News
SpaceX worth $33B after raising more than $1B for Starlink and Starship
Since April 2018, SpaceX has successfully raised more than $1.24 billion through the sale of equity, likely sold to investors by extrapolating the company’s current record of success to include the potential of its next two products, Starlink and Starship.
Thanks to SpaceX’s successful streak of fundraising, the company is now valued at $33.3 billion according to sources that spoke with CNBC reporter Michael Sheetz. The same source indicated that demand for SpaceX equity remains strong as the company seeks to continue extremely expensive development and production programs. Most notably, SpaceX is simultaneously building two full-scale orbital Starship prototypes at separate facilities in Texas and Florida, readying an earlier Starhopper testbed for serious test flights, and is in the midst of ramping up its Starlink satellite production to levels unprecedented in the history of spaceflight.
Put simply, with SpaceX’s Starship and Starlink programs simultaneously entering into capital-intensive phases of development and production, the company has a huge amount of work on its plate. Most of that work involves testing prototypes with technologies that are frequently unprecedented, as well as refining those designs into something final and worthy of serious production. In the case of Starship, a great deal of integrated testing and design finalization lies ahead before SpaceX can even think about starting serial production of its ~50m (160 ft) tall steel Starships or ~60m (200 ft) Super Heavy boosters.
Although large-scale aerospace development programs already tend to be very expensive, SpaceX (led by CEO Elon Musk) has structured its Starship/Super Heavy development program to be extremely hardware-rich. This is another way to say that prototypes are constantly being built, designs are ever-changing, and hardware is constantly being severely damaged (or even destroyed) during fast-paced testing. SpaceX (and Musk) have often been famous for preferring development programs that move fast and break things, delivering knowledge and optimizing designs through lessons learned (often the hard way). SpaceX also values “scrappiness” in its programs, although that sadly ends up coming at the cost of employee pay (below industry standards) and benefits (scarce bonuses, no 401K-matching, extreme hours, minimal work-life balance).
Put it all together and the results of SpaceX-style development programs have frequently defied cemented industry expectations and beliefs. SpaceX has built – from scratch – entire launch vehicles (Falcon 9 V1.0) and spacecraft (Cargo Dragon) 5-10 times cheaper than NASA believed possible. SpaceX has successfully developed a commercially viable style of reusable rockets and took just ~30 months to go from its first attempted landing to a successful booster recovery and less than 15 months after that to reuse its first booster on a commercial, orbital-class launch. Competitors that vehemently denied that SpaceX would succeed are now 5-10 years behind with disinterested responses to the reusable titan that is Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy.
Still, while SpaceX’s record of commercial and technical spaceflight success is second-to-none since the Apollo Program and the early days of the Space Shuttle, even its extraordinarily cost-effective development style requires major funding in the face of ambitions as grand as Starship and Starlink.
Starlink races ahead
On May 23rd, SpaceX completed an extraordinarily ambitious Starlink launch debut, placing sixty “v0.9” spacecraft into low Earth orbit (LEO). Weighing no less than 16.5 tons (~36,000 lb), SpaceX’s first dedicated Starlink mission also became the heaviest payload the company has ever launched by at least ~30%. Aside from the spectacular statistics associated with the mission, SpaceX also debuted an exotic and largely unprecedented satellite form factor, stacking each flat, rectangular ~230 kg (510 lb) spacecraft like a deck of cards. With Starlink, SpaceX has also flown the first krypton-powered ion thrusters, replacing the traditional xenon to cut as much as $100,000 (or even more) from the cost of each satellite.
“We continue to track the progress of the Starlink satellites during early orbit operations. At this point, all 60 satellites have deployed their solar arrays successfully, generated positive power and communicated with our ground stations. Most are already using their onboard propulsion system to reach their operational altitude and have made initial contact using broadband phased array antennas. SpaceX continues to monitor the constellation for any satellites that may need to be safely deorbited. All the satellites have maneuvering capability and are programmed to avoid each other and other objects in orbit by a wide margin.” — SpaceX, May 31st
~20 days after launch, all 60 satellites are in contact with SpaceX ground controllers and all but 3-4 have managed to successfully begin raising their orbits from ~450 km to 550 km (280-340 mi). Roughly two dozen have already passed 500 km and most should reach their final orbits within 1-2 weeks.
