News
Elon Musk reveals SpaceX Falcon 9 survived a water landing test
Following the picture-perfect launch of GovSat-1 on Wednesday afternoon, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk took to Twitter with an extremely unusual bit of news. After separating from the second stage, events relating to Falcon 9’s first stage recovery operations were heard live in the background of SpaceX’s live coverage, leading to some additional intrigue around an already odd situation.
B1032, a flight-proven (reused) booster tasked with launching GovSat-1 on its second mission, was seen with landing legs and grid fins on its sooty exterior – a confusing appearance due to SpaceX’s statement that the core would be expended into the ocean after launch. Thankfully, Elon Musk’s tweets provide at least the beginning of an answer for the several oddities.
This rocket was meant to test very high retrothrust landing in water so it didn’t hurt the droneship, but amazingly it has survived. We will try to tow it back to shore. pic.twitter.com/hipmgdnq16
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 31, 2018
As stated above, GovSat-1’s Falcon 9 booster (1032) was apparently being used to test an exceptionally aggressive landing burn in lieu of a drone ship beneath it. The lack of drone ship begins to make more sense with the added knowledge that 1032 was testing experimental landing procedures: in the relatively likely eventuality that something went wrong, the massive booster would have likely impacted Of Course I Still Love You at an extremely high velocity. Similar impacts have occurred before as SpaceX gradually perfected the new technologies and operational knowledge necessary to recover orbital-class rockets, but a basic understanding of rocketry implies that 1032’s OCISLY impact would have been uniquely destructive, likely taking the ship out of action for at least several weeks of repairs.
This would pose an inherent problem for the imminent launch of Falcon Heavy, with the center of three first stages currently scheduled to attempt a landing aboard the very same drone ship in less than a week. Under optimum conditions (sans huge explosions and general destruction), OCISLY and its entourage of support vessels simply could not complete the journey back to Port Canaveral and the subsequent return to sea that would have been necessary to recovery both GovSat-1 and Falcon Heavy’s center core. Add in the potential need for repairs and expending GovSat-1 was a no-brainer for the launch company: Falcon Heavy’s center core could easily see at least one additional launch after it is recovered, whereas the twice-used 1032 effectively reached the end of its useful life after it separated from the second stage and GovSat payload earlier today.
Falcon 9 1038 aboard Just Read The Instructions after the launch of Formosat-5. (SpaceX)
As a result, SpaceX appears to have continued a trend of exploiting flight test opportunities to the greatest extent practicable by tasking B1032 with an experimental landing attempt. More specifically, Elon quickly added that the landing burn attempted by 1032 involved the ignition of three of the booster’s nine Merlin 1D engines during landing, whereas all SpaceX landings up to this point have occurred with a single Merlin 1D ignition. While the company already routinely utilizes three engines during some boostback and reentry burns, landing burns have always featured a single engine. However, by using three engines, it is entirely possible that SpaceX hopes to eventually move towards even more aggressive landing burns. While the obvious downsides likely include difficulty maintaining control and increased stresses on the booster, the benefits are also pretty inherent. By using more engines, the length of the landing burn could be drastically shortened, resulting in far more efficient propellant usage by minimizing losses to gravity (every second the rocket is trying to go upwards is a second fighting against Earth’s gravity, which pulls the rocket down at ~9.8 meters/second squared).
Incredibly, the booster somehow managed to pull off that three engine landing burn with some success, made apparent by the fact that it is intact and floating in the Atlantic, with some hope of being towed back to land. This is almost certainly the first time SpaceX has ever successfully landed a booster in the ocean without a subsequent breakup, an incredible achievement for a rocket that likely experienced exceptional stresses during reentry and landing. Time will tell how this impacts SpaceX’s future recovery efforts, but it is certainly promising as a method of extracting just a little extra performance from reusable Falcon 9s. In other words, future Falcon 9 missions might be able to carry heavier payloads into higher orbits while still being able to land at sea or even on land. Exciting times!
Tesla CEO Elon Musk revealed today on the social media platform X that legacy automakers, such as Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis, do not want to license the company’s Full Self-Driving suite, at least not without a long list of their own terms.
“I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy,” Musk said on X. “When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless.”
I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy …
When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless. 🤷♂️
🦕 🦕
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 24, 2025
Musk made the remark in response to a note we wrote about earlier today from Melius Research, in which analyst Rob Wertheimer said, “Our point is not that Tesla is at risk, it’s that everybody else is,” in terms of autonomy and self-driving development.
Wertheimer believes there are hundreds of billions of dollars in value headed toward Tesla’s way because of its prowess with FSD.
A few years ago, Musk first remarked that Tesla was in early talks with one legacy automaker regarding licensing Full Self-Driving for its vehicles. Tesla never confirmed which company it was, but given Musk’s ongoing talks with Ford CEO Jim Farley at the time, it seemed the Detroit-based automaker was the likely suspect.
