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!
News
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 began rolling out to some owners earlier this week, and there are some notable improvements that came with this update.
There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.
Overall operation saw a handful of slight improvements, especially with parking performance, which has been the most notable difference with the arrival of FSD v14.3. However, there are still some very notable shortcomings, most notably with region-specific signage and navigation.
Tesla Assisted Smart Summon (ASS) improvements
There are noticeable improvements to ASS operation, which has definitely been inconsistent in terms of performance. Tesla wrote in the release notes for v14.3.2:
“Unified the model between Actually Smart Summon, FSD, and Robotaxi for more capable and reliable behavior.”
As recently as this month, I used Summon with no success. It had pulled around the parking lot I was in incorrectly, leaving the range at which Summon can be operated and losing a signal while moving in the middle of the lot.
This caused me to sprint across the lot to retrieve the vehicle:
It was pouring when I left the gym so I tried to Summon my Model Y
It turned the opposite way and drove out of range, stopping here and forcing me to walk even further across the lot in the rain for it 🤣
One day pic.twitter.com/iD10c8sriB
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 5, 2026
Unfortunately, Summon was not dependable or accurate enough to use regularly. It appears Tesla might have bridged the gap needed to make it an effective feature, as two tests in parking lots proved that Summon was more responsive and faster to navigate to the location chosen.
It also did so without hesitation, confidently, and at a comfortable speed. I was able to test it twice at different distances:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 ASS testing part 1
This was a significant improvement than recent tries using ASS. The parking lot was pretty empty but getting it to come to my location in one singular motion and maneuver was encouraging. https://t.co/vF7TS48GGV pic.twitter.com/sYt8tyHgNn
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 ASS testing part 2 https://t.co/lxfWfnLUxf pic.twitter.com/2R0r3ohI3M
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
I plan to test this more thoroughly and regularly through the next few weeks, and I avoided using it in a congested parking lot initially because I have not had overwhelming success with Summon in the past. I wanted to set a low baseline for it to see if it could simply pull up to the place I pinned in the Tesla app.
It was two for two, which is a big improvement because I don’t think I ever had successful Summon attempts back-to-back. It just seems more confident than ever before.
New Disengagement Categories
This is a really good idea from Tesla, but there are some issues with it. The categories you can select are Critical, Comfort, Preference, and Other.
I think the reasons why people choose to take over would be a better way to prompt drivers, like, “Traveling Too Fast,” “Incorrect Maneuver,” “Navigation Error,” would be more beneficial.
I say this because it seems that how we each categorize things might be different. For example, I shared a video of an intervention because the car had navigated to an exit to a parking lot and put its left blinker on, despite left turns not being allowed there.
I disengaged and chose Critical as the reason; it’s not a comfort issue, it’s not a preference, it’s quite literally an illegal turn, and it’s also dangerous because it cuts across several lanes of traffic and is 180 degrees.
I chose to label this Navigation error as “Critical” while testing FSD v14.3.2
Here’s why:
✅ This intervention wasn’t “preference,” as the maneuver FSD routed was illegal
✅ If a police officer saw this maneuver, it would result in a ticket https://t.co/znhHb4haAo pic.twitter.com/bZOiLwWmQa— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Some said I should not have labeled this as Critical, but that’s the description I best characterized the disengagement as.
Categorizing interventions is a good thing, but it’s kind of hard to determine how to label them correctly.
Inconsistency with Regional Traffic Patterns
Tesla Full Self-Driving is pretty inconsistent with how it handles regional or local traffic patterns and road rules. The most frequent example I like to use is that of the “Except Right Turn” stop sign, which has become a notorious sighting on our social media platforms.
In the initial rollout of v14.3, my Model Y successfully navigated through one of these stop signs with no issues. However, testing at two of these stop signs yesterday proved it is still not sure how to read signs and navigate through them properly.
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 attempts the “Except Right Turn” stop sign: https://t.co/W5MjAybaNK pic.twitter.com/P6oeUsk4PN
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Off camera, I approached another one of these signs and felt the car coming to a stop, so I nudged it forward with the accelerator pedal pressed.
This helped the car go through the sign without stopping, but I could feel the bucking of the vehicle as the car really wanted to stop.
Musk said on the earnings call earlier this week that unsupervised FSD would probably be available in some regions before others, including a state-to-state basis in the U.S.
“It’s difficult to release this like to everyone everywhere all at once because we do want to make sure that they’re not unique situations in a city that particularly complex intersection or — actually, they tend to be places where people get into accidents a lot because they’re just — perhaps there’s — and like I said, an unsafe intersection or bad road markings or a lot of weather challenges. So I think we would release unsupervised gradually to the customer fleet as we feel like a particular geography is confirmed to be safe.”
This could be one of those examples that Tesla just has to figure out.
Highway Operation
Full Self-Driving is already pretty good at routine roadway navigation, so I don’t have too much to report here.
However, I was happy with FSD’s decision-making at several points, including its choice not to pass a slightly slower car and remain in the right lane as we approached the off-ramp:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 highway operation: generally happy with the performance here, especially behavior near the exit
Love that the car got over in the right lane after its final pass, and stayed there as the off ramp was approaching https://t.co/qVRVhg6XGR pic.twitter.com/1ELwHf2XKS
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Better Maneuvering at Stop Signs
Many FSD users report some strange operations at stop signs, especially four-way intersections where there is a stop sign and a line on the road, and they’re not even with one another.