By far the most significant news, however, was CEO Elon Musk’s confidence that SpaceX already has “sufficient capital to build an operational constellation”, likely referring to a constellation of 750-1500 spacecraft capable of either covering the entire US or offering “decent global coverage”. Of note, Musk made this comment days before SpaceX – via SEC filings – effectively announced that it has already raised more than $1B in 2019. A large portion – if not all – of that funding is thus likely bound for Starlink as the program’s shockingly small team of ~400 prepares to aggressively ramp up production.
According to both COO Gwynne Shotwell, Musk, and SpaceX, the company hopes to conduct an additional 1-5 launches of 60 Starlink satellites this year, potentially leaving SpaceX with a constellation of more than 400 satellites – with a total bandwidth of 7 terabits per second (tbps) – after just eight months of launches. Equally significant, SpaceX’s official Starlink.com website states that SpaceX wants to offer real internet service to an unspecified number of US and Canada consumers after just six launches. In other words, SpaceX could deliver the first (possibly alpha or beta) taste of consumer Starlink internet service by the end of 2019.
If SpaceX can deploy the constellation soon and Starlink reaches its cost, performance, and longevity targets, it’s safe to say that SpaceX’s private investors are going to be extraordinarily happy with their financial decision.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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.
A Tesla Cybertruck driver in the United Kingdom had their all-electric pickup seized by local police in the Greater Manchester area after the department cited “legitimate concerns.”
Last Thursday, police saw the pickup on the roads and decided to pull the driver over. Greater Manchester Police said:
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a collision with the Cybertruck.”
🚨 A Tesla Cybertruck, which is illegal to drive in the UK due to safety concerns, has been seized by police in Greater Manchester
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a… pic.twitter.com/cqhdPok3DM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
The Cybertruck in question was, according to the BBC, registered and insured abroad and was confiscated. The driver, who is a UK resident, was reported.
The Greater Manchester Police Department then added:
“The Tesla Cybertruck is not road-legal in the UK and does not hold a certificate of conformity.”
The Cybertruck cannot be legally driven in the UK because it has no UK Type Approval for operation in the country. This is due to some safety concerns, which are related to its angular shape and design. The stainless steel exoskeleton has sharp edges and projections that violate UK/EU rules on pedestrian protection.
Tesla has considered creating what it referred to as an “international version” that would be approved for operation in Europe. However, there has been no real movement on that front by the company, as it has been focused on the Robotaxi rollout primarily.
A new report claims that Apple is in the process of developing what would be the missing link for Tesla to get CarPlay.
Apple and Tesla have been reportedly working together for some time to give Tesla owners the opportunity to utilize CarPlay within their vehicles. While many owners are more than happy with Tesla’s in-house UI, which is seamless, effective, and smooth, some still want CarPlay, which does have its advantages.
A report from 9to5Mac now states that a new CarPlay technology that was highlighted during the Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) would potentially be the bridge between Tesla and Apple. With the addition of a feature known as “Route Sharing,” which gives a navigation app the ability to share routing data with the vehicle, Tesla would be able to launch CarPlay in its vehicles, the report states.
CarPlay has not been a priority for Tesla because it has done extremely well with its in-house UI, but some drivers are just used to it. Additionally, it could improve Tesla’s subpar Navigation or offer improved app capabilities, especially with iMessage.
Route Sharing is an intended addition to CarPlay’s iteration in iOS 26.4, which was released in March:
The addition of CarPlay would undoubtedly be welcome, but at the same time, it seems like Tesla realizes it is not of the utmost priority. There are so many things that Tesla is working on currently within its own vehicles, especially attempting to solve self-driving.
Back in February, Bloomberg had reported that Tesla was still working on bringing CarPlay to its vehicles, but it had not due to app compatibility issues and incredibly low adoption rates of iOS 26.
This bottleneck could buy Tesla the proper amount of time to develop CarPlay for its vehicles. It would be a welcome addition, and could be brought on with either the Summer or Fall 2026 Software Updates.
Tesla’s Navigation Nightmare: Why the easiest part of FSD might be the hardest
Tesla Cybertruck driver gets pickup seized for ‘legitimate concerns’ in UK
