News
SpaceX attempts second Falcon fairing drop test with a helicopter and Mr. Steven
Following a few days of rest in port, SpaceX fairing recovery vessel Mr. Steven has continued a likely campaign of controlled drop tests with a second fairing recovery attempt, using a helicopter, spotter plane, and support vessel to pick up a Falcon fairing and drop it, theoretically allowing it to paraglide into Mr. Steven’s net.
While it’s nearly impossible to determine what happened without line-of-sight visual confirmation or an official announcement from SpaceX, it appears that Mr. Steven kicked off real catch attempts on October 11th, evidenced by his close interaction with a Blackhawk helicopter over the course of an hour or so. Another similar attempt occurred today, October 17th, and culminated with Mr. Steven returning once more to Port of San Pedro with the same test-focused fairing half on board, albeit not resting in his retracted net.
-
- SpaceX’s dedicated test fairing seen at Berth 240 on Oct. 15, a few days after its first apparent drop test. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Mr. Steven and a recent arrival, barge PTS 185. The fairing cradle on deck suggests that this is probably the platform helicopters grab the fairing half off of. (Pauline Acalin)
After October 11th’s testing was completed, Mr. Steven returned to Port of San Pedro. On October 13th, he was docked at SpaceX’s Berth 240 facilities with net lowered and the test fairing half wrapped up on the docks, preventing confirmation of whether he carried the fairing half back from the testing region. A mid-sized barge also recently appeared at Berth 240 with a distinct Falcon fairing cradle onboard, perhaps explaining the presence of a tugboat (named Sir Richard) a few miles away from where this test campaign has been stationed – a barge would offer a flat, safe surface for a helicopter to hover over and pick up an unwieldy object such as a payload fairing.
Nearly identical to the October 11th test, Mr. Steven, tug Sir Richard, a Cessna chase plane, and a Blackhawk helicopter all converged around 100 miles southwest of Port of Los Angeles around 2pm PDT on October 17th prior to beginning recovery test operations. Mr. Steven and the tug Sir Richard – likely towing a barge being temporarily used to move a fairing half – arrived several hours beforehand at the test’s planned location.
-
- As of late, SpaceX technicians and engineers have going through quite a range of activities related to fairing recovery. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- A gif demonstrates just how taut Mr Steven’s net can be, thanks to mechanized rigging. 08/13/18 (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Mr. Steven returned to Port of San Pedro around 7pm on October 8th after a day spent at sea, apparently with a Falcon fairing half in tow. This is the second known time that a fairing has been in Mr. Steven’s net. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- One half of SpaceX’s Iridium-6/GRACE-FO just moments before touchdown on the Pacific Ocean. (SpaceX)
Eventually, a UH-60A Blackhawk helicopter – the same helicopter used on October 11 – lifted off from Catalina Island’s Avalon airport, taking about half an hour to reach Mr. Steven and Sir Richard. Once there, the helicopter very distinctly slowed down, eventually hovering just ~20 feet off the surface of the ocean, if not outright landing or perching on the aforementioned barge under the tug’s control. After several minutes in that state, the Blackhawk lifted off and immediately began climbing, reaching a peak of ~11,000 ft before (presumably) dropping its fairing payload and immediately diving down to follow its descent.
It’s undoubtedly an imperfect fit, but the helicopter appeared to follow Mr. Steven very closely over the course of the recovery attempt, sticking just a ~1500 ft or less above and a few hundred feet beside him as he raced to catch the falling fairing half. In fact, at least as a very rough approximation, the helicopter’s descent may be useful to judge the fairing’s behavior while gliding: taking ~14 minutes to travel descend 11,000ft and travel perhaps 2 miles (~10,500ft) horizontally, the fairing would dropped at a reasonable 13.1 feet per second (~4 m/s) once its parafoil opened and seemed to travel approximately one foot forward for every one foot down, also known as a 1:1 glide slope ratio.
And here's a little overview of the helicopter's path, mixed with a speed/altitude graph! Added some rough annotations to give an idea of what happened and in what time frame 😀 pic.twitter.com/e1rwZtkNHA
— Eric Ralph (@13ericralph31) October 18, 2018
Depending on wind conditions, parafoils can nominally be expected to achieve average glide slope ratios between 0 (high winds; falling like a literal rock) and 4 (no winds; almost as good as a bad airplane), meaning that Falcon fairings – judging from tangential data gathered from the helicopter following its descent – fly much like a parafoil, which is to say not great but better than a brick. The trick with parafoil control – which includes tweaking angles of attack and glide slope – lies more in the art of trading forward velocity for vertical velocity (or vice versa) at key moments. Assuming their control mechanisms have enough authority, paragliding fairings could ‘flare’ as they near Mr. Steven’s net, essentially angling upwards to briefly hover before dropping quickly, maybe giving the boat enough time to swoop in and place its net just beneath it.
In this way, a parafoil’s flexible, inflated wing (airfoil, to be precise) can allow it to maneuver quite a lot like a bird, at least more so than most other methods of flying humans have access to. Time will tell if SpaceX is having any luck perfecting the guidance and recovery of Falcon fairings, particularly with this campaign of under-the-radar drop tests. Even if Mr. Steven returns with a fairing half resting in his net, it will be more than a little ambiguous if it was placed there or he caught it, and any certainty will rely on official confirmation from SpaceX itself.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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
