News
SpaceX still an option for future Amazon internet satellite launches, says Senior VP
An Amazon executive says that the company could still call on SpaceX to launch some of its Project Kuiper internet satellites after two of the three unproven rockets it purchased announced launch delays days apart.
Amazon began work on Project Kuiper in 2018. When SpaceX CEO Elon Musk fired several senior employees overseeing the company’s Starlink satellite internet program for being overly cautious, at least two of those employees immediately landed in senior positions at Project Kuiper. Four years later and more than two years after Amazon received an FCC license to deploy its 3,236-satellite Project Kuiper constellation, which aims to compete directly with SpaceX’s Starlink, the company’s first prototype satellite launch has changed rockets and slipped from late 2022 to early 2023.
Of the 77 firm launch contracts Amazon has signed since April 2021, only nine are for a rocket – United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) Atlas V – that has already successfully flown. The remaining 68 (and another 15 exercisable options) are spread among ULA’s Vulcan Centaur, Arianespace’s Ariane 6, and Blue Origin’s New Glenn, all of which are months away from their first launch attempts.
On October 10th, ULA CEO Tory Bruno told reporters that Vulcan Centaur’s launch debut had slipped from its latest late-2022 target to no earlier than (NET) “early 2023.” Garnering 38 of 77 firm contracts, Vulcan is the single most important rocket for Amazon’s Project Kuiper plans and is likely expected to launch close to half of all Kuiper satellites.
Nine days later, Ariane Group and the European Space Agency (ESA) announced that Ariane 6’s launch debut had also slipped from a late-2022 target. Unlike Vulcan’s gentle early-2023 slip, Ariane 6’s debut was pushed to late 2023 at the earliest, and ESA and Ariane officials frankly admitted that that could easily become 2024. Excluding options, Ariane 6 won 18 Project Kuiper launch contracts and is the constellation’s second most important rocket.
Because Amazon applied for its Project Kuiper license so early, a six-year countdown started when the FCC approved its license in July 2020. If Amazon fails to launch half of its 3,236 satellites within six years of that receipt, the FCC could revoke Kuiper’s constellation license. While it’s unlikely that the FCC would actually revoke the license of a constellation that’s close to achieving its deployment milestones, the deadline still emphasizes just how far Amazon and its suppliers are falling behind.
Vulcan, Ariane 6, and Project Kuiper prototype launch delays have only worsened an already challenging situation. In addition to the rocket’s long-awaited debut, ULA has major obligations to NASA and the US military, who expect Vulcan to complete up to four more launches in 2023. Unless ULA pulls off a minor miracle, it’s unlikely that Vulcan will be able to launch five times in its first year of service. Respectively, ULA’s Atlas V and Delta IV rockets took 2.5 and 3.5 years to reach that milestone. If ULA’s past record serves as a reasonable guide for its future, it’s possible that Vulcan Centaur won’t have the spare capacity to begin Project Kuiper launches until 2025.
The same is arguably true for Ariane 6, which has an even busier manifest – all of which may be delayed to 2024. Of Arianespace’s two most recent rockets, Ariane 4 took 14 months and Ariane 5 took 53 months to complete their first five fully successful launches. Ariane 6 borrows heavily from Ariane 5’s design. Unless Arianespace gets off to a record-breaking start or prioritizes Amazon over ESA and other European operators, an almost unthinkable scenario, it’s difficult to imagine that Ariane 6 will have the spare capacity to begin Project Kuiper launches before 2025 or 2026.
Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket, which is years behind schedule and unlikely to debut before late 2023 or 2024, might ironically be Amazon’s best bet for the first dedicated Project Kuiper launch, but only if its debut is near-flawless and doesn’t slip any further. Given that New Glenn will be Blue Origin’s first orbital rocket of any kind, more delays and issues (if not an outright failure) on the first launch are likely. New Glenn is thus also unlikely to be ready to launch large batches of Project Kuiper satellites until 2024 or 2025. Given the record of its suborbital New Shepard rocket, the odds are also against Blue Origin quickly ramping up the cadence of a far more complex orbital launch vehicle.
