News
SpaceX lays off 10% of staff by email as Falcon Heavy, BFR, and Starlink ramp up
In an unusual move for a privately-held company that raised $500M-750M in the last six months alone and is the 2nd or 3rd most-valuable VC-backed entity in the United States (~$30B), SpaceX abruptly announced a decision to lay off ~10% of its workforce of 7,000+, effective immediately as of January 11th.
Although layoffs are often a necessary evil in particularly competitive industries or underperforming companies, SpaceX is not exactly a strong fit for either characteristic. The company also opted for a truly bizarre and impersonal layoff method so unfriendly that several employees described it feeling like a corporate “Hunger Games” or a “purge”.
https://twitter.com/seanbhart/status/1084139223760945152
Over the past six or so months, a number of reports – most recently confirmed by SEC filings showing ~$270M of $500M raised – noted that SpaceX was seeking considerable investment and capital influx in the form debt (a leveraged loan) and equity sales to the tune of $250M (loan) and $500M (equity) after some back and forth with investors and banks and additional fine-tuning. The terms of SpaceX’s 2018 fundraises are unknown but Bloomberg did acquire information suggesting that the company was only profitable or break-even with after a range of very specific and dubious accounting decisions. Put more bluntly, SpaceX did not demonstrate actionable profitability to investors during their 2018 pitches.
“[SpaceX showed] positive earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization of around $270 million for the twelve months through September … But that’s because it included amounts that customers had prepaid and because it excluded costs related to non-core research and development. Without those adjustments, earnings for the period were negative.” – Bloomberg, 19 November 2018
However, the fact of the matter is that SpaceX’s profitability is and has long been nearly irrelevant as long as the company was still able to convince investors that it was wisely investing its funds in potentially revolutionary present and future projects like Falcon Heavy, reusable rockets, BFR, and Starlink. Essentially, if SpaceX could show that they could be profitable if they wanted to be, investors were willing to swallow unusual risks in return for prestige and a potentially vast payout down the road. The decision to lay off 10% of the company’s workforce immediately after raising anywhere from $500-750M could indicate that layoffs were either directly or indirectly related to the terms of its fundraising rounds.
When you're talking about 850 layoffs across the company, there's no way even the best company at hiring/firing decisions is going to avoid making tons of mistakes about who they kept and who they let go.
— Jonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur) January 12, 2019
Notably, some basic back-of-the-napkin estimates would suggest that cutting 10% (say 700-800 employees) at an average salary (or equivalent hourly pay) of ~$90K/year* with an average overhead of 30% would reduce SpaceX’s operational costs by $80-100M annually, potentially enough to sway the above financial account enough to show a small annual profit or at least allow the company to break even. Put frankly, $80-100M per year is not nearly enough to plausibly fund SpaceX’s BFR and Starlink development programs at anything close to the ambitious schedules CEO Elon Musk has laid out for the company, including orbital BFR launches as early as 2020 and getting Starlink to initial operational status around the same time (2020-2021).
-
- Falcon 9 Block 5 booster B1049. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Falcon Heavy clears the tower. (Photo: Tom Cross/Teslarati)
-
- BFR (2018) breaks through a cloud layer shortly after launch. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX’s Starhopper seen in a January render and a January photo. (SpaceX/Elon Musk)
-
- One of the first two prototype Starlink satellites separates from Falcon 9’s upper stage, February 2018. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX’s first two Starlink prototype satellites are pictured here before their inaugural launch, showing off a thoroughly utilitarian bus and several advanced components. (SpaceX)
However, saving ~$100M annually might be enough to sway investors that are less prestige-hungry and more conservative to bet on a successful but still relatively high-risk launch company. To be even more generous, one could assume that ~800 employees were strategically cut to remove entire internal groups or departments no longer needed, perhaps doubling or tripling the annual savings to $200M-$300M, still not even close to enough money to fund more than 10-20% of expected BFR and Starlink capex.
