News
SpaceX hints at mystery Falcon 9 missions with record breaking launch target
Speaking at the 2019 Smallsat Symposium, SpaceX Vice President of Commercial Sales Jonathan Hofeller announced that the company will try to break the launch record it set last year in 2019. That record stands at 21 successful missions, while President and COO Gwynne Shotwell stated in a May 2018 interview that she was anticipating 24-28 launches in 2018 and ~18 in 2019.
Ranging from Crew Dragon transporting astronauts and a duo of Falcon Heavy missions to perhaps ten commercial satellite launches, 2019 will undoubtedly be full of major events for SpaceX. However, SpaceX’s publicly-available launch manifest suggests that there will be no more than 18 government and commercial missions ready for the company to place in orbit before 2019 is out, implying that Hofeller may be hinting at launches that are not yet public.
Last May, SpaceX Prez Gwynne Shotwell was projecting 24 to 28 launches for 2018 but more like 18 for 2019. 21+ may be an “aspirational goal,” unless they’re counting Starship Hopper: https://t.co/RDbdPLA2Z7
— Alan Boyle (@b0yle) February 7, 2019
In just the last two years (24 months), SpaceX has successfully launched Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy an astounding 40 times, averaging approximately one launch every 2.5 weeks. In 2017, SpaceX demolished its own prior cadence record with 18 launches, a record the company’s exceptional workforce summarily proceeded to beat in 2018 with 21 successful missions launched. A vast majority of those 40 missions (27 to be precise) were the result of competitive, commercial contracts that SpaceX has been extremely successful at winning, thanks largely to the nearly unbeatable pricing of Falcon 9 and Heavy.
Much like most other launch providers, SpaceX plays its manifest extremely close to the chest, rarely revealing more than a blanket status update. For example, SpaceX’s website states that it has “has secured over 100 missions to its manifest, representing over $12 billion on contract.” Thanks to the general drought of official manifest information, the closest approximation to a real SpaceX manifest has traditionally been maintained by members of spaceflight fan communities like /r/SpaceX and NASASpaceflight.com, using the best aspects of organized crowdsourcing to create an extremely reliable snapshot of launch contracts scheduled within ~24 months.
However, compared to SpaceX’s claimed manifest of 100+ missions at an average cost per launch of ~$120M (twice Falcon 9’s $62M list price), crowdsourced SpaceX manifests – based on mostly public information – show fewer than 60 possible launch contracts between now and the end of 2024, a majority of which are for the US government (Crew and Cargo Dragon, Air Force GPS launches, and a few NASA spacecraft). Given SpaceX’s confident use of “secured” and “on contract”, the massive gap between public manifests and SpaceX’s claims leaves more than 40 launches almost completely in the dark.
-
- Falcon 9 B1046 lifts off for the third time with Spaceflight’s SSO-A rideshare mission. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Falcon 9 B1047 lifts off from Pad 39A, November 2018. (Tom Cross)
-
- Falcon 9 B1048 appears out of the fog prior to its second orbital-class launch. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Falcon 9 B1050 is seen here just after liftoff. GPS III SV01’s Falcon 9 will feature no grid fins or landing legs. ☹ (Tom Cross)
A Big Falcon Mystery
Hofeller’s Feb. 6th comment is thus just a tiny taste of SpaceX’s potential mystery manifest, indicating that the company has more than 21 payloads to launch in 2019 while public info reveals no more than 17-18 likely to be ready. Where, then, might Hofeller find an extra 4-5 missions that public observers would not normally be aware of?
The simplest answer least reminiscent of a conspiracy theory is Starlink, SpaceX’s global constellation of at least 4425 satellites. While it would be an extraordinary achievement, Reuters reported in October 2018 that CEO Elon Musk had gone as far as firing multiple senior managers of the young satellite program to install new managers with a singleminded goal: begin launching operational Starlink satellites by mid-2019. A little over six months after Musk’s Starlink shake-up, SpaceX has pivoted towards rapidly building and launching around ~1500 first-generation satellites with more conservative capabilities to lower orbits relative to the original Starlink specification.
-
- One of the first two prototype Starlink satellites separates from Falcon 9’s upper stage, February 2018. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX’s first two Starlink prototype satellites are pictured here before their inaugural Feb. 2018 launch, showing off a utilitarian design. (SpaceX)
SpaceX also received a major Starlink contract from the US Air Force Research Laboratory worth almost $29 million, $19.1M of which was dispersed to SpaceX in October 2018. As of late 2018, the company’s Starlink branch had already pivoted toward ramping up production of the first several batches of operational Starlink satellites. According to a number of employees, SpaceX’s first two Starlink prototype satellites – known as Tintin A and B – were a programmatic success and continue to operate in orbit today after proving out a number of critical Starlink technologies. As such, it’s not out of the question for operational Starlink launches to begin as early as mid-2019, although Musk’s aggressive schedule is likely more than a little overly optimistic.
