News
SpaceX had a big year: 2016 year in review
On December 21, 2016, SpaceX celebrated the one-year anniversary of Falcon 9’s first ever successful stage one landing, leaving their mark on history with the first rocket to ever do so after delivering a payload into orbit. The mission delivered 11 ORBCOMM satellites into low-Earth orbit to complete a 17-satellite constellation network.
Several videos were published with footage of the event last year, but National Geographic gave us a behind-the-scenes look at Elon Musk’s emotional ride while it was happening as an anniversary treat.
The first landing anniversary wasn’t the only thing to come out of 2016, however, and what a year it was!
MORE HISTORIC SPACEX LANDINGS
On April 8, 2016, SpaceX made history again, that time by landing Falcon 9’s first stage booster onto the “Of Course I Still Love You” autonomous droneship in the Atlantic Ocean off the Florida coast. The mission’s payload was a Dragon capsule cargo shipment to the International Space Station (“ISS”) named CRS-8, itself containing an important space technology demonstration for expandable habitats. The Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (“BEAM”) carried in the Dragon capsule was later successfully docked to the ISS and inflated as planned.
On May 5, 2016, SpaceX landed yet another first stage booster on drone ship “Of Course I Still Love You”, but the destination of its payload was geostationary transfer orbit (“GTO”), about 36,000 kilometers above the Earth vs. the 160 to 2000 kilometer height of low-Earth orbit previously achieved before a landing. The higher GTO orbit brought the first stage of Falcon 9 to a much faster speed and higher reentry heating than the previous missions, making the successful landing yet another one for the history books. Its payload was the JCSAT-14 commercial communications satellite.
Falcon 9 on the droneship after launching JCSAT-14 | Credit: SpaceX
Another successful GTO mission with a droneship landing was completed on May 27, 2016, and its THAICOM-8 payload was then delivered to a supersynchronous transfer orbit of 91,000 kilometers high. The third time broke the charm, however, and on June 15, 2016, after a successful insertion of Eutelsat 117 West B and ABS-2A satellites into GTO, the Falcon 9 first stage was lost due to early engine shutdown from lack of fuel.
Looks like early liquid oxygen depletion caused engine shutdown just above the deck pic.twitter.com/Sa6uCkpknY
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 17, 2016
Undeterred, SpaceX successfully landed one more booster on August 16, 2016 during its JCSAT-16 mission to GTO. “Of Course I Still Love You” was the droneship used once again.
First stage landing confirmed on the droneship. Second stage & JCSAT-16 continuing to orbit https://t.co/tdni5406Hi pic.twitter.com/h6llIXSVu7
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) August 14, 2016
A FEW SETBACKS FOR SPACEX
September 1, 2016 is a day that will potentially live in both conspiratorial and procedural dispute infamy due to SpaceX’s launch pad anomaly during its fueling process. Whether the description of choice of the event is “fast fire”, “explosion”, or “fireball”, the result was the same: a complete loss of the Falcon 9 rocket, its payload, and the ability to use Space Launch Complex 40 in the near future.
Still working on the Falcon fireball investigation. Turning out to be the most difficult and complex failure we have ever had in 14 years.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 9, 2016
The AMOS-6 satellite aboard the rocket was owned by Israel-based Spacecom Ltd. and had been part of a $95 million dollar leasing deal between Facebook and Eutelsat to provide internet access to the non-connected parts of the world.
Per SpaceX’s last update, the investigation and FAA report on the anomaly are still pending and have focused on a breach in the loading of the cryogenic helium system of the 2nd stage liquid oxygen (“LOX”) tank.
Loss of Falcon vehicle today during propellant fill operation. Originated around upper stage oxygen tank. Cause still unknown. More soon.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 1, 2016
Falcon 9 isn’t expected to return to flight until January 2017 now that the launch with the Iridium-1 satellite payload was delayed from the tentative December 16th date. The FAA report must be completed prior to further launch approvals. The chain reaction of delayed launches has only cost the loss of one SpaceX customer to another launch provider thus far.
Due to extensive damage to Space Launch Complex 40 from the anomaly, future launches from the east coast will take place from historic Apollo-era Launch Complex 39A. SpaceX has been renovating the pad for Falcon Heavy launches. Also resulting from the anomaly was a delay in the first Falcon Heavy launch to early 2017.
SPACEX PUSHES ONWARD
Throughout 2016, SpaceX continued to work on its Crew Dragon capsule as part of its competition with Boeing to provide human flight capabilities from American soil via NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. The tentative test launch date for the capsule was set for late 2017, but unfortunately, it was pushed back into May of 2018. Earlier in the year, Boeing also delayed its launch date to August 2018.
Crew Dragon during launch abort test | Credit: SpaceX
ELON MUSK REVEALS SPACEX’S MARS PLAN
Finally, at the end of September, Elon announced SpaceX’s plan to put a million people on Mars by the 2060s via its Interplanetary Transport System, also affectionately named BFR (“Big F*ing Rocket”).
Full Interplanetary Tranport System presentation in ~30 mins. Simulation preview: https://t.co/lKAxabzfKX
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 27, 2016
A video was released prior to the September 27th, 2016 International Astronautical Conference announcement in Guadalajara, Mexico illustrating the full system concept. The animation was based on the actual CAD renderings in development, per Elon’s talk.
SpaceX ITS Stage 1 landing graphic | Credit: SpaceX
Plenty of goodies were revealed about SpaceX’s plans including the passenger habitat, entertainment intentions for travelers, and technical specifications surrounding the system’s size, engines, and fuel systems. While the presentation itself was exciting, many questions were still left unanswered such as more specifics on radiation dangers and the long-term effects of microgravity.
SUMMARY
Overall, 2016 brought a rollercoaster of successes and setbacks for SpaceX, but the business of rocket launching wasn’t expected to be an easy one. The phrase, “Rockets are hard” isn’t a simple excuse to explain away failures, but rather an accepted cost of being in the field.
Throughout the year, SpaceX has managed to maintain public and government faith in its mission to advance human space exploration despite any setbacks. In July, NASA ordered a second commercial crew mission from the company, and then they followed up in November with a contract to launch an Earth surface-water-analyzing satellite in 2021.
SpaceX also received a number of recognitions for its work environment and achievements, including making Glassdoor’s Top 50 Places to Work and being awarded the 2016 World Technology Award for space.
Oh, and if it seems all that isn’t enough for SpaceX to have on its plate, in November the company filed a request with the FCC to launch over 4,000 communication satellites as part of their goal of building a hi-speed satellite internet constellation.
There’s a lot to look forward to in 2017 and beyond. Onwards!
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