In September 2018, CEO Elon Musk estimated the new rocket would cost ~$5B to develop (no less than $2B, no more than $10B) on its own, entirely excluding the $10B COO/President Gwynne Shotwell estimated SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet constellation would cost to complete in April 2018. Working on profits of less than $300M a year, it would take SpaceX decades of stable earnings to foot that collective $12B-20B bill.
“To continue delivering for our customers and to succeed in developing interplanetary spacecraft and a global space-based Internet, SpaceX must become a leaner company. Either of these developments, even when attempted separately, have bankrupted other organizations. This means we must part ways with some talented and hardworking members of our team. We are grateful for everything they have accomplished and their commitment to SpaceX’s mission. This action is taken only due to the extraordinarily difficult challenges ahead and would not otherwise be necessary.” – SpaceX, January 11
* (Source: Payscale)
A new level of “counterintuitive”
Regardless of whether SpaceX had sincere and angelic motivations for these layoffs (it’s nearly impossible to know), the single most unpleasant aspect of the whole ordeal is how the company managed it and communicated with employees. According to comments and hints from a dozen or more employees, the process began with next to no official warning around lunchtime on Friday, January 11th. Employees attended an all-hands meeting where they were told in frank terms that a major portion of the company – those deemed to be lower performers – would be laid off within 24 hours. All 7000+ employees were told around the same time.
The catch: nobody was told who exactly would be cut – instead, SpaceX would force every single employee to leave work early on Friday and spend 12-24 hours in total uncertainty until an unspecified time on Saturday, when they were – in theory – supposed to receive an email telling them whether or not they still had a job waiting for them on Monday. In many cases, workers were forced to call a number provided by SpaceX and ask the company themselves if they still had jobs, not even receiving the absolute minimum courtesy of some sort of call or notification. Whether the given employee was five months or five years senior, the process was identical – ~24 hours of avoidable existential uncertainty followed by an automated email or phone call that you had to make yourself.
Nobody was offered a clear explanation as to why they were chosen out of all SpaceX employees. Workers who had given their heart, soul, blood, sweat, and tears to SpaceX for more than half a decade were – very literally – fired over email without the simplest explanation and told to not return to work unless returning company property, effective immediately. Thanks to California’s WARN Act protections, all laid off employees in California will thankfully be paid for two additional months (until March 11, 2019) to support job searching and re-training.
-
- A bittersweet sunrise as Falcon 9 B1049 arrives in port. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Workers process Falcon 9 B1048 after recovery. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Workers process Falcon 9 B1046 after the booster’s third flawless launch and landing in seven months. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- SpaceX recovery technicians work on Falcon 9 with similar cherry-picker lifts, offering a sense of scale of the new Starship water tower. (Pauline Acalin)
It’s impossible to know who exactly within SpaceX thought this method of layoffs was preferable to something at least a modicum more humane. It’s equally unclear why these layoffs are happening now, and SpaceX’s official statement appears to be an unsatisfactory half-answer at best. To the 90% that remain, one can only wish them the best and hope that those 10% cut from the company were not all as essential as some of them seem to have been. In the meantime, it appears that SpaceX will continue to push ahead in attempts to improve Falcon 9 reusability, field the next Falcon Heavy, build out and launch Starlink, and develop BFR.
Some of those at SpaceX responsible for enabling the company’s many, many extraordinary achievements hopefully still remain and will be able to ensure that the company keeps heading down the right paths in spite of major speedbumps like this. If you or anyone you know knows someone who works at SpaceX or have been inspired by the company’s mission and many successes in spite of the odds, make sure to be cognizant and appreciative of the tens or hundreds of thousands of rewarded (and unrewarded) hours of hard work that go into every single major and minor SpaceX achievement. To any employees reading, thank you for your dedication and keep fighting the hard fight.
Happy Labor Day! We feel so lucky to work with such an awesome team @SpaceX. pic.twitter.com/aXQXN3fGlA
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) September 3, 2013
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.
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.
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
Tesla’s Navigation Nightmare: Why the easiest part of FSD might be the hardest
