News
SpaceX’s Raptor engine nears flight-readiness for BFR spaceship hop tests
In a presentation that revealed plans for a private mission to the Moon in as early as 2023, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk dedicated a couple minutes to BFR’s booster and spaceship rocket engine of choice, Raptor. Musk had nothing but praise for SpaceX’s propulsion engineers and technicians, stating that he was “really excited” about the propulsion system’s advanced design.
SpaceX has completed over 1,200 seconds of firing across 42 main Raptor engine tests. pic.twitter.com/EhxbPjd8Cj
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) September 29, 2017
Judging from a total of 1200 seconds of hot-fires completed just under a year ago, it’s safe to assume that Raptor has soared beyond that measure. Most recently, photos captured earlier this summer showed that a new prototype was installed on SpaceX’s horizontal Raptor test stand in McGregor, Texas, looking nearly identical to the deep black Raptor nozzle shown in Monday’s presentation. Previous Raptor prototypes seen during testing or at the test stand appeared to have a nozzle closer to SpaceX’s silver Merlin 1Ds, whereas this newest iteration’s nozzle doesn’t seem to reflect the powerful spotlights surrounding it.
Perhaps not a coincidence, SpaceX’s propulsion engineering lead Tom Mueller stated in May 2018 that flight-ready Raptors were already “in work”, with the implication being that the finalized Raptor design had been completed and that manufacturing work was beginning in earnest. Barring an unexpected shift in testing strategies, SpaceX will optimize and verify Raptor’s flight design over the course of several hundred seconds of static fire tests, eventually leading into the same practices used for Falcon 9.
-
- A September 2018 render of Starship (then BFS) shows one of the vehicle’s two hinged wings/fins/legs. (SpaceX)
-
- In 2018, Musk decided to sidestep vacuum engines entirely, moving to 7 SL Raptors. (SpaceX)
“This is a stupidly hard problem and SpaceX engineering has done a great job with this design.” In a May 2018 tweet, Musk added that “this engine is something special.” – Elon Musk, 09/17/18
Prior to being installed on any BFR prototypes, all Raptors will thus go through acceptance testing in Texas, potentially followed by a full-up static fire of the first completed BFR spaceships. Falcon 9 boosters – capable of roughly 7600 kN (1.7 million lbf) of thrust – are routinely tested in McGregor, while a full BFR spaceship with 2017-grade Raptors (1700 kN at sea level) would produce 12,000 kN (2.7 million lbf) of thrust with all Raptors firing. However, due to the sheer difficulty of transporting something 9 meters in diameter by road, it’s more likely that SpaceX will need to build up a dedicated static fire and hop test facility near the coast of Texas, at a spot called Boca Chica.
An immense liquid oxygen (LOX) tank just arrived at @SpaceX's prospective Boca Chica, TX facility, likely to be dedicated to BFR & BFS testing. @NASASpaceflight forum user "Nomadd" caught some of the first detailed photos, as well as the tank's arrival at SpaceX land on July 11. pic.twitter.com/hr7SeA6BGw
— Eric Ralph (@13ericralph31) July 12, 2018
Getting to hop tests
As it turns out, massive propellant storage tanks (vacuum insulated) have already begun arriving at SpaceX’s Boca Chica facilities, currently dedicated to a duo of tracking and communications radars to be used for Crew Dragon communications. Over the course of the next 12 or so months, SpaceX is thus likely to expand and develop its Boca Chica facilities, culminating – if all goes well – sometime late next year with the first shipment of a prototype BFR spaceship from Port of Los Angeles, through the Panama Canal, to Port of Brownsville, Texas.
“I’m really excited about this engine design, I think the SpaceX propulsion team has done an amazing job – the SpaceX structures and aero team has done a phenomenal job in the design of this.”
“Even others in the aerospace industry don’t know what question to ask – once we could frame the question [with precision], the answers [for Raptor and BFR R&D] flowed.” – Elon Musk, 09/17/18
SpaceX has already completed the first composite segment (both a section of the fuselage and of a propellant tank) of the first BFR spaceship prototype, and Musk further stated that BFR’s structural engineers and technicians would begin fabricating the spaceship prototype’s propellant tank domes and engine section “soon”. A vast amount of work remains to be completed before that prototype will begin to look anything like an actual spaceship, and the exact fidelity SpaceX is hoping to achieve with it is unclear.
If the company tries to get as close as possible to a finished product (within reason, of course) before beginning propulsive hop tests in Texas, a very late-2019 debut of that test campaign could be a practical goal. It’s not a perfect comparison, but Falcon 9 is perhaps the best prior example of SpaceX’s speed of development, moving from structural fabrication and testing (albeit with Falcon 5 in mind) in 2006 and 2007 to a full-up orbital launch of the first Falcon 9 in mid-2010, with milestones like the first static fire of a booster octaweb and nine Merlin 1C engines 6-12 months prior.
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!
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.
A new report claims that Apple is in the process of developing what would be the missing link for Tesla to get CarPlay.
Apple and Tesla have been reportedly working together for some time to give Tesla owners the opportunity to utilize CarPlay within their vehicles. While many owners are more than happy with Tesla’s in-house UI, which is seamless, effective, and smooth, some still want CarPlay, which does have its advantages.
A report from 9to5Mac now states that a new CarPlay technology that was highlighted during the Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) would potentially be the bridge between Tesla and Apple. With the addition of a feature known as “Route Sharing,” which gives a navigation app the ability to share routing data with the vehicle, Tesla would be able to launch CarPlay in its vehicles, the report states.
CarPlay has not been a priority for Tesla because it has done extremely well with its in-house UI, but some drivers are just used to it. Additionally, it could improve Tesla’s subpar Navigation or offer improved app capabilities, especially with iMessage.
Route Sharing is an intended addition to CarPlay’s iteration in iOS 26.4, which was released in March:
The addition of CarPlay would undoubtedly be welcome, but at the same time, it seems like Tesla realizes it is not of the utmost priority. There are so many things that Tesla is working on currently within its own vehicles, especially attempting to solve self-driving.
Back in February, Bloomberg had reported that Tesla was still working on bringing CarPlay to its vehicles, but it had not due to app compatibility issues and incredibly low adoption rates of iOS 26.
This bottleneck could buy Tesla the proper amount of time to develop CarPlay for its vehicles. It would be a welcome addition, and could be brought on with either the Summer or Fall 2026 Software Updates.
Tesla’s Navigation Nightmare: Why the easiest part of FSD might be the hardest
Tesla Cybertruck driver gets pickup seized for ‘legitimate concerns’ in UK