I experienced this quite frequently and found that FSD would actually double stop: once at the stop sign and again at the line.
This created some interesting scenarios for me and I had many cars honk at me when the second stop would happen. Other vehicles that had waved me on to proceed through the intersection would become frustrated at the second stop.
FSD seems to have worked through this particular maneuver:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 with a singular stop at the correct spot
No double stopping anymore in my experience https://t.co/Wd0TaNjc1R pic.twitter.com/CdQPvJHaAM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
FSD should know to go to the more appropriate location (whichever provides better visibility), and proceed when it is the car’s turn to move. The double stop really ruined the flow of traffic at times and generally caused some frustration from other drivers.
News
Tesla plans to resolve its angriest bunch of owners: here’s how
Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.
Tesla has a plan to make Hardware 3 owners whole after CEO Elon Musk admitted that those with that self-driving chip in their cars will not have access to unsupervised Full Self-Driving.
The company’s strategy is so crazy that it is sort of hard to believe.
Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.
Tesla owners with HW3 finally get their answer: https://t.co/CSZTKKkWXx
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 22, 2026
During the Tesla Q1 earnings call on Wednesday, Musk finally clarified what the company’s plans are for Hardware 3 owners, what they will be offered, and what Tesla will have to do internally to prepare for it.
The answer was somewhat mind-boggling.
Musk said:
“Unfortunately, Hardware 3 — I wish it were otherwise, but Hardware 3 simply does not have the capability to achieve unsupervised FSD. We did think at one point it would have that, but relative to Hardware 4, it has only 1/8 of the memory bandwidth of Hardware 4. And memory bandwidth is one of the key elements needed for unsupervised FSD.”
He continued, stating that HW3 owners would have the opportunity to trade their cars in at a discounted rate in order to get the AI4 chip:
“So for customers that have bought FSD, what we’re offering is essentially a trade-in — like a discounted trade-in for cars that have AI4 hardware, and we’ll also be offering the ability to upgrade the car, to replace the computer. And you also need to replace the cameras, unfortunately, to go to Hardware 4.”
Obviously, Tesla has a lot of people to work with and make this whole thing right. Musk was adamant that HW3 would be capable of FSD, and now that the company has finally admitted that it is not, there are some things that could come of this.
There has been open talk about some sort of class action lawsuit against Tesla. The promises that Tesla made previously could be considered a breach of contract or even false advertising, and that’s according to Grok, Musk’s own AI program.
Musk went on to say that Tesla would likely have to establish new microfactories to effectively and efficiently replace HW3 computers and cameras:
…So to do this efficiently, we’re going to have to set up, like kind of micro factories or small factories in major metropolitan areas in order to do it efficiently. Because if it’s done just at the service center, it is extremely slow to do so and inefficient. So we basically need like many production lines to make the change.”
This is going to be an extremely costly process, especially if Tesla has to buy real estate, properties, and equipment to complete this work. Additionally, there was no wording on pricing, but Musk never said it would be free. It will likely come with some kind of price tag, and HW3 owners, after being left hanging for so long, will have something to say about that.
Elon Musk
SpaceX just got pulled into the biggest Weapons Program in U.S. history
SpaceX joins the Golden Dome software group, deepening its role in America’s most expensive defense program.
SpaceX has joined a nine-company group developing the core operating software for the Golden Dome, America’s next-generation missile defense system. According to a Bloomberg report, SpaceX is focused on integrating satellite communications for military operations and is working alongside eight other defense and artificial intelligence companies, including Anduril Industries, Palantir Technologies, and Aalyria Technologies, to build software connecting missile defense capabilities.
The Golden Dome concept dates back to President Trump’s 2024 campaign, and on January 27, 2025, he signed an executive order directing the U.S. Armed Forces to construct the system before the end of his term. The system is planned to employ a constellation of thousands of satellites equipped with interceptors, with data centers in space providing automated control through an AI network.
FCC accepts SpaceX filing for 1 million orbital data center plan
Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, director of the Golden Dome initiative, has described the software layer as a “glue layer” that would enable officers to manage and control radars, sensors, and missile batteries across services. The consortium is aiming to test the platform this summer.
Trump selected a design in May 2025 with a $175 billion price tag, expected to be operational by the end of his term in 2029, though the Congressional Budget Office projected the cost could reach $831 billion over two decades.
The Golden Dome role is only the latest in a string of military wins for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported, the U.S. Space Force awarded SpaceX a $178.5 million task order on April 1, 2026 to launch missile tracking satellites for the Space Development Agency, covering two Falcon 9 launches beginning in Q3 2027. That came on top of more than $22 billion in government contracts held by SpaceX as of 2024, per CEO Gwynne Shotwell, spanning NASA resupply missions, classified intelligence satellites through its Starshield program, and military broadband.
The accumulation of defense contracts, now including a seat at the table on the most expensive weapons program in U.S. history, positions SpaceX as the dominant infrastructure provider for American national security in space. With a SpaceX IPO still on the horizon, each new contract adds weight to what is already one of the most consequential companies in aerospace history, raising real questions about how much of America’s defense architecture will depend on a single private operator before it ever trades publicly.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla plans to resolve its angriest bunch of owners: here’s how
