News
SpaceX preps second $500M fundraiser as Starlink & Starship make progress
According to regulatory documents seen by Prime Unicorn Index, SpaceX finished a $500M funding round begun in December 2018 and kicked off a second campaign seeking an additional $500M earlier this month.
Altogether, SpaceX appears to be on track to secure $1 billion in fresh capital in the last six months alone, a trend that that may well continue as the company pushes forth into new and capital-intensive phases of Starlink and Starship development. In Boca Chica, a flood of SpaceX engineers and technicians have descended on the area to build the first full-scale steel prototypes of Starship and the major facilities needed to support the vehicles, all from scratch. Across the West Coast of the US, a separate SpaceX team has simultaneously transitioned from prototyping and developing satellites to building a factory to mass-produce them and may be less than six weeks away from launching the first operational batch of Starlink spacecraft.
Giant rockets, giant funding
Both massive, perilous, and largely unprecedented ventures in their own right, Starship (formerly BFR) and Starlink also happen to be extremely capital-intensive, a more or less fundamental consequence of the stages of their development and expansion. Both spent many years in pure research and development phases, tinkering and experimenting with different ideas and technologies on the ground in an effort to conceptualize what exactly their final forms ought to be. This aspect of the BFR program has been extremely visible over the last three years as SpaceX and CEO Elon Musk’s goals underwent continuous semi-annual changes, often intentionally broadcasted to the public in
After appearing to finally settle on the quasi-final form of BFR (renamed to Starship/Super Heavy), SpaceX has actually begun to build and test the first full-scale, integrated prototype of the spacecraft (Starhopper) and is simultaneously building what aims to be the first orbital Starship prototype. At the same time, its propulsion system of choice – known as Raptor – has entered into serial production back at SpaceX’s Hawthorne factory, while also supporting the first Starhopper hop test in early April and preparing to continue separate ground testing.
Thousands of satellites, billions of dollars
In February 2018, SpaceX successfully launched its first Starlink satellites, two prototypes meant to test a bevy of technologies the company was attempting to build (or at least utilize) for the first time. Despite hints and reports of some problems on orbit, SpaceX firmly holds that both satellites were extremely successful in their task of proving out new technologies like electric thrusters and phased-array antennas and are still safely operating today. Just four months after those prototypes launched, CEO Elon Musk took the extraordinary step of flying to Redmond, Washington to personally challenge a number of executives he believed were operating far too sluggishly. According to secondhand reports, many of them refused to expedite the program as Musk wanted them to, resulting in their immediate firings. The challenge that triggered the organizational upheaval: launch the first operational batch of Starlink satellites before the end of June 2019, twelve months away at the time.
Five months after Musk’s challenge, SpaceX submitted a request to the FCC to modify its original Starlink constellation license, halving the orbit of the first thousand or so satellites to 550 km (340 mi) and significantly simplifying the technology on the first several dozen to be launched. As a result of the strategic changes made, SpaceX is already planning to launch its first group of Starlink satellites as early as mid-May, with perhaps one or several additional launches on the books for 2019. To an extent, the first 75 Starlink satellites and their six ground stations will be a nearly full-fidelity second prototype. Instead of a minimalist development platform like Tintin A and B, the first 75 satellites should offer opportunities to actually test the operations of a large constellation of spacecraft while also demonstrating something close to the internet connectivity the full constellation is meant to offer.
Development to production
That SpaceX is attempting to raise huge amounts of capital should come as no surprise. For almost any commercial venture on Earth that is attempting to introduce a real product from nothing, the process of going from concept, design, and testing to building a final product at scale is both extraordinarily difficult and extremely expensive. Tesla famously went through “manufacturing hell” to go from Model 3 prototypes to a mass-producible finished product, while countless other ventures don’t even make it that far (i.e. vaporware). By far the most challenging aspect of this transition is moving from a phase focused predominately on development to one focused predominately on production.
Due to an extremely unorthodox approach to building the first steel Starship and Super Heavy prototypes, quite literally choosing to do so outside and without shelter, the BFR program is probably less extreme for the time being. However, the transformation needed for Starlink to progress is intense, requiring the satellite team to essentially build a factory from scratch and begin mass-producing high-performance satellites as quickly as possible. The 75-satellite buffer should ease the pain a bit and offer a sort of trial run as SpaceX makes that major transition, but the fact remains that an unprecedented number (thousands) of satellites will need to be built and launched at an equally unprecedented pace and cost-per-unit.
The $500M raised since December 2018 will likely be a major help for SpaceX’s often-
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