Only Atlas V appears to have any significant chance of beginning large-scale Project Kuiper launches before 2025. But ULA is shutting down Atlas V production to transition to Vulcan, so it’s impossible for Amazon to order more than nine of the rockets, as ULA.
Unfortunately for Amazon, in addition to the many rocket-side issues facing Project Kuiper, its satellite prototype delays will make it even harder for the company to begin large-scale launches sooner than later. SpaceX, now the proud owner of a majority of all working satellites in orbit, took around 21 months to go from launching its first two prototypes to its first batch of 60 operational Starlink satellites. The satellite design it settled on was almost nothing like the first two prototypes.
If Amazon’s first prototypes launch on Vulcan’s early-2023 debut, perform excellently, meet or exceed expectations after just a few months of testing, and are close to the final satellite design, Project Kuiper may still have a shot at manufacturing enough satellites to fill one or more launches in 2024. But if its first satellites run into major issues, Amazon’s decision to “[bring] up manufacturing of…production satellites [in parallel with prototype development]” could set it back months if it’s forced to redesign its satellites, find new suppliers, or significantly change the factory it’s already building.
Combined, Project Kuiper finds itself in an unenviable position. It’s thus unsurprising that as of October 2022, an Amazon executive appears to have changed their tune about using SpaceX rockets. Over the last ~13 months, SpaceX has become the single most productive launch provider in the world, besting the entire nation of China. On a quarterly basis, SpaceX now launches more useful mass to orbit than the rest of the world combined. It’s also the only launch provider on Earth that can create spare capacity for last-minute customers by shuffling its own internal launch demands.
According to Dave Limp, senior vice president of devices and services at Amazon, Project Kuiper is willing to consider taking advantage of some of SpaceX’s unprecedented capabilities after it shunned the company entirely in earlier contracts and statements. Speaking in a Washington Post Live interview, Limp says that Amazon is “open to contracting with anyone” and understands “that heavy launch capacity is [and will likely remain] pretty constrained” for years to come.
Unfortunately, Limp began by falsely asserting that Falcon 9 was too small to have warranted earlier launch contracts, stating that it’s “probably at the low end of…the capacity that we need.” In an expendable configuration, Falcon 9 can launch more than 22 tons (~48,500 lb) to low Earth orbit (LEO), while Ariane 6 is quoted at [PDF] 21.7 tons (~47,800 lb). While it hasn’t flown, SpaceX also offers an extended payload fairing that should more or less match Vulcan and Ariane 6’s largest fairings.
But Limp expressed interest in SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket, which could likely match or come close to the payload volume of Ariane 6 and Vulcan and far exceed either rocket’s performance to LEO. In a configuration that would allow SpaceX to recover all three of Falcon Heavy’s boosters, almost guaranteeing that it would cost less than Vulcan or Ariane 6, the rocket would likely be able to launch around 40-50 tons (90,000-110,000 lb) to LEO. The Amazon executive even brought up SpaceX’s next-generation Starship rocket as a more desirable option for future Project Kuiper launches. Starship is designed to launch anywhere from 100 to 150 tons to LEO, should cost even less than Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy, and will eventually feature a payload bay that dwarfs even New Glenn’s massive fairing.
Nonetheless, despite the promise of SpaceX, Amazon appears to be in no rush to hedge its bets on Vulcan, Ariane 6, and New Glenn. Only time will tell if its multi-billion-dollar gamble pays off.
Tesla Full Self-Driving is really good. I have used it for over 76 percent of my driving since FSD v14 launched around this time last year, equating to about 76 percent of my miles using the suite. It’s truly the only way I prefer to travel, but admittedly I save some of the more fun drives for myself.
Even with all of the great things it has done for me, including saving me from being involved in an accident, there are still a handful of things that it needs to improve on. These issues recur from update to update, and while there have been some improvements, they still give me reasons to either soft or hard intervene.
A soft intervention means an adjustment that is needed without disengaging the suite, like manually using a turn signal to change lanes while the car still operates on FSD. What I’d consider to be a “hard intervention” is anything that requires me to disengage the suite altogether, like missing a turn or performing a maneuver I’m uncomfortable with. Of course, some hard interventions will be subjective.
