On the heels of SpaceX’s last launch of 2021, which rounded out a record-breaking year and marked the 100th successful Falcon booster landing, the time has come to look at what the new year might hold for the world’s most prolific commercial launch provider and its workhorse rockets.
Thanks in part to a number of delays that pushed a significant portion of SpaceX’s planned 2021 launches into next year, the company’s 2022 launch manifest is bigger than any other year in its already impressive history. In 2021, having completed 31 orbital launches, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 was the single most launched rocket in the world – beating out several Russian and Chinese rockets operated by each country’s national space agency. On its own, Falcon 9 launched six more times than the entire country of Russia.
However, despite how impressive SpaceX’s performance was this year, all evidence suggests that 2022 could see almost twice as many Falcon launches as 2021.
That information comes from unofficial manifests maintained by fans and followers, who collate dozens of different reports, press releases, and rumors to create a rough picture of upcoming launch plans. Of course, the farther away any given launch is; the more likely it will be significantly delayed. Even official information from SpaceX itself would not be able to accurately predict how many launches it will conduct over a year or more, but the manifests are still useful tools for rough predictions.
In general, short of a major launch failure grounding a given rocket or some other unforeseen catastrophe (2021’s semiconductor supply issues, for example), unofficial manifests have been maybe 60-80% accurate. In the case of 2022, two such well-maintained manifests agree that SpaceX has approximately 40 launches currently scheduled next year – including up to 5 Falcon Heavy missions and at least 35 Falcon 9 launches. SpaceX has never had more launches scheduled in a single year. Simultaneously, after SpaceX’s 2021 performance, 2022 is the first time it’s been possible to seriously believe that the company might actually be able to complete 40 commercial launches in one year. And even then, that figure is still only part of the story.
Starlink
In 2021, SpaceX completed 17 successful dedicated Starlink missions, launching just shy of 1000 satellites – 989 to be exact – in a single year. In the first five months of 2021, before unknown issues caused an unintended Starlink launch hiatus, SpaceX completed 13 of those dedicated Starlink launches. In other words, if satellite production had kept up with SpaceX’s Falcon fleet, the company was technically on track to complete more than 30 Starlink launches in a single year, which – combined with all other missions – would have amounted to a total of 43 launches in 2021.
That specificity is important because – save for a single Starlink mission – the ~40 commercial launches on SpaceX’s 2022 manifest entirely exclude Starlink launches. Given that skipping or intentionally throttling a full year of Starlink launches is simply out of the question for SpaceX, that means that the company has approximately 40 commercial missions to launch on top of one or two dozen potential Starlink V1.5 missions. Assuming that Starlink V1.5 production remains somewhat constrained relative to Starlink V1.0, which peaked at an implied average of more than 1800 satellites per year in H1 2021, it might be reasonable to expect up to 20 (rather than 30) Starlink V1.5 launches in 2022 if production remains steady.
Combined, that means that SpaceX’s nominal 2022 manifest might actually include up to 60 Falcon launches. The question, then, is whether there is any chance at all for SpaceX to actually complete an average of more than one launch per week next year. Conveniently, SpaceX itself seemingly answered that question just this month. In December 2021, the company – pushing all three of its orbital pads to their limits – completed a record five Falcon 9 launches. Technically, it actually completed those five launches in a mere 19 days. Including NASA’s DART mission, which SpaceX launched on November 24th, the company ultimately launched six Falcon 9 rockets in less than four weeks (27 days).
Given the company’s recent cadence records and the turnaround records of each of the three pads used to achieve them, it’s clear that SpaceX could technically repeat that feat – a burst of five launches in 3-4 weeks – every month. Obviously, that’s easier said than done and it’s inherently unlikely for a record-breaking monthly launch cadence to become the norm immediately after, but the achievement still demonstrates that SpaceX is technically capable of launching five times in three weeks and then being ready to do so again by the start of the next month.
Averaged over 2022, 5 launches per month would equate to 60 launches per year. In other words, while unlikely, it’s by no means impossible for SpaceX to replicate 2021’s Starlink launch cadence and simultaneously complete as many as 40 commercial launches. In reality, a more plausible outcome for 2022 might be 5-10 commercial launches slipping into 2023 and SpaceX ultimately completing around 30-35 commercial launches and ~15 dedicated Starlink missions for a total of 45-50 – still an extraordinary hypothetical achievement by any measure. Going off of recent trends, which have seen SpaceX’s annual cadence grow from 21 (2018) and 26 (2020) to 31 (2021), 35-40 launches would be a still more conservative estimate for 2022.
Regardless, even excluding Starship, the year is set to be quite the spectacle for SpaceX. The 40 commercial missions tentatively on the company’s manifest include two Crew Dragon NASA astronaut launches, one or two private Crew Dragon missions to the International Space Station, up to 3 commercial Moon landers, a Korean Moon orbiter, NASA’s Psyche asteroid explorer, and as many as five or six Falcon Heavy launches.
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
