News
Elon Musk says a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket is about to be "destroyed in Dragon fire"
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has officially confirmed that the company’s next Falcon 9 launch will destroy the flight-proven booster and upper stage “in Dragon fire”, a cryptic reference to the ultimate purpose of the sacrifice.
Known as SpaceX’s In-Flight Abort (IFA) test, the mission is designed not to place any particular payload in orbit but to demonstrate that Crew Dragon – the company’s first human-rated spacecraft – can ensure astronaut safety even if faced with a worst-case scenario during launch. IFA will mark Crew Dragon’s second dedicated abort test and second launch on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, although the mission’s brand-new spacecraft will have to suffice with a suborbital jaunt before hopefully splashing down intact in the Atlantic Ocean.
If everything goes as planned, SpaceX has every intention of reusing the IFA Crew Dragon capsule on a future mission, although it’s unclear what that mission might look like. It’s unlikely that a reused SpaceX spacecraft will fly NASA astronauts anytime soon but it’s possible that the company will refurbish the vehicle for an entirely private astronaut launch or transform it into the first uncrewed launch of a next-generation Cargo Dragon (Dragon 2). Regardless, given the challenges posed by the In-Flight Abort, Crew Dragon’s survival is far from guaranteed.
Given that such an abort scenario is by definition a possibility, it’s likely the case that SpaceX’s engineers are almost certain that Crew Dragon should be able to survive such an ordeal, but the spacecraft will likely be pushed to its limits and it’s often much harder to ensure that everything works as intended at those limits.
In-Flight Abort by the numbers
Formerly scheduled to fly since-destroyed Crew Dragon capsule C201, SpaceX was forced to shuffle its spacecraft scheduling, reassigning Crew Dragon capsule C205 – originally expected to launch SpaceX’s first NASA astronaut mission – to support the In-Flight Abort. Featuring upgrades designed to prevent the failure mode that led to C201’s violent explosion, C205 will now have to survive a series of extremely challenging environments.
The IFA test is designed to prove that Crew Dragon can escape a failing Falcon 9 rocket during the most mechanically stressful point of launch. Occurring around 80-100 seconds after liftoff and known as Max Q, it’s the point where Falcon 9’s velocity and altitude combine to create the most friction and pressure the rocket’s windward parts will experience on their climb to orbit. For Crew Dragon, this means its SuperDraco abort engines will have to work fight upwards against air that is functionally (but not literally) much thicker than it is at other points during flight – a battle that will simultaneously put even more pressure (mechanical stress) on the spacecraft’s surfaces.
Purely from a numerical perspective, the pressure at Max Q is typically around 30-35 kPa (4.5-5 psi), which doesn’t sound like much but can easily become a force to be reckoned with when the surface area of the rocket or spacecraft being impacted is as large as Crew Dragon (let alone Starship). For reference, Crew Dragon capsules likely have a conical surface area on the order of 30,000 square inches (~19 m²), meaning that the spacecraft is subjected to a total mechanical load of 50-60 metric tons (~130,000 lbf) at Max Q.
Traveling as fast as Mach 2.5 (860 m/s) at an altitude of 28 kilometers (17 mi) at the point where Crew Dragon will ignite its abort thrusters and attempt to escape, that very act of escape will likely magnify the mechanical stresses on the capsule even further. During Crew Dragon’s 2015 Pad Abort, for example, the spacecraft went from a standstill to 155 m/s (345 mph) in 7 seconds – an average acceleration of about 2.3 Gs. Crew Dragon C205 could thus find itself traveling almost Mach 3 (more than a kilometer per second) just seconds after separating and may ultimately reach a peak altitude of almost 75 km (45 mi).
This is all to simply say that Crew Dragon is going to be subjected to an array of varying extremes in a very short period of time, during and after which it must still successfully control its orientation, avoid tumbling, detach its trunk section, and deploy a series of parachutes to achieve a fully-successful test. Additionally, the In-Flight Abort test will see Crew Dragon launch on an almost orbit-worthy Falcon 9 upper stage (lacking only a functional Merlin Vacuum engine) and thrice-flown booster B1046.
According to CEO Elon Musk, it simply is not going to be possible to prevent the historic booster – the first Falcon 9 Block 5 rocket ever launched – from being destroyed shortly after Crew Dragon attempts its escape. Once Dragon departs Falcon 9, the upper stage will likely be torn to shreds by the supersonic airstream suddenly buffeting it, ultimately exposing Falcon 9 B1046’s unchanged interstage – effectively a giant, open cylinder closed at its base.
Likely still travel supersonic, the results of the airstream entering Falcon 9’s interstage and finding no exit will likely be akin to a glass cup smashing mouth-first into a brick wall with a bowling ball taped to its bottom. Thankfully, Falcon 9 B1046 has already successfully supported three orbital-class launches since it debuted in May 2018, completing its third flight just seven months later. The booster will be missed and the opportunity cost (at least several more orbital-class launches) is definitely non-zero, but its sacrifice sill be for a good reason.
As Musk notes, if the In-Flight Abort goes as planned, it could pave the way for Crew Dragon’s first NASA astronaut launch – known as Demo-2 – as few as 6-8 weeks later. For now, Crew Dragon’s IFA test is scheduled to launch no earlier than (NET) January 18th, likely around 8 am EST (13:00 UTC).
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
