News
SpaceX indefinitely delays second Falcon 9 launch in two weeks
For the second time in less than two weeks, SpaceX has indefinitely delayed a Falcon 9 launch after discovering apparent issues with the rocket less than a day before liftoff.
Japanese startup ispace’s misfortune also marks the eighth time in less than two months that SpaceX has delayed or aborted a Falcon 9 launch for unspecified technical reasons less than 24 hours before liftoff. The streak of delays is unusual after 12 months of record-breaking execution, over the course of which SpaceX has successfully completed 60 orbital launches with just a handful of last-minute technical delays.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
The number of last-day delays and Falcon 9 launch aborts has abruptly skyrocketed in recent months, possibly indicating that a single problem or change is at least partially responsible for the trend. The streak began in early October and has continued through the end of November, resulting in eight delays in two months, with impacts ranging from minutes to days or even weeks. In all but one instance, SpaceX’s only explanation was a need for more time for “data review” or “checkouts” of the rocket, its payload, or both.
SpaceX consistently announces launch delays on Twitter, making it possible to collate when the company has stated it was “standing down” from a launch attempt or “now targeting” a later launch date for technical reasons. In the 18+ months between March 2021 and October 2022, SpaceX announced only three technical delays after publicly scheduling a launch (one last-second abort and two minor “additional checkouts” delays). Adding to the oddity, SpaceX reported at least 15 similar delays between January 2020 and March 2021.
A decrease in the frequency of technical issues is a generally expected outcome of a competent organization gaining experience with the operation of a complex, new system (like a launch vehicle). By all appearances, that’s the pattern SpaceX was following: a drastic drop in the number of technical launch aborts even as the pace of Falcon 9 launches soared to new heights. But within the last two months, the frequency of technical delays has skyrocketed from close to zero to higher than any point in recent SpaceX history.
Without context, it’s impossible to say if there is an invisible thread connecting the recent string of delays. There are many possible explanations, including workforce fatigue, management changes, policy changes, and factory issues. It’s even possible that the seemingly sudden onset was caused by an intentional change of risk posture: for example, increasing sensitivity to off-nominal signals that had been observed before but were discounted enough to avoid launch delays.
As part of its effort to continually improve existing systems and processes, SpaceX could have changed things too much or removed one too many steps. While unlikely, it’s also possible that the recent uptick in delays is merely a coincidence. Regardless, if the trend continues, it will be difficult for SpaceX to increase its launch cadence any further – particularly toward CEO Elon Musk’s stated goal of 100 launches in 2023. Delays also increase launch costs and disrupt customer plans, incentivizing a return to smoother operations as quickly as possible.
Most concerning is a recent pair of unrelated launches that have become indefinitely delayed. Starlink 2-4, first scheduled to launch on November 18th, has yet to receive a new launch date after SpaceX apparently discovered problems after a Falcon 9 static fire test on November 17th. Less than two weeks later, SpaceX has indefinitely delayed a second Falcon 9 launch – Japanese startup ispace’s first Moon landing attempt – “after further inspections of the launch vehicle and data review.”
Ultimately, launch delays are a fundamental part of spaceflight, and it’s better to keep a rocket on the ground when there is any uncertainty about its readiness for flight. Nonetheless, big changes in the frequency of delays are still noteworthy, especially when SpaceX itself does not typically explain the cause of delays for non-NASA missions.
SpaceX has several more Falcon 9 launches firmly scheduled in December. It remains to be seen how exactly the indefinite delays of Starlink 2-4 and HAKUTO-R will impact those upcoming launches. Starlink 4-37, for example, was scheduled to launch from the same pad as HAKUTO-R as early as December 6th, but that date will slip for every day HAKUTO-R is delayed. A SpaceX ship tasked with recovering HAKUTO-R’s Falcon 9 fairing appears to be heading back to port, indicating a delay of at least two or three days.
A new report from Reuters claims that a transport authority in Sweden is pushing back against the approval of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite because it will travel over speed limits.
The report says the Swedish Transport Administration (TRV) recommends the European Union votes against FSD’s approval. TRV believes it should not be approved until Tesla disables FSD’s ability to speed.
TRV sent a letter to the European Union’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV), which is set to meet on June 30 to discuss the potential approval of the Tesla FSD suite in the country. Tesla, which has received various approvals in Europe over the past two months, has not provided a comment.
Teslas operating on FSD do travel over the speed limit, depending on the Speed Profile that is chosen. Drivers have the ability to disengage FSD at any point; Tesla specifically states that those supervising the suite are responsible for its actions.
Let’s cut to the chase: humans operating any vehicle speed almost daily in the United States. Realistically, speed limits in the U.S. are more frequently treated as speed minimums. However, other countries are different, and driving behaviors are less aggressive.
TRV believes that “allowing automated systems to systematically exceed legal speed limits…risks undermining both the legal framework and the expected safety benefits of vehicle automation,” the report stated. It’s surprising that Tesla has not received this claim from other countries previously.
