News
SpaceX waits in the wings as NASA risks maiming Jupiter probe to pinch pennies
SpaceX and its Falcon Heavy rocket continue to wait in the wings as NASA risks maiming its ‘Europa Clipper’ Jupiter probe by pinching the wrong pennies.
For the second time, NASA has performed “continuation/termination reviews” of three of the Europa Clipper spacecraft’s scientific instruments after budget overruns on the order of no more than a few tens of millions of dollars. Thankfully, no instruments were canceled, unlike the “ICEMAG” magnetometer that was functionally killed last year. Still, a NASA program scientist casually noted that the space agency would tolerate launching without one of two cameras and would offer no more funding to a mass spectrometer instrument (MASPEX), raising the risk of instrument failure during the challenging mission.
For any scientific spacecraft or rover, the instruments carried along are effectively the entire reason for their existence: if those instruments are faulty (or even removed before launch), the mission is effectively rendered pointless. Further, due to the sheer complexity and challenges posed by the act of getting to the destination and surviving after arrival, the actual instruments most scientific spacecraft carry represent a tiny fraction of the overall mission cost and mass. It’s not easy to readily imagine a better way to signal inept program management than by singularly focusing on that tiny, lifeblood-esque portion of a spacecraft’s budget. Undeterred, that is exactly what NASA appears to be doing with Europa Clipper – penny-wise, perhaps, but undoubtedly pound-foolish.
It’s not always true that only a small portion of an exploratory spacecraft’s budget is spent on scientific instruments but it absolutely is when it comes to Europa Clipper. Originally hoped to cost as little as $2 billion in 2013, Europa Clipper’s budget allocation has ballooned to $4.5 billion over the life of the program. Of that $4.5 billion, as little as $110M was dedicated to nine scientific instruments assigned to the spacecraft – a ratio of ~41:1. Even if instrument cost ballooned by 100% to ~$220 million, it would still be a measly 20:1. The space environment around Jupiter is admittedly one of the most challenging in the Solar System, warranting some imbalance, but either ratio is still exceptionally bad as far as most exploratory missions go.
Designed to create detailed maps of Europa’s theorized water oceans, ICEMAG, for example, jumped from a $30 million cost estimate to $45 million before NASA abruptly killed it. A Clipper planetary scientist called ICEMAG “a critical instrument that’s been central to Europa science forever”. MASPEX, meanwhile, is a mass spectrometer that will be used to analyze possible chemicals captured by flying through Europa’s transient atmosphere (or, even better yet, plumes from vast ocean geysers). In other words, the instrument most likely to be hobbled next by NASA is also the only instrument on Europa Clipper capable of potentially detecting signs of life by directly sampling material ejected by Europa’s plumes.
Even just with ICEMAG removed, the value proposition of a $4.5 billion mission to an ocean moon of Jupiter becomes much hazier. With ICEMAG removed and MASPEX at risk of being thrown to the wolves, Europa Clipper’s purpose becomes even weaker. Of course, seven valuable instruments remain – some of which partially overlap with MASPEX’ goals – and MASPEX could still technically make it to the finish line in its original handicap-free state, but the tides are definitely not moving in an encouraging direction.
The worst part is that excluding the extraordinarily expensive spacecraft that will host instruments worth ~3-5% its cost, Congress has been dead-set on forcing Europa Clipper to launch on NASA’s chronically-delayed, over-budget Space Launch System (SLS) rocket. SLS has yet to launch once despite more than a decade of development and almost $30 billion spent on the rocket alone, and it would take a miracle for an SLS rocket to be ready to launch Clipper before 2025 or 2026. Europa Clipper is working towards a launch no earlier than 2024, meaning that the spacecraft would have to be stored indefinitely at a cost of at least $125 million per year.
Intrepid readers may note that the cost of simply waiting a single year for SLS to be ready for launch is higher than the cost of all of Europa Clipper’s scientific instruments at their original $110 million budget. The actual cost to NASA for a single SLS launch is expected to $1.5 billion at the absolute minimum, while $2-2.5 billion is far more reasonable. With a little effort and some moderate cruise stage tweaks, Ars Technica has already reported that an expendable SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket augmented with an off-the-shelf kick stage could send Europa Clipper to Jupiter in 5-6 years, compared to ~3 with SLS.
Ironically, that means that if Falcon Heavy was ready to launch Europa Clipper when the spacecraft is expected to be ready in 2024, it would actually arrive at the same time (or close) if it launched on SLS – once a minimum two-year launch vehicle delay is accounted for. A Falcon Heavy would also save NASA at least $1-2 billion, while it would directly save the Europa Clipper program the ~$250 million it would otherwise need to spend to store the spacecraft while waiting years for an SLS rocket. That $250 million alone – an inevitable add-on cost if SLS is chosen – could easily double the budget of every single Europa Clipper science instrument, adding plenty of breathing room, reinstating ICEMAG, and likely improving the science they output – data-gathering quite literally being the whole purpose of the mission.
Of course, the odds that NASA actually steps out from under the political shadow of SLS and stops playing penny wise and pound foolish with the extraordinarily expensive science missions it shepherds is unlikely. But still, the possibility (and hope) remains. Most recently, a very slight change in the wording of a proposed law (bill) could give the Europa Clipper program the legal wiggle room it needs to sidestep Congress’ desire to force it to launch on SLS. Of course, the senators and representatives with parochial attachment to the rocket will continue to fight tooth and nail to legally force it upon NASA at every possible turn, but there is now at least a chance of a sane outcome.
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
