News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk kills mini BFR spaceship 12 days after announcing it
Less than two weeks after SpaceX CEO Elon Musk announced that Falcon 9’s “second stage [would] be upgraded…like a mini-BFR Ship” to prove lightweight heatshield and hypersonic control surface technologies, Musk took to Twitter to assert that the mini BFR spaceship project was dead, despite having stated that SpaceX was working to launch that test article into orbit as early as June 2019 just 12 days prior.
From a public perspective, the status of SpaceX’s next-gen rocket program (known as BFR) is effectively up in the air after several cryptic and seemingly contradictory statements from the company’s CEO and chief engineer.
No, we’re just going to accelerate BFR
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 20, 2018
On Nov. 17, Musk tweeted that BFR – last updated in September 2018 alongside a statement that “this is [likely] the the final iteration [of BFR] in terms of broad architectural decisions” – had already been redesigned, going so far as to describe it as a “radical change”. What that radical design change might be is almost entirely unclear, although Musk has now twice stated that the purpose of these changes (and the whiplash-inducing cancellation of the mini-spaceship) is to “accelerate BFR”.
Radical change
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 17, 2018
As of now, SpaceX appears to have just completed a massive 9-meter diameter composite tank dome in the company’s temporary Port of Los Angeles tent, where a small but growing team of engineers and technicians are working to realize some version of the company’s next-generation rocket. That group has been working in near-silence for the better part of a year and has accepted delivery of and set up a wide range of custom-built tooling for carbon composite fabrication, and has even managed to get that tooling producing massive composite parts that are expected to eventually make up the structure of a spaceship prototype.
That prototype would eventually be shipped to South Texas, where SpaceX is constructing an entirely new facility from scratch to test the design, technology, and operation of the first full-scale BFR spaceship (BFS). As of a few months ago, the plan was to begin those hop tests before the end of 2019, but it’s no longer clear if SpaceX still intends to build a prototype spaceship to conduct hops and high-speed, high-altitude test flights.
-
- BFR’s spaceship design, as of 2018. (SpaceX)
-
- A BFS attempts a Mars landing in this official updated render. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX’s huge Port of LA-based BFR tent, September 18th. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- SpaceX’s first BFR spaceship prototype is coming together piece by piece. (SpaceX/Pauline Acalin)
Responsibly building giant rockets
One can only hope that the SpaceX employees tasked with bringing an already monumentally difficult idea from concept to reality are learning about these earth-shaking, “radical” decisions and changes through a medium other than Twitter. If those senior engineers and technicians are not extensively forewarned and given some say in these major system-wide decisions, it’s hard to exaggerate the amount of time, effort, and resources potentially being wasted (or at least misdirected).
There is undoubtedly something to be said for getting complex and difficult things as right as possible on the first serious try, especially when the sheer expense of the task at hand might mean that there is only one real chance to try. Still, it’s not particularly encouraging when a three-year-old hardware development program marked by several major design iterations is still experiencing anything close to “radical change”. After multiple years of concerted effort, BFR still appears to be in some sort of design limbo, where a constant and haphazard stream of on-paper changes act as a near-insurmountable hurdle standing in the way of a completed “good enough” blueprint that can begin to be made real.
Ultimately, even if some of the worst-case scenarios described above turn out to be true, there are still many, many reasons to remain positive about SpaceX’s BFR program on the whole. The next-gen rocket’s propulsion system of choice – an advanced engine known as Raptor – is quite mature at this point and may already be nearing initial flight readiness. Regardless of any future changes to BFR’s overall spaceship and booster structures, SpaceX technicians, engineers, and material scientists have likely gained invaluable experience in pursuit of an unprecedented 9-meter diameter rocket built almost entirely out of carbon fiber composites.
Further, it appears that quite a bit of progress has been made over the course of R&D programs related to methane-oxygen RCS thrusters (Falcon uses nitrogen), autogenous tank pressurization with gaseous methane and oxygen (Falcon uses helium), and perhaps even in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) that will be an absolute necessity to generate water, oxygen, and methane that will keep prospective Mars colonists alive and refuel spaceships for the voyage back to Earth.
-
- SpaceX’s horizontal Raptor test stand is pictured here in April 2018. A prototype Raptor can be seen in the center bay. (Aero Photo/Teslarati)
-
- A new rocket test-stand takes shape at SpaceX’s McGregor, TX facilities. As of just a few months ago, this site was effectively barren of activity. (April 17, Aero Photo)
-
- SpaceX’s Boca Chica facilities now sport two massive propellant tanks, meant to support BFR spaceship hop tests. (NSF /u/ bocachicagal, SpaceX)
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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