Tesla’s Elon Musk reiterates FSD licensing offer for other automakers
Ford has been perhaps the most aggressive legacy automaker in terms of its EV efforts, but it recently scaled back its electric offensive due to profitability issues and weak demand. It simply was not making enough vehicles, nor selling the volume needed to turn a profit.
Musk truly believes that many of the companies that turn their backs on FSD now will suffer in the future, especially considering the increased chance it could be a parallel to what has happened with EV efforts for many of these companies.
Unfortunately, they got started too late and are now playing catch-up with Tesla, XPeng, BYD, and the other dominating forces in EVs across the globe.
Tesla is backtracking on a strange adjustment it made to its in-car Navigation feature after numerous complaints from owners convinced the company to make a change.
Tesla’s in-car Navigation is catered to its vehicles, as it routes Supercharging stops and preps your vehicle for charging with preconditioning. It is also very intuitive, and features other things like weather radar and a detailed map outlining points of interest.
However, a recent change to the Navigation by Tesla did not go unnoticed, and owners were really upset about it.
For trips that required multiple Supercharger stops, Tesla decided to implement a naming change, which did not show the city or state of each charging stop. Instead, it just showed the business where the Supercharger was located, giving many owners an unwelcome surprise.
However, Tesla’s Director of Supercharging, Max de Zegher, admitted the update was a “big mistake on our end,” and made a change that rolled out within 24 hours:
The naming change should have happened at once, instead of in 2 sequential steps. That was a big miss on our end. We do listen to the community and we do course-correct fast. The accelerated fix rolled out last night. The Tesla App is updated and most in-car touchscreens should…
— Max (@MdeZegher) November 20, 2025
The lack of a name for the city where a Supercharging stop would be made caused some confusion for owners in the short term. Some drivers argued that it was more difficult to make stops at some familiar locations that were special to them. Others were not too keen on not knowing where they were going to be along their trip.
Tesla was quick to scramble to resolve this issue, and it did a great job of rolling it out in an expedited manner, as de Zegher said that most in-car touch screens would notice the fix within one day of the change being rolled out.
Additionally, there will be even more improvements in December, as Tesla plans to show the common name/amenity below the site name as well, which will give people a better idea of what to expect when they arrive at a Supercharger.
News
Dutch regulator RDW confirms Tesla FSD February 2026 target
The regulator emphasized that safety, not public pressure, will decide whether FSD receives authorization for use in Europe.
The Dutch vehicle authority RDW responded to Tesla’s recent updates about its efforts to bring Full Self-Driving (Supervised) in Europe, confirming that February 2026 remains the target month for Tesla to demonstrate regulatory compliance.
While acknowledging the tentative schedule with Tesla, the regulator emphasized that safety, not public pressure, will decide whether FSD receives authorization for use in Europe.
RDW confirms 2026 target, warns Feb 2026 timeline is not guaranteed
In its response, which was posted on its official website, the RDW clarified that it does not disclose details about ongoing manufacturer applications due to competitive sensitivity. However, the agency confirmed that both parties have agreed on a February 2026 window during which Tesla is expected to show that FSD (Supervised) can meet required safety and compliance standards. Whether Tesla can satisfy those conditions within the timeline “remains to be seen,” RDW added.
RDW also directly addressed Tesla’s social media request encouraging drivers to contact the regulator to express support. While thanking those who already reached out, RDW asked the public to stop contacting them, noting these messages burden customer-service resources and have no influence on the approval process.
“In the message on X, Tesla calls on Tesla drivers to thank the RDW and to express their enthusiasm about this planning to us by contacting us. We thank everyone who has already done so, and would like to ask everyone not to contact us about this. It takes up unnecessary time for our customer service. Moreover, this will have no influence on whether or not the planning is met,” the RDW wrote.
The RDW shares insights on EU approval requirements
The RDW further outlined how new technology enters the European market when no existing legislation directly covers it. Under EU Regulation 2018/858, a manufacturer may seek an exemption for unregulated features such as advanced driver assistance systems. The process requires a Member State, in this case the Netherlands, to submit a formal request to the European Commission on the manufacturer’s behalf.
Approval then moves to a committee vote. A majority in favor would grant EU-wide authorization, allowing the technology across all Member States. If the vote fails, the exemption is valid only within the Netherlands, and individual countries must decide whether to accept it independently.
Before any exemption request can be filed, Tesla must complete a comprehensive type-approval process with the RDW, including controlled on-road testing. Provided that FSD Supervised passes these regulatory evaluations, the exemption could be submitted for broader EU consideration.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk sends rivals dire warning about Full Self-Driving
Tesla backtracks on strange Nav feature after numerous complaints
