News
SpaceX ships Falcon 9 booster west for second California launch of 2019
A local resident spotted a SpaceX Falcon 9 booster heading west out of Florida, likely bound for the company’s SLC-4E Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) launch pad and second California launch of 2019.
Barring a surprise reassignment, the booster Joshuah Murrah caught is Falcon 9 B1051, on its way west some 50 days after successfully supporting Crew Dragon’s March 2nd launch debut. Despite the availability of B1046, B1047, and B1049, B1051 was assigned to the Canadian Space Agency’s (CSA) Radarsat Constellation Mission (RCM) shortly after landing aboard OCISLY, triggering major launch delays. The most logical explanation for customer CSA’s and satellite contractor Maxar Technologies’ curious decision is that they must believe that Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters with more than one launch in their past add more risk than those that do not.
According to an April 16th update from CSA, RCM’s launch was scheduled for no earlier than (NET) late May or early June, although word on the ground is that mid-to-late June is now a more likely target. Contrary to rumors of delays, B1051’s shipment west indicates that SpaceX has more or less completed the booster’s refurbishment, likely the easiest Falcon 9 Block 5 refurbishment yet thanks to its relatively slow and cool reentry after launching Crew Dragon.
B1051 returned to Pad 39A’s integration hangar around March 7th, where it spent approximately 50 days being inspected, refurbished, and prepared for cross-country transport. The booster departed Florida on April 26th and will likely arrive at VAFB around May 2nd. Even assuming a slow trip west and buggy preflight preparations, Falcon 9 should theoretically be ready to launch RCM no later than the third or fourth week of May, barring issues or production delays with the mission’s fairing or Falcon upper stage.
Given that Maxar/CSA chose B1051 at a cost of months of launch delays, they may have needs that far outstretch the normal demands of SpaceX’s private (non-government) customers, not out of the question given that CSA is a national space agency and RCM is a high-value (~$1B) science mission. Short of flying on a new Falcon 9 booster, B1051 does theoretically seem to offer the least risk of failure insofar as one can claim that boosters that have completed more launches are more likely to fail.
SpaceX would likely vehemently deny such a claim given their position that highly reusable rockets – much like aircraft – will actually become more reliable and trustworthy the more they launch. Both positions make sense in theory but theory falls flat in the face of actual data, of which only SpaceX and certain customers have access to.
As an external observer, the best data available is a binary public record of Falcon 9 launch success, as well as the degree to which missions are delayed beyond their scheduled launch targets. Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters have launched 16 times in 11 months, six of which used a flight-proven first stage. Flight-proven boosters appear to be a bit more finicky than unflown rockets in terms of late-stage launch delays, but the data is inconsistent and the sample size statistically insignificant. More generally, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy have launched 72 times in nine years and suffered two total failures, both caused by unflown upper stages. In 72 launches, including 20 missions with flight-proven boosters, a Falcon 9/Heavy first stage has never caused a total mission failure.
In short, it’s impossible to intuit any clear performance or reliability advantage without the sort of granular per-mission data that only SpaceX and privileged customers have access to. In general, Falcon 9 – reused or not – has consecutively completed 41 successful launches since its second and last mission failure in September 2016, half (49%) of which used flight-proven boosters. Of course, customers have every right to their own standards and expectations of quality and risk-reduction, but Falcon 9’s performance largely speaks for itself at this point – anything beyond its default record of mission assurance is just icing on the proverbial spaceflight cake.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk revealed today on the social media platform X that legacy automakers, such as Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis, do not want to license the company’s Full Self-Driving suite, at least not without a long list of their own terms.
“I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy,” Musk said on X. “When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless.”
I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy …
When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless. 🤷♂️
🦕 🦕
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 24, 2025
Musk made the remark in response to a note we wrote about earlier today from Melius Research, in which analyst Rob Wertheimer said, “Our point is not that Tesla is at risk, it’s that everybody else is,” in terms of autonomy and self-driving development.
Wertheimer believes there are hundreds of billions of dollars in value headed toward Tesla’s way because of its prowess with FSD.
A few years ago, Musk first remarked that Tesla was in early talks with one legacy automaker regarding licensing Full Self-Driving for its vehicles. Tesla never confirmed which company it was, but given Musk’s ongoing talks with Ford CEO Jim Farley at the time, it seemed the Detroit-based automaker was the likely suspect.
Tesla’s Elon Musk reiterates FSD licensing offer for other automakers
Ford has been perhaps the most aggressive legacy automaker in terms of its EV efforts, but it recently scaled back its electric offensive due to profitability issues and weak demand. It simply was not making enough vehicles, nor selling the volume needed to turn a profit.
