first crewed lunar launch, Maezawa committed what is believed to be several hundred million dollars of his personal fortune to SpaceX. In turn, the Japanese billionaire plans to select roughly a dozen artists from around the world and offering them a free ticket aboard Starship’s first crewed circumlunar launch, traveling once around the Moon and returning to Earth after 10 or so days in space.

Perhaps just a few weeks after the DearMoon announcement and Starship event, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk decided to radically change the Starship program, entirely replacing the vehicle’s main structural material of choice – carbon fiber composites – with stainless steel. The primary goal was to dramatically lower the cost of development and vehicle production and speed things up, but Musk quickly realized that steel could unintuitively be better than carbon fiber in almost every way.

Advertisement

After Musk’s decision, SpaceX pivoted from carbon fiber to steel at a spectacular pace. Barely six months after the design change, a SpaceX team had built up its Boca Chica, Texas facilities from almost nothing, begun to build full-scale steel hardware, and nearly completed the first low-fidelity prototype, known as Starhopper. That vehicle began propellant loading and wet dress rehearsal testing in early-April 2019 and although technical difficulties with its next-generation Raptor engines caused several months of delays, it moved into its first flight test campaign three months later.

Starhopper’s first untethered flight was completed successfully on July 25th, reaching an apogee of ~18 meters (60 ft). A little over one month later, Starhopper lifted off for the second time on a significantly more ambitious ~150m (500 ft) flight test, completed successfully after about 60 seconds in flight. That second test would be Starhopper’s last and SpaceX quickly turned its focus to completing the first full-scale, full-fidelity Starship prototypes, known as Mk1 (TX) and Mk2 (FL).

Throughout this process, Yusaku Maezawa has followed along with SpaceX. Rather than a simple lump-sum agreement, the billionaire’s contract with SpaceX is structured much more specifically, essentially allowing the company to unlock additional funding after certain milestones – like Starhopper’s flight tests – are completed. The arrangement is more of a carrot on a stick than something dead-serious – Maezawa is probably not going to completely withhold funding if SpaceX slightly misses exact targets or suffers anomalies during a complex launch vehicle development program.

Musk and Maezawa pose in front of Starhopper’s Falcon 9-derived thruster pods. (Yusaku Maezawa)

In order to complete its two flight tests, Starhopper needed some kind of attitude control system (ACS) to remain stable and SpaceX chose a decidedly SpaceX-y solution, simply bolting on flight-proven Falcon 9 thruster pods. Those pods use high-pressure nitrogen to change Falcon 9’s attitude, correctly point the rocket, and settle its propellant while the rocket is in a vacuum (or freefall). They can also provided limited control authority in atmosphere, which is what SpaceX used them for on Starhopper.

Starhopper’s ACS pods work to keep the Starship prototype stable just prior to landing on August 27th. (SpaceX)
As it so happens, Starhopper – now in retirement – is only missing one thruster pod, making it easy to determine which one was gifted to Maezawa. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)

As a gesture of gratitude for Maezawa’s extremely helpful financial support, SpaceX gifted him an entire Starhopper thruster pod. SpaceX often does similar things for major flight milestones, creating commemorative gifts out of retired hardware (rocket tanks, engine bells, grid fins, parachute threads, etc.) that employees are able to purchase. An entire thruster pod is at least a few orders of magnitude above that, a sign of just how grateful SpaceX is to Maezawa.

Of note, in his tweet showing off the thruster pod, Maezawa suggested that “Starship development is going better than expected”, indicating that he may “need to invite a passenger soon” for his planned circumlunar voyage around the Moon. Prior to Starship’s radical shift from carbon fiber to steel, that mission was scheduled no earlier than 2023. In recent months, SpaceX executives have made it clear that they are now targeting Starship Moon landings by 2022, suggesting that the first circumlunar missions – a far easier task than landing – could be possible even sooner than that.

Advertisement

Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

The Boring Company just doubled its tunneling power in Nashville

The Boring Company’s Prufrock MB2 is commissioned and ready to mine beneath Nashville’s streets.

Published

on

By

boring-company-prufrock-1-2

The Boring Company’s second tunnel boring machine, Prufrock MB2, is officially ready to dig in Nashville. The company confirmed the news on X, posting: “Prufrock-MB2 is ready to mine in Nashville! MB2 commissioning is complete, including the brief 11 rpm rotation shown here. Will MB2 catch up to MB1, who had quite the head start? And Prufrock-MB3 ships in August!”

MB2 arrives with meaningful improvements over its predecessor. Lessons learned from the launch and operation of MB1 have already been applied to MB2 to improve efficiency and prepare the machine for launch.

Traditional tunnel boring machines operate in a stop-and-go cycle, digging roughly five feet, halt, erect precast concrete segments to line the tunnel wall, then resume. That repeated interruption is one of the main reasons conventional tunneling is slow and expensive. Prufrock is designed to install the tunnel liner simultaneously with mining, eliminating the need to stop every five feet. The machine also skips the need for excavated launch pits. Prufrock arrives on a truck, tilts down, and launches into the ground within 24 hours. And when the tunnel is complete, it emerges from the ground and drives to its next launch site on a trailer, eliminating the need for expensive cranes or pit excavation. The machine is also fully electric and runs with zero people in the tunnel during normal operations, controlled remotely from a surface operations center.

It won’t be long before we hear of another major update on The Boring Company’s Music City Loop project – a planned underground transit network beneath Nashville that would move passengers in electric vehicles through a series of tunnels at highway speeds, and bypassing surface traffic entirely. Nashville was selected in part because of its strong rock conditions that suits the Prufrock machines well, and relatively less regulatory hurdles.

Progress has been steady on multiple fronts. All 37 permits and approvals required ahead of tunneling have been obtained, out of 45 total. Key wins include a fully executed TDOT tunnel permit authorizing 25 miles of tunnel, unanimous airport authority approval for a Nashville International Airport station, and the city’s first residential station agreement serving downtown tower residents.

With MB1 already tunneling, MB2 now commissioned, and MB3 shipping in August, Nashville is becoming something of a live proving ground for scaled tunnel boring. The broader ambition is not limited to one city. The Boring Company’s stated goal is to make underground transportation a practical alternative to surface roads across major metro areas. Nashville is one of many cities, including a successful Las Vegas tunnel system, where that idea is being put to the test at real speed.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi

Published

on

Credit: Grok

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.

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.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla’s Navigation Nightmare: Why the easiest part of FSD might be the hardest

Published

on

Credit: TESLARATI

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.

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.

Continue Reading