News
SpaceX wins new Falcon Heavy launch contract as rocket’s prospects stabilize
SpaceX has won a new Falcon Heavy launch contract from Swedish telecommunications company Ovzon, which hopes to procure a large geostationary communications satellite in time for launch in the fourth quarter of 2020.
Excluding two pending contracts, a consequence of the many years of delays suffered since SpaceX first began marketing the rocket, Ovzon’s commitment is now the fourth commercial contract secured by Falcon Heavy in 2019 and 2020, solidifying enough demand to sustain – on average – biannual launches over the next two or so years.
Ovzon signs agreement with SpaceX for first satellite launch – read the full release here: https://t.co/M9YWRCyp5L
In an important step towards growing our satellite service offering, Ovzon has entered into an agreement with SpaceX for launch of Ovzon’s first GEO satellite. pic.twitter.com/HfMfl9jnNV— Ovzon AB (@OvzonAB) October 16, 2018
Speaking at IAC 2018, SpaceX VP of Reliability Hans Koenigsmann was by no means wrong when he described the latent demand seen for Falcon Heavy launches, stating that “there aren’t too many customers for it”. Indeed, just three firm launch contracts over the next two years did not bode particularly well for Falcon Heavy as a competitive complement to SpaceX’s commercial launch business – without regular demand and assuming a competitive and fixed-price market, the cost of maintaining the infrastructure needed to build and fly a distinct launch vehicle will inevitably end up cannibalizing profitability or even the ability to break even.
For vehicles like ULA’s Delta IV Heavy, NASA’s SLS, or the late Space Shuttle, the unique capabilities offered by certain low-volume rockets or even just the risk of faltering can lead to situations where anchor customers will swallow huge cost premiums for the sake of simply preserving those capabilities. In non-competitive markets, it does not take much for nearly any capability to become essentially priceless. SpaceX, however, paid for Falcon Heavy’s development without seeking – and even actively turning down – most government development funding or guaranteed launch contracts.
-
- Falcon Heavy ahead of its inaugural launch. (SpaceX)
-
- The extraordinary might of Delta IV Heavy’s hydrolox-burning RS-68A engines, producing a combined 2.1 million pounds of thrust at liftoff. (Tom Cross)
A tough life for big birds
As such, Falcon Heavy’s utility and existence are in a far more precarious position than most rockets, owing to the fact that SpaceX would likely not hesitate to kill the vehicle if commercial demand rapidly withered to nothing, far from impossible with just three total launches contracted over a period of fewer than two years. Prior to the USAF announcing a new Falcon Heavy launch contract in June 2018, that number was just two secured launches. Combined with the USAF purchase, Ozvon’s new contract suggests that prospects for the super-heavy-lift rocket may be at least warm enough to sustain its useful existence.
SpaceX's Falcon Heavy manifest:
– Arabsat 6A (NET early 2019)
– STP-2 (NET 2019)
– AFSPC-52 (NET September 2020)
– Ovzon (NET Q4 2020)Pending confirmed payloads:
– Viasat
– Inmarsat— Michael Baylor (@MichaelBaylor_) October 16, 2018
There is also a decent chance that, once Falcon Heavy has proven itself with one or two real satellite launches, commercial launch customers will warm to its impressive capabilities. Most notably, Ozvon may have sided with Falcon Heavy solely because the powerful rocket can place its Ozvon-3 communications satellite directly into geostationary orbit (GEO), compared to the far more common process of launching the satellite roughly halfway there and letting it finish the journey on its own, known as geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) insertion.
There is undoubtedly significant commercial upside for geostationary communications satellites to arrive at their operational orbits as quickly as possible, rather than spending weeks or even months slowly making their way uphill from GTO. The cost of dedicated launches of Delta IV Heavy or Ariane 5 have far outweighed the benefits of earlier operability for as long as the rockets have been flying, though, and smaller and more affordable vehicles like Falcon 9, Atlas 5, or dual-manifested Ariane 5s simply aren’t powerful enough to launch traditionally-sized commsats directly to GEO.
-
- Falcon Heavy clears the top of the strongback in a spectacular fashion. Two of the rocket’s three manifested missions are now for the USAF. (Tom Cross)
-
- Falcon Heavy’s stunning dual side booster recovery. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX’s second Falcon Heavy launch will either be the USAF’s STP-2, a collection of smaller satellites, or Arabsat 6A, a large communications satellite. (USAF)
-
- The communications satellite Arabsat-6A. (Lockheed Martin)
In that regard, Falcon Heavy launches could become a commercial game changer and a distinct competitive advantage for companies that select it. Now with at least four launch contracts secured over the next ~24 months, Falcon Heavy will have a much better chance at demonstrating its true capabilities, potentially enabling military-premium launch services (~$250m+) at commercial-premium prices (~$90-150m). If it performs as intended in its next few launches, expected sometime in H1 2019, Falcon Heavy will be a strong contender for at least five additional USAF contracts as well as certain NASA missions scheduled to launch in the 2020s.
Experience with Falcon Heavy may only be tangentially beneficial at best to SpaceX’s greater BFR ambitions, but commercially, competitively, and reliably operating a rocket as large as FH for customers like the USAF and NASA would go a long, long way towards solidifying SpaceX’s perception as a ULA-equivalent launch provider for roughly half the cost.
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