Musk truly believes that many of the companies that turn their backs on FSD now will suffer in the future, especially considering the increased chance it could be a parallel to what has happened with EV efforts for many of these companies.
Unfortunately, they got started too late and are now playing catch-up with Tesla, XPeng, BYD, and the other dominating forces in EVs across the globe.
Tesla is backtracking on a strange adjustment it made to its in-car Navigation feature after numerous complaints from owners convinced the company to make a change.
Tesla’s in-car Navigation is catered to its vehicles, as it routes Supercharging stops and preps your vehicle for charging with preconditioning. It is also very intuitive, and features other things like weather radar and a detailed map outlining points of interest.
However, a recent change to the Navigation by Tesla did not go unnoticed, and owners were really upset about it.
For trips that required multiple Supercharger stops, Tesla decided to implement a naming change, which did not show the city or state of each charging stop. Instead, it just showed the business where the Supercharger was located, giving many owners an unwelcome surprise.
However, Tesla’s Director of Supercharging, Max de Zegher, admitted the update was a “big mistake on our end,” and made a change that rolled out within 24 hours:
The naming change should have happened at once, instead of in 2 sequential steps. That was a big miss on our end. We do listen to the community and we do course-correct fast. The accelerated fix rolled out last night. The Tesla App is updated and most in-car touchscreens should…
— Max (@MdeZegher) November 20, 2025
The lack of a name for the city where a Supercharging stop would be made caused some confusion for owners in the short term. Some drivers argued that it was more difficult to make stops at some familiar locations that were special to them. Others were not too keen on not knowing where they were going to be along their trip.
Tesla was quick to scramble to resolve this issue, and it did a great job of rolling it out in an expedited manner, as de Zegher said that most in-car touch screens would notice the fix within one day of the change being rolled out.
Additionally, there will be even more improvements in December, as Tesla plans to show the common name/amenity below the site name as well, which will give people a better idea of what to expect when they arrive at a Supercharger.
News
Dutch regulator RDW confirms Tesla FSD February 2026 target
The regulator emphasized that safety, not public pressure, will decide whether FSD receives authorization for use in Europe.
The Dutch vehicle authority RDW responded to Tesla’s recent updates about its efforts to bring Full Self-Driving (Supervised) in Europe, confirming that February 2026 remains the target month for Tesla to demonstrate regulatory compliance.
While acknowledging the tentative schedule with Tesla, the regulator emphasized that safety, not public pressure, will decide whether FSD receives authorization for use in Europe.
RDW confirms 2026 target, warns Feb 2026 timeline is not guaranteed
In its response, which was posted on its official website, the RDW clarified that it does not disclose details about ongoing manufacturer applications due to competitive sensitivity. However, the agency confirmed that both parties have agreed on a February 2026 window during which Tesla is expected to show that FSD (Supervised) can meet required safety and compliance standards. Whether Tesla can satisfy those conditions within the timeline “remains to be seen,” RDW added.
RDW also directly addressed Tesla’s social media request encouraging drivers to contact the regulator to express support. While thanking those who already reached out, RDW asked the public to stop contacting them, noting these messages burden customer-service resources and have no influence on the approval process.
“In the message on X, Tesla calls on Tesla drivers to thank the RDW and to express their enthusiasm about this planning to us by contacting us. We thank everyone who has already done so, and would like to ask everyone not to contact us about this. It takes up unnecessary time for our customer service. Moreover, this will have no influence on whether or not the planning is met,” the RDW wrote.
The RDW shares insights on EU approval requirements
The RDW further outlined how new technology enters the European market when no existing legislation directly covers it. Under EU Regulation 2018/858, a manufacturer may seek an exemption for unregulated features such as advanced driver assistance systems. The process requires a Member State, in this case the Netherlands, to submit a formal request to the European Commission on the manufacturer’s behalf.
Approval then moves to a committee vote. A majority in favor would grant EU-wide authorization, allowing the technology across all Member States. If the vote fails, the exemption is valid only within the Netherlands, and individual countries must decide whether to accept it independently.
Before any exemption request can be filed, Tesla must complete a comprehensive type-approval process with the RDW, including controlled on-road testing. Provided that FSD Supervised passes these regulatory evaluations, the exemption could be submitted for broader EU consideration.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk sends rivals dire warning about Full Self-Driving
Tesla backtracks on strange Nav feature after numerous complaints
