News
SpaceX’s next commercial Falcon Heavy launch to carry Astranis rideshare satellite
Geostationary satellite communications startup Astranis has decided to move its first operational satellite launch from a SpaceX Falcon 9 to a Falcon Heavy, effectively securing the massive rocket its first commercial rideshare payload.
While not technically Falcon Heavy’s first rideshare payload and not the rocket’s first commercial rideshare launch contract, Astranis’ first 400 kg (~900 lb) MicroGEO satellite nevertheless appears set to become the first commercial rideshare payload to actually fly on the world’s largest operational rocket. Not all that dissimilar to Starlink in scope and its desire to disrupt a stagnant industry, Astranis wants to offer global communications services providers a different route to geostationary internet and broadcast solutions. Unlike SpaceX’s constellation, the startup’s MicroGEO satellites are designed for geostationary orbits ~36,000 km (~22,200 mi) above Earth’s surface and more than 60 times higher than Starlink.
However, like Starlink satellites, MicroGEO will feature exceptional density (throughput per kilogram), weighing a magnitude less than average modern geostationary communications satellites while still offering up to 10 Gbps of bandwidth. Expected to cost around $40M apiece compared to ~$100M+ for most traditional offerings, the value proposition of small Astranis satellites with 5-10 times less bandwidth admittedly gets a bit blurrier, but the company should still offer a viable alternative for companies and countries that just don’t need a massive satellite.
For example, Astranis’ first customer and the buyer behind the first MicroGEO satellite – known as Aurora 4A – is Pacific Dataport, a company focused on delivering connectivity throughout Alaska – one of the most remote and sparsely populated places on Earth. That combination of attributes makes providing broadband communication services spectacularly difficult and satellite internet the perfect (and, to an extent, the only viable) solution. However, a full $100M+ geostationary communications satellite with 50-100+ Gbps of bandwidth would likely far outweigh the needs of Alaska’s ~730,000 residents – especially when most Alaskans live in the state’s few large cities, most of which already have passable internet connectivity.
As such, it’s easy to see why a small but high-performance geostationary satellite like the kind Astranis offers might be a perfect fit for an Alaskan internet provider. While low Earth orbit (LEO) constellations like OneWeb and SpaceX’s Starlink do offer far more bandwidth and a user experience potentially as good or better than a wired connection almost anywhere on Earth, both companies first have to launch hundreds or thousands of satellites to ensure continuous coverage. Both Starlink and OneWeb are a ways away from offering continuous coverage in polar regions.
Geostationary satellites – especially those as small as Aurora 4A – offer a significant shortcut, requiring just a single satellite and ground stations in one or a few very specific regions to fully complete a communications network. Of course, thanks to universal limits posed by the speed of light, geostationary internet customers end up saddled with extreme latency (ping on the order of 300-1000ms) and strict individual bandwidth limits. But in places like Alaska, where there can easily be no alternative for the most rural residents, Astranis – or just about anything – could bring welcome relief.
Now, Astranis says it has moved the first MicroGEO satellite from a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket to rideshare payload on Falcon Heavy’s upcoming ViaSat-3 launch, scheduled no earlier than Q2 2022. According to the startup, doing so will allow the tiny satellite to begin operations over Alaska mere days or a few weeks after launch, saving months of orbit-raising thanks to Falcon Heavy’s performance. That’s only possible because, as the Astranis press release also revealed, Falcon Heavy is scheduled to launch the 6.4 ton (~14,100 lb) ViaSat-3 and 400 kg (~900 lb) Aurora 4A satellites directly to geostationary orbit (GEO). If Falcon Heavy’s upcoming USSF-44 mission launches on schedule next month, ViaSat-3 will be SpaceX’s second direct-to-GEO mission ever and the company’s first for a commercial customer.
Assuming SpaceX is still able to recover two – or even all three – of Falcon Heavy’s side boosters while launching almost 7 tons (~15,500 lb) of satellites directly to GEO, it will also demonstrate just how much of a force to be reckoned with it really is, well and truly leaving competitors ULA and Arianespace with nowhere to hide on the open market.
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