Here are the five things I’d like to see Tesla really focus on through the final versions of v14 and hope to see completely improved with v15.
Speed Limit Recognition and Adjustment
There are entirely too many instances of FSD traveling at a speed that is just totally outrageous. While some of these events can occur on Hurry Mode, I’ve even had issues with it on Standard from time to time, and despite wanting more aggressive maneuvers or a slight bit of urgency, I don’t want to worry about getting a ticket while doing it.
The two areas I notice it the most are in school zones and on local roads. When a Speed Limit changes from 45 to 35, FSD does not always slow down in a way that would appease local law enforcement. On Hurry, 52-55 is pretty standard for a rate of travel in a 45 MPH zone. When it changes to 35, FSD shows zero urgency to slow down to an appropriate speed.
School Zones have been a true pain point, and as recently as last week, I had an issue with it:
Threw FSD into Sloth to see how it handled this school zone. You can see well before I enter it, the car is traveling 34 MPH, one MPH under the limit.
Still not slowing down nearly enough.@Tesla_AI, not 25, not 30…15 MPH in School Zones https://t.co/YQuQ8ydhKh
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) September 29, 2026
Realistically, most Speed Limit issues are a soft intervention, as I simply scroll into a slower Speed Profile to get the car to slow down. School Zones are a hard intervention, as they require me to completely take over and travel at the posted 15 MPH limit. Even on Sloth, it simply does not get down to a low enough speed.
Parking
Parking is one thing that has really improved over time, but there are still some pretty considerable hoops Tesla needs to jump through to get it to a point where it can be unsupervised.
Parking preferences seem to be where a lot of these issues will be resolved, as most of my complaints come from the fact that the place FSD chooses to park are usually not where I would personally choose to park. This morning, for example, when I arrived at the gym, FSD chose to park next to a vehicle that was parked with its two tires in the spot that FSD picked.
This is a big reason Parking Preferences with Supervised FSD will be so valuable.
If possible, parking a little further away and being distant from people like this is worth it. https://t.co/3Ac71KQiQ3— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 7, 2026
There were three spots in between that car and the nearest car, so FSD could have chosen the spot that would have given a one-spot buffer between the two vehicles. In a parking lot full of empty spots, don’t be that guy who parks next to a car.
Generally, parking performance is vastly improved from where it was a year ago; I rarely am adjusting how it pulls or backs into a spot on v14.3.10, but in earlier versions, I definitely had my problems. It’s gotten really good since, and this version has been the best in terms of parking performance. It’s more about the places FSD choose to park, and not necessarily the parking itself.
There are also no options or map data to allow you to choose a charger at a place like a grocery store if it offers charging. These are things that are a bit more complex, but they will be needed for unsupervised FSD operation.
Navigation
Navigation was always going to be on this list, simply because it is one of the most inconsistent and mind-boggling things about FSD. Even after a year of intervening, sending voice notes, and overriding decisions, FSD still tries to take me out of my neighborhood the wrong way. You cannot turn left out of my neighborhood’s main entrance and exit, only right. Navigation still prompts a left turn out of my neighborhood’s main entrance and exit, instead of going around the neighborhood and exiting where a left turn is legal.
Tesla rolled out Preferred Routes with the Summer Update, and this has resolved some of the issues. I also found my own personal workaround:
🚨See if this cool Tesla Navigation Hack works for you!
I have used it to get out of my neighborhood legally with FSD, thus enabling completely hands-free drives! https://t.co/DlDsCQjxRI— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
Some of the more mind-boggling things that FSD used to do with Navigation have been remedied, but it is still a frequent complaint for me and many other owners. I’d just like to see it adopt those preferred routes more frequently and maybe learn them a little faster.
Certain Highway Behaviors
Highway travel is the most consistent and perhaps FSD’s best use case. There is nothing better than having FSD handle busy highway traffic or just long, monotonous, and boring drives. I love to use it for my trips to the Flight 93 Memorial where I volunteer. When I drove manually, I chose to get a hotel and stay overnight because it’s about a 2.5 hour drive. FSD lets me make the drive, put in a volunteering shift, and drive home, without much fatigue. I have found that this is where FSD is most valuable for me, personally.
