News
DeepSpace: Firefly set for smallsat industry’s second place trophy, Rocket Lab leads the pack
This is a free preview of DeepSpace, Teslarati’s new member-only weekly newsletter. Each week, I’ll be taking a deep-dive into the most exciting developments in commercial space, from satellites and rockets to everything in between. Sign up for Teslarati’s newsletters here to receive a preview of our membership program.
In the race to a field dedicated smallsat launch vehicles, New Zealand startup Rocket Lab has already won first place, a fact that has been discussed several times in past Deep Space issues. After completing its first launch of 2019 on March 28th, Rocket Lab’s Electron rocket is ready for another mission as early as May 4th, a good sign for the company’s planned monthly launch cadence.
Despite Rocket Lab’s major success, there is plenty of room for additional competitors and/or complementary vehicles. Electron’s maximum payload hovers around ~225 kg (500 lb) to low Earth orbit (LEO), limiting its usefulness for any payloads that are larger than truly tiny satellites or in need of higher orbits. Also discussed on DeepSpace, there are 10+ serious startups with funding and hardware in work attempting to build said smallsat launch vehicles, ranging from the extremely tiny (Vector: 60 kg to LEO) to much larger rockets from companies like Relativity, ABL Space, and more. Firefly Space, however, is the startup that has arguably broken away from the pack in the last few months, firmly setting itself up to be second in line behind Rocket Lab.
Build, test, qualify
- Firefly’s major leaps forward came in December 2018 and then April 2019, both related to testing the completed upper stage of the company’s Alpha rocket.
- In December, the upper stage ignited for the first time. In April, the same upper stage successfully performed a mission-duration static fire that lasted a full 300 seconds (five minutes), the same length required for a rocket to reach orbit after separating from Alpha’s first stage.
- For any launch vehicle development program, the first successful mission-duration test fire of an integrated rocket stage is arguably one of the most important milestones, second only to the same hardware’s inaugural launch.
- Simultaneously, Firefly began integrated testing of the thrust section and Reaver engines that will be the basis of Alpha’s first stage. The rocket’s Lightning second stage engine has been tested extensively at this point in development, although the stage’s lone engine produces a maximum of ~70 kN (~16,000 lbf) of thrust.
- The booster’s four Reaver engines will each produce ~170 kN (55,000 lbf) of thrust, around three times as much as Lightning. Alpha’s second stage is critical, but its first stage is arguably far more complex.
- Despite the relative power differential, it’s still worth noting that Alpha’s entire first stage (736 kN/166,000 lbf) will be significantly less powerful than a single one of Falcon 9’s nine Merlin 1D engines (941 kN/212,000 lbf).
- Although Alpha is far smaller than rockets like Falcon 9 or Atlas V, it will nominally be capable of launching 1000 kg to an altitude of 200 km (LEO) or ~650 kg to a 500-km sun-synchronous orbit (SSO). This translates to around 4.2X the performance of Rocket Lab’s Electron at 2.5X the cost per launch ($15M vs $6M).
- Assuming no payload capacity is wasted, Alpha could thus be almost 50% cheaper than Electron when judged by cost per kilogram to orbit.
- Of course, this comparison ignores the fact that Firefly will have to far more heavily rely on booking co-passenger satellites to keep Alpha launch prices competitive with Electron.
- If exactly 1000kg or 630kg of cargo can’t be booked each launch, the expendable Alpha’s $15M launch cost will be distributed over less payload, raising costs for each customer. In other words, the competitive advantages of Alpha are almost entirely associated with its ability to launch payloads outside of Electron’s capabilities, as are its potential weaknesses.
Firefly Alpha’s upper stage qualification article (top) and a comparison of a variety of launch vehicles. (Teslarati)
The sweet spot
- In theory, Firefly Alpha’s could find itself in a relatively sweet spot, where the rocket’s launch costs are not so high that dedicated rideshare missions become intractable (i.e. Spaceflight’s SSO-A launch on Falcon 9) but its payload performance is still good enough to provide access to a huge swath of the space launch market.
- Firefly also has plans to develop a heavier launch vehicle based on Alpha, known as Beta. Conceptually equivalent to SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy, Beta would use three Alpha boosters and a significantly upgraded second stage and would be able to launch 4000 kg to LEO or 3000 kg to SSO.
- Regardless of Firefly’s grander aspirations, Alpha is poised to capitalize on the simple fact that it will be the second commercially viable smallsat launch vehicle to begin operations. Alpha’s first orbital launch attempt could occur as early as December 2019, although slips into early 2020 are to be expected.
- At that point, Rocket Lab’s Electron will be the only serious competition on the market. Relativity’s Terran and ABL Space’s RS-1 rockets plan to offer a competitive ~1250 kg to LEO or ~900 kg to SSO, but their launch debuts are tentatively scheduled no earlier than late 2020.
- If Alpha’s development continues smoothly, Firefly could easily have a solid 12-month head start over its similarly-sized competitors,
- Up next for Alpha is a similar campaign of tests focused on the first integrated booster, including tests fires and an eventual mission-duration qualification test.
Mission Updates
- SpaceX’s CRS-17 Cargo Dragon resupply mission has slipped an additional four days from April 30th to May 3rd (3:11 am EDT, 07:11 UTC) after the International Space Station (ISS) began suffering serious (but non-threatening) electrical issues. Additional launch delays could follow if the issue is not resolved in the next few days.
- The first operational Starlink launch remains firmly on track for NET mid-May. According to SpaceX, all Flight 1 satellites are already in Florida, while the FCC approved the company’s modified constellation license – permitting Starlink operations after launch – on April 26th.
- Due to CRS-17’s launch delays, the availability of SpaceX’s LC-40 pad will now likely be the main limiting factor for the Starlink-1 launch date.
- SpaceX’s second West Coast launch of 2019 – carrying Canada’s Radarsat Constellation – is now expected to occur no earlier than mid-June and will reuse Falcon 9 B1051.
- SpaceX’s launch of Spacecom’s Amos-17 spacecraft is now scheduled no earlier than July. Falcon Heavy Flight 3 is tentatively scheduled for launch as early as June 22 – all three boosters should be on site in Florida within the next week or two.
Photo of the Week:
(SpaceX)
The third Falcon Heavy center core – believed to be B1057 – was spotted eastbound in Arizona on April 16th. On April 26th, SpaceX confirmed that the booster completed its acceptance static fire test at the company’s McGregor, TX facilities, a sure sign that all of Falcon Heavy Flight 3’s major components should be in Florida within the next few weeks.
We’ll see you next week.
Not a member? Become a member today to receive DeepSpace each week!
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.
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.
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! pic.twitter.com/TTrMql2aRg
— The Boring Company (@boringcompany) June 17, 2026
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.
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.
The Boring Company just doubled its tunneling power in Nashville
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
