News
SpaceX gears up for Crew Dragon’s first recovery with a giant inflatable cushion
Paired with observations and comments from sources familiar with the company, all signs seem to indicate that SpaceX is planning to recover their first Crew Dragon spacecraft with a giant inflatable cushion, to be towed a hundred or so miles off the coast of California by one of the company’s Port of LA-stationed recovery vessels.
Despite a minor mishap during some sort of inaugural sea-trial of a custom Crew Dragon mass simulator, SpaceX technicians are pushing ahead with a test campaign intended properly characterize exactly how to best recover a Dragon while side-stepping around the problems caused by seawater immersion.
Inside the clean room at SpaceX HQ, Crew Dragon is nearing completion. This will be the capsule to make the first crewed flight, currently slated for April 2019.#spacex #CrewDragon @Teslarati pic.twitter.com/tjzuwfGV2O
— Pauline Acalin (@w00ki33) August 16, 2018
Why recover your Dragon?
First off, why would SpaceX choose to develop a new method of Dragon recovery – different than the company’s current experience with simply landing the capsules in the ocean – with the expectation that it will debut during the recovery of Crew Dragon after its very first demonstration mission (DM-1)? A huge number of unknowns and major questions remain, but the decision to attempt to avoid seawater immersion during the DM-1 Dragon recovery is very likely no coincidence.
Over the last several years, SpaceX engineers and technicians have learned a huge amount from recovering, refurbishing, and even reusing Cargo Dragons to resupply the International Space Station for NASA. Of all the lessons learned, the most unequivocal has to be a newfound appreciation for just how difficult it is to safely and reliably reuse spacecraft and rocket components after landing and being immersed in seawater. Despite SpaceX’s growing experience with reusing both Falcon 9 and Cargo Dragon, Dragons still typically require a bare minimum of 6-12 months of refurbishment before they are ready for another launch.
-
- SpaceX’s CRS-13 Cargo Dragon, capsule C108, seen near the end of its refurbishment. (SpaceX)
-
- A reused orbital spacecraft, Cargo Dragon, back on Earth after its second successful resupply mission. (SpaceX)
-
- All Crew and Cargo Dragons are built and refurbished in the same processing facility, a clean-room inside SpaceX’s Hawthorne, CA factory. (SpaceX)
For Crew Dragon’s DM-1 debut, it thus makes sense that SpaceX wants to recover the spacecraft in such a way that it is exceptionally easy to rapidly refurbish. Perhaps just several months after that capsule returns to Earth, currently expected no earlier than December 2018, SpaceX’s first crewed Crew Dragon demonstration’s tentative April 2019 launch debut will depend entirely on the completion and review of an In-Flight Abort (IFA) test planned just one month prior, March 2019.
The planned IFA test of Crew Dragon hinges entirely on DM-1 and Dragon refurbishment because the present plan (and launch schedule) absolutely depends on reflying DM-1’s Crew Dragon capsule, potentially recovered from orbit as few as three months prior.
With a successful 2015 Pad Abort already under Crew Dragon’s belt, SpaceX voluntarily chose to conduct an additional complimentary in-flight abort not explicitly required by NASA, designed to demonstrate that Dragon will be able to safely extract astronauts from a failing rocket at the point of peak aerodynamic pressure (Max-Q). Essentially, a combination of successful aborts both on the launch pad and during Max-Q would theoretically demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that Crew Dragon really is capable of safely aborting a launch and protecting its astronauts at any point during launch.
Cargo Dragon has demonstrated that – apparently – no amount of heroics can refurbish the recovered spacecraft in just a small handful of months after seawater immersion, not without major changes to its design. As such, preventing that with some sort of inflatable cushion (or even Mr Steven’s net) would likely save many months of drying, cleaning, and requalification testing of all externally impacted components.
-
- Cargo Dragon returns to Earth looking rather well-done. (SpaceX)
-
- The first spaceworthy Crew Dragon capsule is already in Florida, preparing for its November 2018 launch debut. The same capsule will be refurbished and reflown as few as three months after recovery. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule C203 – then assigned DM-2 – is seen here in August 2018. (Pauline Acalin)
How to recover your Dragon
While the “why” is fairly obvious at this point, the “how” of actually making such a cushioned recovery happen is far less clear. Still, we at least know from several recent comments from SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and statements made in environmental impact analyses that the company has been considering such recoveries for some time.
Despite the fact that Crew Dragon’s original propulsive landing capability was nixed due to the unlikelihood of NASA ever certifying it for crewed landings and the expense required to attempt that certification, there is still clearly some latent interest (and value) in precisely landing Crew Dragon, even if only to speed up capsule and crew recovery after splashdown. A March 2018 preliminary environmental impact analysis of Gulf of Mexico Dragon recoveries – as a backup to bad weather in the Pacific and Atlantic – made the interest in precision exceptionally clear.
“The splashdown zone is a circle with a radius of approximately 5.4 nautical miles. … Dragon has been designed to perform precision landings in order to minimize the size of the splashdown zone and recovery time.”
Admittedly, a circle with a diameter of 10.8 nautical miles (20 km) does not exactly scream “precision” and ~20 km is likely around a thousand times less precise than what’s needed to land on the 30m-diameter inflatable structure present at Berth 240, but it’s probable that the splashdown zone as discussed is a worst-case scenario meant to give SpaceX’s recovery team plenty of wiggle room.
-
- Crew Dragon was originally designed with propulsive landings in mind, much like Falcon 9’s booster recovery. (SpaceX)
-
- In place of propulsive landing, it appears that a giant inflatable cushion is the new solution for quick reuse. (Pauline Acalin)
Musk also took a few seconds of a Falcon Heavy post-launch press conference to briefly describe Mr Steven, and he just so happened to touch on fairing and Dragon recovery:
“And we’ve got a special boat to catch the fairing. … It’s like a giant catcher’s mitt in boat form. I think we might be able to do the same thing with Dragon. So…if NASA wants us to, we can try to catch Dragon. Literally, it’s meant for the fairing, but it would work for Dragon, too.” – Elon Musk
Mr Steven takes one for the team
Even more experimental than fairing recovery, SpaceX happened to experience a minor incident while attempting to test aspects of its prototype Dragon catcher apparatus in early August. Partially captured by Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin, SpaceX technicians were lifting a Crew Dragon heatshield mass simulator with a healthy topping of buoys onto Mr Steven. Moments after it was lowered onto the deck, the whole setup disappeared below the vessel’s side rails in a massive boom.
-
- The Crew Dragon mass simulator is loaded onto Mr Steven for the first time, August 3rd. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Shortly after touchdown, the mass sim disappeared with a deafening boom, presumably breaking through Mr Steven’s wooden deck. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- SpaceX technicians lift a Crew Dragon mass simulator off of Mr Steven’s deck after accidentally breaking it. (Pauline Acalin)
According to sources familiar with SpaceX’s recovery fleet, the mishap was much less severe than the deafening noise it produced seemed to indicate from the sidelines. They described the aftermath as “an annoying accident” that was unlikely to take any significant amount of time to repair. More likely than not, Mr Steven’s wooden deck suffered some level of structural degradation after several years of active use, something that SpaceX technicians only discovered after loading (or maybe dropping) a heavy Dragon mass simulator aboard.
Regardless, one could certainly say that the test in question was more or less a success, as it most certainly demonstrated whether Mr Steven’s deck was actually capable of supporting the heavy test article (it was not). A few repairs and structural reinforcements later, the vessel is likely already back in working order, with photos taken on August 19th showing that the focus has returned to the vessel’s arms (two of which must have been removed earlier this week).
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
