News
SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule christened ahead of operational astronaut launch debut
The long-standing tradition of astronauts naming the spacecraft that transports them safely to and from space continues ahead of SpaceX’s next crewed flight to the International Space Station (ISS).
Shortly after safely arriving in low Earth orbit during SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Demo-2 mission to the ISS under NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, NASA astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley revealed “Endeavour” to be the chosen name of their SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule. Prior to being named by its crew, the capsule had only been referred to by its internal build number, C206. The next Crew Dragon Capsule to visit the ISS, the Crew-1 mission C207 capsule, has been given the same treatment. Until now.
On Tuesday, September 29, during a full day of Crew-1 pre-mission media briefings, NASA astronaut and Commander of the Crew-1 mission, Mike Hopkins, revealed that “the Crew-1 Dragon capsule number 207 will henceforth be known by the call sign: Resilience.”
Hopkins explained that “I think all of us can agree that 2020 has been a challenging year; global pandemic, economic hardship, civil unrest, isolation. The name Resilience is really an honor of the SpaceX and the NASA teams.” He went on further to explain that the name was also chosen as a nod to all of those that have endured the difficulties, but continued to support the mission, “our families, our colleagues, our fellow citizens, our international partners, our leaders that have all showed those same characteristics through these difficult times.”
What’s in a name?
The naming of crewed spacecraft is a tradition that extends all the way back to NASA’s Mercury program. Alan Shepard, the first American in space in 1961, designated his spacecraft “Freedom 7” before its debut flight.
More notable names arose during NASA’s Apollo era of lunar exploration. With two spacecraft required for the missions to the Moon – a command module and a lunar lander – monikers were needed to distinguish between the two vehicles during radio communication. “Charlie Brown” and “Snoopy” were chosen for the spacecraft of the Apollo 10 mission. The characters of Charles Schultz’s “Peanuts” have since become synonymous with NASA.
In observance of the 50th anniversary of Apollo 10, an inflatable Snoopy balloon dressed in an orange astronaut suit premiered during the 2019 Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade in New York. It was a reoccurrence of the astronaut Snoopy balloon that originally debuted in 1969 celebrating Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin’s famous walk on the Moon during NASA’s Apollo 11 mission.
New era of spaceflight, same traditions
Hurley and Behnken designated “Endeavour” for their dragonship as a way of honoring those before them. Both Behnken and Hurley both flew to the ISS for the first time as NASA astronauts on NASA’s space shuttle Endeavour.
After the tragic loss NASA’s space shuttle “Challenger” in 1986, NASA returned to flight with the newly christened space shuttle “Endeavour” in 1992. The name was chosen to fit in-family with the other space shuttle names designated after famous historical ships that set sail to explore the great unknown. Endeavour was named after a British Royal Navy research vessel designated for the lands of Australia and New Zealand in 1768.
The command module of Apollo 15 also shares the name. Commander David Scott once explained that the named “Endeavour” was chosen to recognize the heavy scientific emphasis of the Apollo 15 mission mirroring that of the British Royal Navy research vessel of the same name.
It seemed only fitting that the first crewed vehicle to return humans to the ISS from American soil after an absence of nine years receive the honorary name “Endeavour” as well.
Although the tradition of naming the spacecraft remains, the inspiration for those names has shifted. Dragonship “Resilience” is not the only spacecraft to launch from Earth in 2020 with a name defined by a characteristic. NASA’s Perseverance Mars rover launched earlier this year on its way to the Red Planet.
The name option of Perseverance was submitted, along with 28,000 other essay submissions, to be voted on by the general population. Perseverance was chosen by seventh-grader Alexander Mather. He believed the name fit in-family with the other Mars rovers currently occupying the Red Planet and that it was one of the most important characteristics missing from the line up of other inspirational names such as Sojourner, Spirit, Opportunity, and InSight.
When Mather submitted the name, he believed it to represent a quality possessed by humans. Throughout the year 2020, the definition of the name evolved to represent the wilfulness of human nature to endure and overcome the tumultuous year of 2020. As Mather explained “we, not as a nation, but as humans will not give up. The human race will always persevere into the future.”
Dragonship “Resilience” is sure to inspire just as many as its many predecessors. “Resilience” will be the very first spacecraft to complete an operational crewed mission to the ISS for NASA’s Commerical Crew Program. It will carry NASA astronauts Mike Hopkins, Victor Glover, and Shannon Walker along with Japan Aerospace Exploration astronaut Sôichi Noguchi to the ISS. Barring any further delays, the Crew-1 “Resilience” Dragon capsule is slated to blast off atop of a SpaceX Falcon 9 at 2:40 am (0640 UTC) from LC-39A at Kennedy Space Center, FL on October 31, 2020.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
