News
DeepSpace: SpaceX takes huge step towards Mars with flawless Crew Dragon performance
This is a free preview of DeepSpace, Teslarati’s new member-only weekly newsletter. Each week, I’ll be taking a deep-dive into the most exciting developments in commercial space, from satellites and rockets to everything in between.
If you’d like to receive DeepSpace and all of our newsletters and membership benefits, you can become a member for as little as $3/month here.
While the mission is not done just yet, SpaceX is days away from (hopefully) wrapping up an extraordinarily smooth debut of its newest spacecraft, a human-rated vehicle known as Crew Dragon. Assuming no anomalous behavior during reentry, descent, and landing this Friday, SpaceX will likely be less than six months away from launching its first astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), the most important step yet towards offering reliable and routine transport to Earth orbit and ultimately between Earth and Mars.
Founded by Elon Musk to kickstart a stagnant space industry and drive humanity to become an interplanetary species, SpaceX is in the process of building the first full-scale prototype(s) of the launch vehicle (Super Heavy) and spacecraft (Starship) it believes will deliver on those promises. Along with countless programmatic and technical lessons learned, every conceivable aspect of Crew Dragon’s development will feed directly into SpaceX’s development of Starship, meant to one day safely transport and land as many as 100 passengers on the surface of Mars.
A spacefaring civilization, one step at a time
In the process of building Crew Dragon, SpaceX has been forced to become rising experts in fields like human-rated environmental control and life support systems (ECLSS), as well as ensuring an even more extreme level of redundancy and reliability compared with SpaceX’s already high standards for their uncrewed Falcon rockets and Cargo Dragon spacecraft.
- More so than any particular piece of technology present on Crew Dragon, the process of both cooperating and grappling with NASA to build the spacecraft to high standards and ‘certify’ it has hopefully had an extremely positive impact on SpaceX’s own engineers and company-wide standards, albeit potentially at the cost of some of the willingness to take risks and move quickly.
“I’m personally convinced that this has made, certainly, SpaceX better, to have NASA guide us, and to look at requirements, and to try to question requirements, and what’s the true reason behind those requirements, and then basically comply with the overall safety culture that NASA taught us, I would say, to some extent. And so I feel like it certainly made a better SpaceX and made better engineers out of the SpaceX engineers. And I really appreciate that very much.”
-Hans Koenigsman, Vice President of Mission Assurance, SpaceX
Feet in Earth orbit, head in the Martian clouds
- Regardless, the end result will ultimately be a reliable spacecraft capable of transporting an average of 4-7 astronauts to and from the ISS, whether that end result is the result of near-perfect execution the first time around or discovering and fixing problems during flight tests.
- Compared to NASA, SpaceX prefers a radically agile approach to development, meaning that the company will rapidly build, test, and fly iterations of the same hardware of software, beginning with the minimum viable product and ending (although improvement never really ends) with an advanced solution optimized by extensive lessons learned.
- Through the process of building Crew Dragon, SpaceX has hopefully absorbed most of the valuable lessons and practices NASA can often be rich with while rejecting the unhealthy and unsuccessful tendencies that contribute to NASA’s distinctly unimpressive modern efforts to build human-rated rockets (SLS) and spacecraft (Orion, Space Shuttle).
- With that knowledge and technical experience, SpaceX may already have an extremely strong foundation upon which it can build its next-gen spacecraft, Starship. In theory, Crew Dragon’s life support system – meant to support up to 7 astronauts with extreme reliability and safety – should be able to scale up to ECLSS fit for dozens or hundreds of passengers.
- In a worst-case scenario relative to mass efficiency, SpaceX could quite literally package Crew Dragon’s ECLSS system into a module and duplicate it as many times as needed for a given Starship crew. Identical modules could then be transported in a cargo bay for any structures built on the surface of Mars or the Moon.
- Understandably, Crew Dragon does not need a significant number of systems critical for longer stays in space, as it is only designed to support humans for approximately one week in free-flight. SpaceX will still need to develop extremely efficient recycling systems, used to recycle water, oxygen, and other consumables to extend the amount of time the ISS (or Starship/Mars colonies) can operate without external supply deliveries.
- In essence, recycling technology is roughly (or sometimes exactly) equivalent to something known as in-situ resource utilization (ISRU), basically prioritizing local resources over shipped goods. A small subset of SpaceX’s future projects team has been working on ISRU – particularly Sabatier reactors for Starship refueling on Mars – for several years.
- In late 2017, Elon Musk stated that the design and development of SpaceX’s own ISRU hardware were “pretty far along.”
Mission Updates:
- SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft will attempt its first orbital-velocity reentry and Atlantic Ocean splashdown on the morning of Friday, March 8th.
- The second launch of Falcon Heavy could occur as early as late March
- Aside from DM-1 and Falcon Heavy Flight 2, it’s unclear what SpaceX mission will happen next. DM-1 may be the only SpaceX launch in March, while several missions are tentatively scheduled for April and May.
Photos of the week:
B1051 returned to Port Canaveral three days after successfully sending Crew Dragon on its first orbital mission. Thanks to the relatively low-energy trajectory and gentle reentry, SpaceX should be able to refurbish the booster extremely quickly.(c. Tom Cross, Pauline Acalin)
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
