News
SpaceX adds mystery Falcon 9 launch to packed October manifest
SpaceX FCC paperwork has revealed the addition of an unidentified Falcon 9 launch to the company’s packed October manifest, ranging from several Starlink missions to Crew Dragon’s first operational astronaut launch.
Under the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), companies must submit an application for permission to communicate with their rocket for every single launch. While a major annoyance for those companies and an undeniably clunky process, those applications for “special temporary authority” (STAs) to communicate are one of the only ways members of the public can independently monitor and forecast US launch activities. For SpaceX, the company typically applies for multiple STAs for every single launch, including specific applications for booster launches, landings, and preflight ground tests.
The separate STAs can be connected with a “Mission Number” SpaceX associates each one with, while coordinates included to designate the area of landing communications (i.e. the drone ship recovery zone) often reveals a mission’s trajectory. Combined, STAs can often be used to identify the exact mission (i.e. a Starlink launch, Crew Dragon, etc.). STAs for SpaceX’s upcoming Crew Dragon Crew-1 and Cargo Dragon CRS-21 missions, as well as several Starlink launches, have already been identified.
Thanks to bad weather and a flurry of ULA delays, SpaceX’s October manifest is currently packed with three Starlink missions, a GPS III satellite launch for the US military, and Crew Dragon’s first operational astronaut mission to the International Space Station (ISS). Barring a miracle, ULA’s latest Delta IV Heavy launch delay has pushed SpaceX’s GPS III SV04 mission to October 1st.
Starlink-12 – SpaceX’s 11th Starlink mission this year and 13th overall – is tentatively set to follow GPS III SV04 at 9:17 am EDT (13:17 UTC) on October 1st. Starlink-13 and Starlink-14 are then scheduled to launch no earlier than mid-to-late-October. Finally, SpaceX and NASA are in the final stages of preparing for Crew Dragon’s Crew-1 mission – the spacecraft’s first operational delivery of astronauts to the ISS – as soon as October 31st (Halloween).
A new Sirius XM radio satellite (SXM-7) could launch on a Falcon 9 rocket on November 6th. On the West Coast, SpaceX’s first California mission since June 2019 could launch on November 10th. SpaceX and NASA are also targeting the launch debut of an upgraded Cargo Dragon 2 resupply spacecraft on a mission known as CRS-21, scheduled to lift off NET November 15th. Last but assuredly not least, Turkey’s Turksat 5A communications satellite could launch as early as November 31st. No Starlink missions are currently scheduled in November but it’s safe to assume that there will be at least one or two. Altogether, SpaceX already has five launches scheduled in October and four set for November. While undeniably prolific, SpaceX has never launched more than three times in one month.
Now, on top of that swath of firm launches, mysterious “SpaceX Mission 1512” has joined the fray. Based on the FCC STA request, the mission is scheduled to launch no earlier than (NET) October 3rd (with a six-month window) and will include a return-to-launch-site (RTLS) Falcon 9 booster landing. The RTLS landing in particular substantially constrains the mission and means – right off the bat – that it can’t be for Starlink, while also ruling out Cargo Dragon CRS-21 (an RTLS landing STA already exists) and Crew Dragon Crew-1 (drone ship landing). Simply put, an RTLS rules out every other launch on SpaceX’s 2020 manifest beyond a rideshare mission tentatively scheduled in December, and SpaceX almost never files for STAs months in advance.
That leaves some kind of unannounced, mystery mission. Only once in SpaceX’s history has the company conducted an unannounced launch – unsurprisingly for some unknown branch of the US military or espionage apparatus. Known as Zuma and still shrouded in secrecy, it followed an almost identical pattern, revealed only through FCC launch and landing communications requests and rumors in 2017 before a January 2018 launch. Although Northrop Grumman was thrown under the bus for a failed payload adapter that may or may not have doomed the satellite, no federal agency has taken credit for the mission – unspeakably odd as far as spaceflight goes.
At the time, unofficial rumors published on Reddit implied that Zuma would only be the first of many similar missions. The claimed failure of a spring-like deployment mechanism and loss of spacecraft – believed to be worth one or several billion dollars – just hours after launch would have unsurprisingly thrown a wrench into those gears. Now, almost three years later and in the midst of an exceptionally busy period of several important launches, could SpaceX be preparing for Zuma-2?
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
