News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk arrives in Texas for milestone Starship engine test
On Saturday evening, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk landed in Waco, Texas – perhaps along with additional SpaceX propulsion engineers – for the critical static fire debut of the first “radically redesigned” Raptor engine, built to power BFR’s Starship upper stage and Super Heavy booster.
If the first operationalized Raptor’s static fire tests go well, there are several possible routes the test program could take, all of which will end up with this engine and several others being tested and ultimately installed on the Starship hopper (Starhopper) prototype under construction roughly 500 miles (800 km) south of SpaceX’s Raptor test cell.
At @SpaceX Texas with engineering team getting ready to fire new Raptor rocket engine pic.twitter.com/ACFM8AtY8w
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 3, 2019
Shortly after Musk revealed official photos of the first operationalized Raptor preparing for an inaugural static fire test at SpaceX’s McGregor, Texas facilities, the SpaceX and Tesla CEO’s private jet was seen landing at Waco, Texas around sunset. Although all SpaceX technical expertise needed for Raptor’s first ignition was probably already on site several days prior, Musk has been known to offer seats on his private planes to SpaceX and Tesla employees when a critical group is needed away from their normal base of operations. The best examples come from Tesla engineering expertise sometimes traveling between Fremont and Gigafactory 1 when needed, often to solve production holdups.
Regardless of whether he was traveling with members of the SpaceX propulsion team, Musk’s arrival at McGregor yesterday signified that Raptor Block 1’s first integrated hot-fire was imminent. Assuming no attempt was made on Saturday night or Sunday morning, SpaceX technicians and engineers are presumably still working on installing what is effectively a new rocket engine and ensuring that Raptor’s test cells – extensively overhauled and upgraded for the occasion – are working as intended. While the development Raptors SpaceX built hovered around 1000 kN (~100t) of thrust, also roughly the same as Merlin 1D, the Raptor now on stand in Texas is reportedly a 200 ton-class engine or more than double the thrust of any single engine SpaceX engineers and technicians have built or test-fired in 15 years of engine development.
-
- The only official render of Raptor, published by SpaceX in September 2016. The Raptor departing Hawthorne in Jan ’19 looked reasonably similar. (SpaceX)
-
- Technically speaking, this Raptor is the smaller (sea-level) version of the engine. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX’s current Texas facilities feature a test stand for Raptor, the engine intended to power BFR and BFS to Mars. (SpaceX)
-
- A Raptor prototype is seen here during its first-ever ignition test. (SpaceX)
-
- A 2017 test-firing of the mature development Raptor, roughly 50% less powerful than the full-scale system. (SpaceX)
A fork in the R&D road
Prior to completing Raptor Block 1 (unofficial designation), SpaceX cumulatively test-fired dev Raptors for far more than 1200 seconds over the course of more than 24 months. It’s unclear how extensively the company’s engineers will be able to test the pathfinder hardware built on the back of that extensive test program. Nominally, one would expect hundreds or thousands of seconds of additional testing to properly characterize the design and production of a brand-new, optimized engine like Raptor while primarily ensuring that it performs within engineering specifications.
Knowing CEO Elon Musk’s self-admitted tendency to push for impractical deadlines and schedules that often appeared rushed for the sake of rushing, it’s not impossible that the first Raptors could find themselves installed on the Boca Chica-based Starhopper test article after Merlin-esque acceptance testing and nothing more. For M1D and MVac, acceptance testing usually takes the shape of a full-duration burn with throttle and gimbal activity to closely simulate a true Falcon 9 or Heavy launch. For the 200-ton Raptor now in Texas, comparable acceptance testing could take a variety of forms, ranging from short Starhopper-relevant burns (10-60 seconds for small hops) to simulating conditions during a Super Heavy launch and landing or even a 6 or 7-minute orbital insertion burn indicative of the performance needed for Starship.
Depending on the interplay between the route SpaceX engineers would likely prefer and the Starhopper test schedule executives and managers might want, this first Raptor engine (and two more soon to follow) could be installed on Starhopper anywhere from a few weeks to several months from now. Elon Musk indicated in early January that he expected hop tests would occur 4-8 weeks later, shortly followed by unplanned damage to the craft’s nose cone that pushed the debut back “a few weeks”.
Aiming for 4 weeks, which probably means 8 weeks, due to unforeseen issues
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 5, 2019
I just heard. 50 mph winds broke the mooring blocks late last night & fairing was blown over. Will take a few weeks to repair.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 23, 2019
Realistically, hop tests should thus be expected to begin no earlier than (NET) 8-12 weeks from the first week of January, translating to NET March or April. This would give SpaceX propulsion engineers a decent amount of time to gain at least a few hundred (or maybe 1000+) seconds of experience operating the newest and most advanced iteration of Raptor.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes!
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
