News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk claims Starship will be ready for first orbital launch in July
CEO Elon Musk claims that SpaceX could be ready to attempt Starship’s first orbital launch as early as July.
While SpaceX has been making slow and steady progress preparing the Starship upper stage and Super Heavy booster nominally assigned to that launch debut, the odds that even just one of those two stages will be fully qualified for flight before the end of July are quite small. Musk’s claims about what will happen after that rocket is ready are even loftier.
According to Musk, after SpaceX is done preparing a Starship and Super Heavy booster for their inaugural orbital launch attempt sometime “next month,” the company will have a second ship and booster pair “ready to fly in August” and another pair every month after that. If SpaceX rapidly completes the dozens of environmental mitigations assigned to it on June 13th and receives an FAA license or experimental permit for orbital Starship launches, the company does theoretically have permission for five orbital launches out of South Texas in 2022, but the same is also true for all 12 months of 2023.
However, there is very little evidence that SpaceX is on the cusp of being able to complete a new orbital-class Starship and Super Heavy booster every month. While SpaceX is working on future Starships and is almost done assembling a second orbital-class Super Heavy booster, the pace of that work appears to be about the same as it’s been for the last 12+ months. Yes, SpaceX is almost done stacking Booster 8 and has begun stacking Ship 25. Sections of Ship 26, Ship 27, and Booster 9 have also been spotted at Starbase. But SpaceX has been unable to finish stacking Booster 8 over the last few months it’s been focused on Ship 24 and Booster 7.
Ship 24 and Booster 7, meanwhile, are making good progress but are still incomplete. Both recently completed several mostly successful cryogenic and structural proof tests and returned to SpaceX’s assembly bays, where workers have begun installing Raptor engines and applying finishing touches.
After a month of work, it appears that Super Heavy B7 may finally be preparing to return to Starbase’s launch site on Thursday, June 16th. Since it returned to the factory on May 14th, SpaceX has been installing 33 new Raptor 2 engines, applying thermal protection to those engines, buttoning up the booster’s aft end, installing control surfaces known as grid fins, and completing a few other unfinished tasks. If all of that work is complete when it rolls out again, B7 could kick off the next phase of its qualification testing – wet dress rehearsals and static fires – shortly after returning to the orbital launch site.
SpaceX has never attempted a full-scale Super Heavy wet dress rehearsal, in which the largest rocket booster ever built will be fully filled with more than three thousand metric tons of flammable cryogenic propellant and put through a simulated launch countdown. SpaceX has also never come close to conducting a full Super Heavy static fire, though it did fire three outdated Raptors on an outdated booster prototype a single time in July 2021.
Ship 24’s position is slightly more favorable, as it only needs six Raptor 2 engines installed. Thanks to Ship 20, which successfully completed several wet dress rehearsals and several static fires that ignited all six engines, Ship 24 will also be heading into terrain that is slightly less uncharted. Still, the Starship’s heat shield needs several hundred more tiles installed, one of four flap aerocover ‘caps’ is missing, and thermal protection will need to be installed around its Raptors.
Once Booster 7 and Ship 24 are both fully outfitted and installed on their respective test stands, there’s still little reason to believe that either prototype has any chance of completing all the tests needed for flight qualification by the end of July. In fact, for B7 and S24 to be truly ready for flight before the end of July, they’d likely need to wrap up qualification testing well before the end of the month to conduct another series of tests after the pair is fully stacked. If SpaceX does not proceed with at least some degree of caution and a plan to thoroughly test both stages before a launch attempt, it will significantly increase the risk of catastrophic launch pad damage that could easily take half a year or more to fix.
More realistically, it’s reasonable to assume that Ship 24 and Booster 7 will both run into some minor issues during their first wet dress rehearsals and static fire tests, possibly requiring Raptor replacements or even minor repairs. Instead of a few weeks, serious flight qualification could take a few months. It’s also arguably far likelier that one or both stages will need to be entirely replaced by Ship 25 or Booster 8 than it is that both will be ready to launch six weeks from now. Both Booster 4 and Ship 24 suffered some degree of damage during proof tests that are in many ways much easier than the wet dress and static fire tests they’ll soon face.
Still, despite the many reasons for pragmatism and expectation management, SpaceX has never been closer to Starship’s orbital launch debut, and the odds of that debut occurring sometime in 2022 have never been better.
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
