News
SpaceX competitor Blue Origin touts 25-reuse future rocket as R&D continues
A spokesperson for Blue Origin, the reusable rocket company funded by Jeff Bezos and one of the only serious prospective SpaceX competitors, reiterated an oft-used claim that its orbital New Glenn rocket has been designed with reusability in mind “from the start” and stated that the vehicle’s booster is expected to fly 25 times, while its BE-4 engines can expect to see as many as 100 reuses.
Ariane Cornell, Blue Origin’s head of business development and strategy, provided her comments as part of a satellite and rocket hardware panel at the Hong Kong-hosted CASBAA 2018 conference, mainly focused on major participants in the Asian satellite broadcasting industry, for which SpaceX has launched a number of satellites with several more soon to come.
Correction from Ariane: New Glenn first stage can do 25 missions, BE-4 engines designed for 100 flights each.
— Caleb Henry (@ChenrySpace) June 25, 2018
While scarcely anything has changed in the last 12 months, that in itself is hugely noteworthy – SpaceX remains almost completely unchallenged in the space launch industry, at least in terms of investing in R&D for the purpose of dramatically decreasing the cost of orbital launches. While they have yet to dramatically cut the customer-side prices of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, it’s all but guaranteed that the sustainable ability to do so is not only already in place but improving day by day. Every flight-proven SpaceX launch completed even before Falcon 9 Block 5’s takeover likely provides as much as tens of millions of dollars for the company to either reinvest or recoup investments in reusability and Falcon Heavy, among other things.
-
- Blue Origin has had some success with its New Shepard suborbital rocket reuse program, although dramatically different from New Glenn. (NASA)
-
- Blue Origin’s aspirational future, the highly reusable BE-4 powered New Glenn rocket. (Blue Origin)
-
- BE-4, an extraordinarily powerful 500k lb thrust methane/oxygen rocket engine, is roughly midway through a ground testing program, likely to reach completion in 2019. (Blue Origin)
-
- Blue is in the process of constructing an entirely new launch site for New Glenn at Kennedy Space Center, known as LC-36. (Blue Origin)
As of today, Blue Origin is quite simply the only rocket company with demonstrated successes, resources, and commitment to serious operationally-reusable rockets – while Blue has yet to reach orbit, commercial launch stalwarts ULA, Arianespace, and ILS have functionally buried their heads in the sand and either have no plans at all or plan flying even their tepid, disinterested steps into reusable rocket hardware by the mid-2020s at the absolute earliest. SpaceX, on the other hand, has already launched its first purpose-built reusable rocket – Falcon 9 Block 5 – and has two or three more completed boosters either at their launch sites or nearing shipment, with many more being prepared in their Hawthorne, CA factory. In fact, SpaceX’s final non-Block 5 mission is in less than four days (June 29), after which all future launches will be transferred to Block 5 rockets.
All future SpaceX missions will be conducted with highly reusable rocket boosters in the middle of 2018, whereas SpaceX’s current operational competitors are essentially not even trying to field competitive reusable rocket hardware on operational launches before 2024 or 2025. Blue Origin, on the other hand, still appears to be committed to completing the development of its huge, reusable New Glenn rocket, an orbital launch vehicle currently aiming for a debut launch sometime in late 2020. While still late to the start of the SpaceX-fueled reusable launch revolution, commercial launches with reusable hardware beginning as early as 2020-2021 bodes extremely well for Blue’s ability to actually carve out a sturdy segment of the market, while also giving SpaceX at least a decent hint of external motivation to remain competitive.
-
- China’s reusable rocket goals aim to fly small prototypes as early as 2020, with the ultimate goal of making all Chinese rockets reusable by 2035. (Sina Weibo & Spaceflightfans)
-
- The scale of BE-4 is demonstrated well in this Kent, WA factory photo. (Blue Origin)
-
- SpaceX’s first successfully launched and landed Block 5 Falcon 9, May 2018. (Tom Cross)
Aside from Blue Origin and a respectable effort from China, also aiming for initial reusable launch vehicle testing in 2020 (albeit beginning with a conservative – but still orbital – subscale prototype), all other commercial launch competitors are effectively betting their livelihoods on the failures non-traditional launch providers like SpaceX, betting that reusable rockets fail to appreciably lower costs to customers over the better part of the next decade. SpaceX, meanwhile, will begin putting those bets to the test in as few as three weeks.
Follow us for live updates, peeks behind the scenes, and photos from Teslarati’s East and West Coast photographers.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Twitter
Pauline Acalin – Twitter
Eric Ralph – Twitter
Elon Musk shed more details on the upcoming improvements to Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite, specifically one that the CEO mentioned last week, which should help owners see fewer interventions.
Last week, Musk hinted that one major improvement that Tesla planned to roll out to Full Self-Driving users was the car’s ability “to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”
Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences
This small bit of detail was linked to a post from Tesla community member Whole Mars, who said that FSD’s tendency to exit the carpool lane, a feature that owners can turn on but at times the car will disregard.