Assuming Starlink is greeted with a perfect production ramp and the first 10-20 spacecraft make it to orbit in good health by June 2019, it’s at least not inconceivable that a second and third launch could follow, perhaps with a 3-month launch cadence (June/September/December). The chances of this happening are probably about as slim as they come, but it does offer one possible way for SpaceX’s apparent ~18-launch manifest to jump up to 21 or more missions. The next most probable route to 21+ launches involves at least one or two Starlink-specific launches, followed by another one or two launches for a secretive US government customer like the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).
The top secret Zuma spacecraft could be alive and well doing exactly what it was intended to: https://t.co/bK6x38KyIL
— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) January 12, 2018
In January 2018, SpaceX successfully launched a spacecraft called Zuma with no known customer aside from a generic US military agency. Despite an ambiguous potential failure of the satellite – attributed to a Northrop Grumman deployment mechanism – just days after launch, a variety of anonymous sources indicated that Zuma was just the first in a series of new military satellites with a focus on SpaceX as the primary launch provider. The value of the intensely-secretive program was estimated to be in the billions of dollars, implying a veritable constellation of mystery satellites that could provide SpaceX several additional launch contracts.
Now a little over 12 months distant from Zuma’s bizarre debut, it’s conceivable that the next phase of the secretive satellite program is scheduled sometime in 2019. Ultimately, the general public is unlikely to learn about any potential mystery SpaceX launches until they are imminent, barring comments from executives or sourced leaks making their way into the news. For now, we wait.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes!
Elon Musk
The Boring Company just doubled its tunneling power in Nashville
The Boring Company’s Prufrock MB2 is commissioned and ready to mine beneath Nashville’s streets.
The Boring Company’s second tunnel boring machine, Prufrock MB2, is officially ready to dig in Nashville. The company confirmed the news on X, posting: “Prufrock-MB2 is ready to mine in Nashville! MB2 commissioning is complete, including the brief 11 rpm rotation shown here. Will MB2 catch up to MB1, who had quite the head start? And Prufrock-MB3 ships in August!”
MB2 arrives with meaningful improvements over its predecessor. Lessons learned from the launch and operation of MB1 have already been applied to MB2 to improve efficiency and prepare the machine for launch.
Traditional tunnel boring machines operate in a stop-and-go cycle, digging roughly five feet, halt, erect precast concrete segments to line the tunnel wall, then resume. That repeated interruption is one of the main reasons conventional tunneling is slow and expensive. Prufrock is designed to install the tunnel liner simultaneously with mining, eliminating the need to stop every five feet. The machine also skips the need for excavated launch pits. Prufrock arrives on a truck, tilts down, and launches into the ground within 24 hours. And when the tunnel is complete, it emerges from the ground and drives to its next launch site on a trailer, eliminating the need for expensive cranes or pit excavation. The machine is also fully electric and runs with zero people in the tunnel during normal operations, controlled remotely from a surface operations center.
Prufrock-MB2 is ready to mine in Nashville! MB2 commissioning is complete, including the brief 11 rpm rotation shown here.
Will MB2 catch up to MB1, who had quite the head start?
And Prufrock-MB3 ships in August! pic.twitter.com/TTrMql2aRg
— The Boring Company (@boringcompany) June 17, 2026
It won’t be long before we hear of another major update on The Boring Company’s Music City Loop project – a planned underground transit network beneath Nashville that would move passengers in electric vehicles through a series of tunnels at highway speeds, and bypassing surface traffic entirely. Nashville was selected in part because of its strong rock conditions that suits the Prufrock machines well, and relatively less regulatory hurdles.
Progress has been steady on multiple fronts. All 37 permits and approvals required ahead of tunneling have been obtained, out of 45 total. Key wins include a fully executed TDOT tunnel permit authorizing 25 miles of tunnel, unanimous airport authority approval for a Nashville International Airport station, and the city’s first residential station agreement serving downtown tower residents.
With MB1 already tunneling, MB2 now commissioned, and MB3 shipping in August, Nashville is becoming something of a live proving ground for scaled tunnel boring. The broader ambition is not limited to one city. The Boring Company’s stated goal is to make underground transportation a practical alternative to surface roads across major metro areas. Nashville is one of many cities, including a successful Las Vegas tunnel system, where that idea is being put to the test at real speed.
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.
The Boring Company just doubled its tunneling power in Nashville
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