However, there are a few things FSD does on the highway that are just weird.
One thing I’ve had issues with as of late is that there will be times when I’m about a mile from my exit, the car is in the left lane and is traveling faster than the traffic in the cruising late. Instead of completing a pass and then getting over with no traffic ahead, the car will sometimes drastically and suddenly slow down, switch to the slow lane, and get behind a vehicle — all with a mile until the exit. On average, I’ll have around one minute from the time I get to my exit if it’s a mile away, because in most cases, I’m traveling somewhere around 60 MPH on the highway.
There is no reason to not complete that last pass, then get into the right lane, and have an unobstructed path to the exit. This is one of the more strange behaviors I’ve seen it do, and it really does feel like a bug. Here’s an example of it from FSD v14.3.7:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.7 did nearly the exact opposite — nearly 2.5 miles before the exit it got over into the slow lane and got behind much slower traffic.
Now, v14.3.8, anecdotally, waited til the last minute to get off the highway https://t.co/Lc9vAKDyQC— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 29, 2026
I ended up overriding the turn signal and using the accelerator to nudge the car to do what I wanted it to do. There was no reason to get in the left lane and add to the congestion in that lane.
Another thing that FSD does frequently is camps in the left lane, especially on Hurry. Cruising in the passing lane is illegal in Pennsylvania, and I know it is not a crime to do that everywhere. However, it is here, and I really wish the car was a little quicker to get over in the left lane when it’s cruising.
Here’s a pretty drastic example I had just a couple weeks back:
Recognizing Drastic Changes in Road Condition
I think anyone who has ever used FSD knows that potholes are a huge issue, but so are large bumps or sudden changes in road condition. At the intersection of Kreutz Creek Rd. and Rt. 462 in Hellam, PA the roads are nearly set up as a ramp, and going over it at a speed of over 35 MPH can send your head into the glass roof, your butt off your seat, and a brace for the sudden thud that is inevitably coming when you finally touch back down again.
You can see here I tried to change Speed Profiles quickly, but I did it a tad too late:
This is that big bounce that I mentioned in the quoted post.
It’s just a tad too drastic to take at the speed FSD wants to go over it. You can see me quickly swipe down into Sloth, but I intervened. https://t.co/81Oc82ZJcZ— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 2, 2026
There are other roads in my area that should not be taken at even the posted Speed Limit because of the damage it could do to your car. Here’s another, where I disengaged FSD altogether:
🚨 I’ve talked in the past about my struggles with FSD when large bumps or sudden changes in sloping are approaching.
Today I tried switching down into Sloth from Standard but I did it a tad too late and I had to take over. You can see this isn’t a bump you take at 35 MPH https://t.co/f4tK13hsz1— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) September 6, 2026
The recognition of these bumps is so crucial for two main reasons: they can cause injury, and they can cause damage to the car. These are reasons why the suite is supervised and drivers should remain attentive. I could not imagine going over that bump at an excessive speed if I had back issues, or if I were older.
Potholes are rarely recognized and usually require a lead car to avoid them. I had FSD use a lead car to avoid a pretty sizeable manhole cover a few weeks back:
🚨 Interesting observation on FSD v14.3.8 – Make note of the van in front of me as it swerves out of the way of a sewer cover
FSD followed this behavior, but interestingly did not swerve for the next sewer coverWhat do we make of this? https://t.co/RO19941AIP
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) September 2, 2026
Tesla says that there are improvements coming for potholes, so hopefully that means these bumps will also be recognized consistently.
News
SpaceX just locked up a NASA record no other U.S. spacecraft can touch
SpaceX’s Crew-13 Dragon reached the ISS in under eight hours, and NASA confirmed a record.
SpaceX now owns every spot on the list of the five fastest trips a U.S. spacecraft has ever made to the International Space Station, and its newest entry beat the old mark by more than four hours.
Crew Dragon Grace docked to the forward port of the station’s Harmony module at 7:05 p.m. ET on October 1, just 7 hours and 55 minutes after lifting off from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral. NASA confirmed the milestone in a space station blog update, writing that the flight “marked the fastest launch‑to‑docking of a U.S. spacecraft in the history of the International Space Station.”