It sounds like, based on Musk’s two responses since that original post, it is safe to say the things FSD will start to remember are wide-ranging. However, it seems the biggest differences will be noticed with parking performance, which Musk continues to mention.
Highway Lane Preferences
The initial post Musk mentioned, with these new remembered preferences soon to arrive for Tesla owners everywhere, was the Carpool/Express Lane.
Tesla has a setting in the FSD menu that lets drivers enable HOV Lane travel. However, the car won’t always stay in that suggested or preferred lane.
The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 18, 2026
Some owners have also complained of left lane camping, an illegal maneuver in at least some states. Cruising in the passing lane has resulted in tickets for some, as it is illegal in over 30 states in the U.S.
Tesla did not confirm if these preferences would also be included in new FSD behaviors, but it would certainly help move the company toward fewer interventions.
Parking Preferences
This seems to be the real focus of the entire operation, as Musk stated several weeks ago that parking was overwhelmingly the most frequent reason for interventions.
The major issue with parking is not necessarily the parking “performance,” as FSD is generally good at parking. It definitely has its issues; we’ve recorded plenty of them, including this one as recent as last week:
Yeah it seems like FSD v14.3.5 is having some issues with parking early on https://t.co/Bw5ULfVmDq pic.twitter.com/RHdpjOEpIo
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 13, 2026
However, the changes coming are more about preferences, meaning where you park and how your car enters the spot, either pulling in or backing in. Owners have also reported that pulling into the correct driveway is a relatively rare thing for FSD, something else that needs to be confronted.
Musk basically confirmed that all of these things would be part of Tesla’s plan to address driver preferences with FSD:
Yes
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 20, 2026
It’s obvious there is something big coming with FSD, and the company’s focus seems to be eliminating any intervention that would be related to preferences. This is probably the biggest bottleneck between Tesla and being fully autonomous. Critical interventions do occur, but they are much less frequent.
The only time a driver should be taking over is because of a critical intervention; this seems to be the goal of Tesla right now.
This all seems to be a priority as Tesla continues to move closer to the prospect of unsupervised driving.
Elon Musk said today on X that Teslas will start to learn your individual preferences. This is something that he seemed to hint toward earlier this month when he said parking was by far the biggest reason drivers intervene with Full Self-Driving.
Musk made the comment in response to notable Tesla influencer Whole Mars, who said that his vehicle will sometimes disobey the settings he has enabled for his car. He responded to the post, stating that “The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”
The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 18, 2026
This is something that could be perhaps one of the biggest ways Tesla could minimize or even work closer toward eliminating interventions altogether. While FSD does a lot of things really well, many people intervene a vast majority of the time not due to major or critical safety errors.
Instead, many take over because the car is doing something that they do not like as a preference; it might park in a parking spot that is not preferred by the driver, it might linger too long in the left lane on the highway (a personal favorite), or it could even take a route that the driver does not like.
These all lead to interventions, but they are not triggered by a major safety issue. Instead, it’s just preference.
READ OUR REVIEW OF TESLA’S LATEST FSD VERSION:
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Early Impressions: new features and early performance
If Teslas could start to learn the personal preferences of the person who owns them, interventions will truly begin to be less frequent. Some of this is already pretty evident, in my opinion. Teslas use a neural network to learn behaviors and accumulate data to improve performance.
For months now, we’ve tracked FSD’s performance at “Except Right Turn” stop signs, something that is very common in Pennsylvania, but many of our readers located in other parts of the U.S. have never heard of. FSD handles one Except Right Turn stop sign very well, one that I travel past frequently. Others that I do not navigate through as often do not have as confident a performance. It seems like the cars might already be doing this to an extent.
🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3 proceeds through an Except Right Turn Stop Sign pic.twitter.com/YemRSlens7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 8, 2026
That example is also for something that is a street sign and not necessarily a driver preference; however, I still feel it is worth mentioning because it only handles that commonly passed Except Right Turn stop sign with true confidence. Others it still seems to struggle with.
This could be one of Tesla’s big moves toward full autonomy, and it could be a pathway to truly unsupervised driving. Every day, millions of cars on the road travel at a human driver’s personal preferences with no incident. Why can’t autonomous vehicles still cater to a passenger’s preferences while being autonomous? Tesla seems to have the idea that it would be possible.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.
A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.
Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.
However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.
DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”
Do legacy media outlets typically use headlines involving the make of a car in a crash or is that only for Tesla?
It would be one thing if the self-driving malfunctioned but the crash was purely human-induced.
Seems like these outlets want to associate Tesla with crashes as… pic.twitter.com/EmfyeYiuv6
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) July 17, 2026
The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.
This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.
High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:
🚨 Why do Tesla Owners get so defensive over the narrative of crashes involving Teslas? https://t.co/aX7ogtjTCR pic.twitter.com/KO4QWaLOKl
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 24, 2026
Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.
DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.
As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.
Elon Musk sheds details on Tesla FSD’s upcoming improvements
Tesla Diner is throwing a birthday party with a Franz-signed special treat
