News
SpaceX, Blue Origin, and ULA make major progress in commercial megarocket space race
A new generation of space race is currently underway, but this time it’s not a race to determine which country will reach orbit first, but rather which spaceflight company will successfully reach orbit first with the world’s second generation of super-heavy launch vehicles (SHLVs).
SpaceX, United Launch Alliance (ULA), Blue Origin, and NASA all have plans to build and operate their own SHLV rockets. All entities are deep into design and development and are, for the most part, at various stages of assembly and integration of their first flight hardware, offering an excellent opportunity to compare and contrast the differing approaches at work.
While NASA and ULA are developing rockets featuring an expendable single core supported by solid rocket boosters, SpaceX and Blue Origin have developed reusable designs that will utilize an enormous single core booster powered by multiple engines.
SpaceX: Starship/Super Heavy
Currently the world’s only builder and operator of a super-heavy launch vehicle (Falcon Heavy), SpaceX’s next-generation rocket is undoubtedly the most well known.
The design of SpaceX’s next-generation Starship & Super Heavy rocket is by far the most ambitious. According to company CEO Elon Musk, the new rocket will be comprised of a massive booster deemed “Super Heavy”, featuring as many as 35 Raptor engines capable of producing a total of more than 70,000 kN (15.7M lbf) of thrust at liftoff. The rocket’s upper stage is known as Starship and will be a fully-reusable crew and cargo transport vehicle powered by up to 6 Raptors – 3 sea level-optimized engines and 3 vacuum-optimized engines.
Per a September 2018 design update, Starship and Super Heavy will stand 118 meters (387ft) tall and will be able to launch a minimum of 100 metric tons (220,000 lb) to Low Earth Orbit in a fully reusable configuration, in which both the booster and ship return to Earth for recovery and reuse. On its own, Starship will stand at least 55 meters tall and feature a massive payload bay (or crew section) with a usable volume of no less than 1000 cubic meters (~35,000 ft3). The now-outdated 2018 design also featured almost 90 cubic meters of unpressurized cargo space, a bet less than nine times as much SpaceX’s operational Cargo Dragon spacecraft.
Although CEO Elon Musk has stated that the design of Starship’s legs and control surfaces has since changed, including the addition of legs to Super Heavy boosters, the upper stage’s 2018 design featured two actuating canards and fins/legs, two of which actuate a bit like flapping wings.
Currently, SpaceX is actively building two orbital Starship prototypes at two separate facilities in Cocoa Beach, Florida and Boca Chica, Texas, as well as an unusual low-fidelity prototype known as Starhopper. Outfitted with a lone Raptor engine (SN06), Starhopper very recently completed a successful 20-meter hop, also the vehicle’s first untethered test flight.
According to Musk, Starhopper is being prepared for a second untethered flight as early as August 16th, in which the rocket will reach a maximum altitude of up to 200 meters (650 ft) and perform a small divert, landing on an adjacent landing pad. Musk also has plans to present a major update on the status of Starship during an official event, scheduled to occur on August 24th in Boca Chica, TX. Aside from hundreds of disconnected snippets in the form of Musk’s prolific tweets, this will mark the first official presentation on Starship since SpaceX made the radical leap from carbon fiber to stainless steel.
SpaceX has taken a truly unprecedented approach to Starship and Super Heavy production and is currently assembling two full-scale Starship prototypes (Mk1 and Mk2) outside with little to no cover, although some spartan covered production facilities are simultaneously being built.
Blue Origin: BE-4 for all
On the near-opposite side of the spectrum, Blue Origin and ULA have formed a partnership in the sense that both companies will ultimately use the same Blue Origin-built engines to power the boosters of their own next-generation launch vehicles. ULA has decided to acquire Blue-built BE-4 engines for its Vulcan Heavy rocket, motivated primarily by the fact that the company will no longer be able to legally import the Russian-built RD-180 used on Atlas V after 2022 as a result of US sanctions.