The previous U.S. record also belonged to Dragon. SpaceX’s uncrewed CRS-31 cargo mission reached the station in a little over 12 hours in November 2024. The fastest crewed trip before last week was Crew-11, which took 14 hours and 43 minutes in August 2025, according to Space.com.
A post that Elon Musk reposted on Monday filled out the rest of the ranking. Behind Crew-13, CRS-31 and Crew-11 sit Axiom’s Ax-2 mission at 15 hours and 35 minutes and NASA’s Crew-4 at 15 hours and 44 minutes. All five flew on Dragon.
SpaceX turned a heralding moment for Starship into its greatest
Crew-13 carried NASA astronauts Jessica Watkins and Luke Delaney, Canadian Space Agency astronaut Joshua Kutryk, and Roscosmos cosmonaut Sergey Teteryatnikov. NASA had projected a docking around 8 p.m. ET, as Teslarati reported the day before launch, and Dragon arrived nearly an hour early. Our launch day coverage noted that the flight was lined up to be the quickest Crew Dragon transit yet.
The speed came from timing more than hardware. SpaceX’s Julianna Scheiman said the station “was in an opportune spot in space,” which let Dragon start closing the gap almost immediately after reaching orbit. “This is close to the fastest it could be,” she added. Most Crew Dragon flights still take close to a day, using a series of Draco thruster burns to raise and phase their orbit before arrival.
Dragon’s next job at the station is a departure. NASA said Monday it is targeting 8:05 a.m. ET on Wednesday, October 7, for Crew-12 to undock, setting up a splashdown off the coast of California around 11:34 a.m. on Thursday. Clearing that port makes room for CRS-35, a cargo Dragon carrying the final set of iROSA solar arrays.
Dragon remains NASA’s only operational ride to the station while Boeing’s Starliner stays grounded, and the agency recently added Crew-15, Crew-16 and Crew-17 to SpaceX’s contract in a $946 million modification.
Elon Musk has acknowledged that early discussions with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) could bring the company into his ambitious Terafab semiconductor project, signaling a possible partnership with the world’s leading contract chipmaker.
Musk confirmed that early talks are underway, but as of right now, they are “just discussions.” There is no confirmation of a deal nor dismissal of the possibility of one, leaving open the prospect of one of the largest advanced-chip collaborations under discussion in the U.S.
@wholemars Just discussions, but something may come of it
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 3, 2026
The report that speculated on potential discussions between Terafab and TSMC comes from Tim Culpan, who outlined a few ways the collaboration could operate. One is TSMC using the project as an “anchor customer” for future facilities in Texas, potentially contributing process expertise, operational know-how, or capacity while Terafab provides capital, long-term purchase commitments, or both.
Tesla and SpaceX jointly developed the Terafab project, with Intel already participating on the tech side. Elon Musk announced the project in March, and it intends to produce more than one terawatt of AI compute capacity annually once fully built.
Company statements place the first phase at approximately $16.8 billion in cost, with later filings pointing to a total that could reach well into the tens of billions across multiple stages.
Intel joined the effort in April 2026 and is expected to supply its 14A manufacturing process for the full-scale plant.
Musk has said existing suppliers, including Samsung and TSMC, remain important for near-term needs; Tesla already has production arrangements with Samsung for AI5 and AI6 chips, but that future demand from Optimus robots, Cybercab vehicles, and planned space-based data centers will eventually exceed what the global industry can currently deliver.
Terafab is positioned as the long-term answer to that projected shortfall, and Tesla did something similar during COVID to avoid a chip shortage. This is just a much larger-scale solution.
If the partnership were to materialize, it would add TSMC’s industry-leading strategies to a project that already combines Tesla’s and SpaceX’s capital and offtake with Intel’s process technology. For now, the only public confirmation is Musk’s brief acknowledgement that conversations are occurring.
Tesla Full Self-Driving: five things that are keeping FSD supervised
SpaceX just locked up a NASA record no other U.S. spacecraft can touch
