News
SpaceX Falcon Heavy testing delayed after government shutdown
As the U.S. Senate’s majority party searches for ten additional votes in order to end a federal government shutdown that began late Saturday, all “non-essential” activities at the country’s numerous government-operated space launch facilities have ground to an immediate halt and will remain in limbo until a funding bill compromise is hammered out.
While SpaceX is a wholly private space launch company, it relies almost unilaterally upon launch support and range expertise provided by NASA and the US Air Force, both in Cape Canaveral, FL and Vandenberg, CA. Sadly, the Air Force personnel SpaceX depend upon to conduct launches, static fires, and other ignition tests at its launch pads are not considered “essential” under regulations that prevent the federal government from coming to a complete halt in the event of a funding-related shutdown.
Unfortunately, a budget agreement wasn't reached, resulting in a gov't shutdown. This will unfortunately disrupt the lives and operations here at Patrick AFB. Go to https://t.co/yvmNBH1LMy for info on the current shutdown, impact on base resources, & financial resource options.
— Space Launch Delta 45 (@SLDelta45) January 20, 2018
SpaceX did appear to complete the most thorough round of Falcon Heavy testing yet late Saturday evening, the US Senate’s failure to either pass a continuing resolution or a new funding bill for the fiscal year led to a complete federal government shutdown soon after. As a result, nearly all of the US Air Force’s 45th Space Wing – a crucial backbone of East coast range and launch operations – was furloughed indefinitely, pending new funding from Congress. SpaceX had previously requested a new static fire date for Falcon Heavy on Monday, January 22 (today), a date that is now clearly going to move right for at least as long as the government lacks funding for basic launch operations.
Thankfully, activities like the extensive propellant loading tests that occurred on Saturday night do not technically require range support, so long as no engine ignition or static fire components are included. In the event of a catastrophic failure, the government-run range would be tasked with ensuring the safety of those in the vicinity and coordinating the emergency response that would immediately follow. This policy is brought somewhat into question by the failure of Amos-6 – although that Falcon 9 was being prepared for a static fire test, its highly-destructive failure is understood to have occurred at least five or more minutes before the planned point of ignition. Nevertheless, SpaceX will be able to continue some level of testing with Falcon Heavy, if needed.
Elsewhere, instability
While SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy has undoubtedly garnered magnitudes more eyeballs than the company’s Falcon 9 activities, the government shutdown could be far more consequential for SpaceX’s customers if it cannot be halted within a handful of days. A federal shutdown lasting several days is a hugely disruptive and damaging event on its own, lack of range support on the East coast could quickly begin to eat into SpaceX’s GovSat-1 preparations, the launch of which is targeting NET late January/January 30. For GovSat-1’s flight-proven booster, a static fire at the launch site is unlikely to be bypassed (SpaceX has never skipped a prelaunch static fire), and would typically occur no fewer than four or five days before launch. As a result, in the somewhat unlikely event that the shutdown stretches beyond the next several days, SpaceX customers SES and GovSat could see their launch delayed, an event that would likely bring financial consequences to the public-private satellite venture.
Looking slightly farther into the future, SpaceX’s flight-proven launch of PAZ and two of its own prototype communications satellites is just about two weeks away from its own static fire test, this time at the West Coast’s Vandenberg Air Force Base. Such an extended shutdown would be utterly unprecedented, but if 2017 and 2018 have done anything at all, they’ve tempered tendencies towards knee-jerk claims of “that’ll never happen!”
-
- A panorama of LC-39A in November 2017. (Tom Cross/Teslarati)
-
- SpaceX’s Vandenberg launch complex, SLC-4E, depends upon an Air Force range to operate. (SpaceX)
-
- LC-40, located in Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, is SpaceX’s second pad. (Tom Cross)
Here’s to hoping that Congress can get their act together and return to those they represent the bare minimum of federal stability, for both federal employees and those that depend upon them.
Update: After a solid two days of shutdown, the Senate has apparently reached an agreement to pass a continuing resolution that will maintain funding for another three weeks, after which a new FY2018 budget must be passed to avoid another shutdown. While this thankfully means that the impact to the Space Coast and the Air Force’s 45th Space Wing should be relatively small, I have left my above thoughts on the potential impacts of a longer shutdown untouched for posterity.
Senate has voted on an amended bill to fund U.S. government for 3 weeks. Bill now heads back to the House for debate & vote. If it passes the House without changes, the President then needs to sign it into law. Once all those things happen, the government reopens. Then… 1/2
— Chris G (@ChrisG_SpX) January 22, 2018
Follow along live as launch photographer Tom Cross and I cover these exciting proceedings as close to live as possible.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Instagram
Eric Ralph – Twitter
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