First and foremost, though, Blue Origin is developing BE-4 as the primary propulsion of the company’s own two-stage super heavy-lift rocket, known as New Glenn. New Glenn’s first stage will be powered by 7 of the extremely powerful oxygens, utilizing liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquid oxygen to produce at least 2,450 kN (550,000 lbf) of thrust. Altogether, New Glenn will lift off with a maximum thrust of 17,100 kN (3.85m lbf) of thrust at sea level.
Unintuitively, New Glenn will actually produce a full 33% less thrust than SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy (~23,000 kN or 5.1M lbf) at liftoff but will likely be able to crush Falcon Heavy’s performance to higher orbits while still in a reusable configuration. This is thanks in large part to the greater efficiency of a single-core rocket, as well as the greater efficiency of its methane-powered BE-4 boost-stage engines and hydrogen-powered BE-3U upper stage engines. According to Blue, New Glenn will be able to launch 45,000 kg to LEO and 13,000 kg to GTO while still recovering the booster, compared to Falcon Heavy’s 8,000-10,000 kg GTO performance.
New Glenn will stand 95 meters (313 ft) tall and feature the largest payload fairing in operation, measuring 7m (23 ft) wide and in diameter. New Glenn’s booster will follow in the footsteps of Blue Origin’s relatively tiny New Shepard and will rely on actuating fins for in-atmosphere maneuvering, as well as two fixed wing-like strakes that will partially function as wings during recovery. New Glenn will also feature six retractable landing legs and land on a modified ship, much like SpaceX’s Falcon family.
While Blue Origin has scarcely published a word or photo on New Glenn’s production progress since its September 2016 reveal, the company does provide small updates on the status of its BE-4 engine every few months, including a photo of a recent full-power engine test completed on August 2nd at Blue’s Van Horn, Texas facilities.
ULA: Vulcan Heavy
ULA’s next-generation Vulcan Heavy rocket will feature two such BE-4 engines but will be fully expendable for at least 4-6 years after its nominal 2021 launch debut. ULA will continue to lean on their well-worn preference for supplementing liquid propulsion with 2-6 strap-on solid rocket boosters (SRBs), adding as much as ~12,000 kN (2.7M lbf) to booster’s two BE-4s, themselves producing 4,800 kN (1.1M lbf) of thrust
In its largest configuration, Vulcan Heavy will stand 69.2 m (227 ft) tall – just a tad shorter than Falcon 9 – and be capable of launch up to 15 tons (~33,000 lb) to GTO and 30.3 tons (67,000 lb) to LEO.
ULA CEO Tory Bruno recently took to Twitter to provide a small Vulcan development update, revealing that the first Vulcan booster was recently completed at the company’s Decatur, Alabama factory. This particularly booster is a structural test article (STA) and will never fly, but it’s still a huge milestone for ULA’s next-generation rocket.
The photos give a great idea of scale as the Vulcan booster is pictured alongside one of the company’s significantly smaller Atlas V booster, 3.8m compared to Vulcan’s 5.4m diameter.
Ultimately, this modern space race will hopefully benefit the spaceflight industry as a whole, particularly with respect to the introduction of New Glenn, hopefully giving SpaceX’s reusable Falcon 9 and Heavy rockets some real technological competition. ULA’s Vulcan is aiming for a H1 2021 debut, followed by New Glenn in late-2021 or 2022.
SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy is already operational and just completed its third launch in June 2019, with several more launch contracts on the books from late-2020 onwards. Its Starship/Super Heavy rocket is in a bit of a chaotic state at the moment, but CEO Elon Musk believes an orbital launch attempt could come as early as early-2020. Meanwhile, NASA is very slowly making its way to the launch debut of its Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, likely to slip into 2022.
With any luck, the early 2020s will be greeted by the operational debuts of two, three, four, or even more extremely capable rockets offering largely unprecedented launch costs. For now, we wait…
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