This could be a good argument to bring Max Speed back, the setting that previously allowed the driver to choose the absolute fastest the car would travel.
This would still put the responsibility of supervision in the hands of the driver. It would allow the driver to choose whether the car would travel over the speed limit or not, acknowledging that they set the speed, and if they get pulled over, there would be no ability to argue it.
However, it does not seem as if this is something Tesla will do, especially considering many U.S. drivers have requested the feature in an effort to eliminate speeding or at least tone it down. The company has not shown any interest in bringing it back.
Tesla has approvals for FSD in Europe in Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
Tesla is going to let you guide Full Self-Driving with Grok in 3 months, CEO Elon Musk confirmed on X.
The response from Musk, which revealed Tesla plans to allow drivers to effectively control the car and its navigation more explicitly using Grok, puts the feature for about September.
A Tesla owner said that Full Self-Driving is great, but owners should be able to “converse with Grok like we can with an Uber driver.” She then used examples like, “Grok, turn right here,” and “Drop us off right here, we’ll walk due to traffic,” and finally,” Drop at entrance first, then park far away.”
Coincidentally, the final piece of dialogue would also mean features like Banish are potentially on the way soon.
This functionality will be there in about 3 months or so
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 18, 2026
Banish is also referred to as “Reverse Summon,” and would enable the car to self-park while dropping occupants off at their destination.
This would be a great way to improve the overall experience while supervising FSD. Navigation is already a major painpoint that many owners complain about. Manual overrides when a maneuver is requested or canceled (like using the turn signal stalk to override a navigation route), do not always work.
The feature could be especially useful in street parking scenarios in a city, where spots are sometimes tough to come by. Many of us who grab dinner in a more populated area will park a street or two over from wherever we’re going, because sometimes you know that’s the best you will get. If a driver using FSD could say, “Hey Grok, turn right here on Queen St. and park in that open spot on the right,” it could save a lot of confusion FSD might have on its own.
Musk teased that a similar feature was “coming” back in February:
Tesla Full Self-Driving set to get an awesome new feature, Elon Musk says
It is certainly surprising that Tesla is doing it at this point. The company’s more recent moves have been more evident of taking control and inputs away from humans and putting them in the AI’s hands more frequently. The biggest example of this was taking away Max Speed in AI4 cars, giving us Speed Profiles, and not having any input on the fastest speed the car will travel.
Of course, giving navigation preferences to Grok is availble already in Teslas, but not at the drop of a hat. Instead, you can suggest a certain route at the beginning of your drive.
Here’s an example of that from December:
🚨🏈 I am taking my parents and Fiancee to the @Ravens game next weekend and asked @Grok to help me route my @Tesla through a specific neighborhood to reach the correct Lot we will park in.
This is a great example of the new @grok nav integration with the Tesla Holiday Update: pic.twitter.com/rPp4I7q8Yv
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 13, 2025
Finally, the original post that Musk responded to mentioned a parking preference after dropping off the occupants, which describes the Banish feature that Tesla has teased for years.
We’re not sure if Musk was responding more to the ability to guide the car with Grok, or whether he also was including Banish in the three-month prediction timeframe.
A close-up image of a Cybercab engineering vehicle in Peabody, Massachusetts, reveals a compact triangular side repeater camera housing equipped with an integrated washer mechanism.
This seemingly small hardware addition could prove to be one of the most critical components for achieving reliable, unsupervised Full Self-Driving (FSD) — not just for the dedicated Robotaxi but potentially for existing AI4-equipped vehicles as well.
The washer system’s importance cannot be overstated in Tesla’s vision-only autonomy approach. Cameras are the sole sensory input for the neural networks powering FSD, constantly interpreting the environment for safe navigation. In real-world conditions, however, lenses quickly accumulate rain, snow, mud, dust, or road spray.
Many of us Tesla owners, especially those who deal with any sort of winter weather at all, know the all-too-common alert that pops up when cameras are obstructed:
Even brief obstructions can drop perception confidence, trigger safety disengagements, or force the vehicle to pull over, although these are relatively rare. Instead, most of the time, the camera will need a wipe from the owner next time they stop the car.
But unlike human drivers who can manually clear their view, a Robotaxi operating 24/7 without a steering wheel or mirrors must maintain pristine vision autonomously. The Cybercab’s side repeater washer delivers targeted cleaning bursts precisely where needed for merging, lane changes, and blind-spot monitoring — functions that demand uninterrupted visibility from the external cameras:
And this is how the side camera and washer look like on a Cybercab. This is from an Engineering vehicle in Peabody MA. pic.twitter.com/Re8VknpmLM
— Tobias Goebel (Unsupervised) (@tpgoebel) June 17, 2026
This hardware directly tackles a known pain point in current FSD deployments. Owners frequently report camera-related alerts during inclement weather, which is understandable, but needs to be solved for a true autonomous experience.
For a production Robotaxi fleet aiming for high utilization and minimal downtime, robust washer systems represent a foundational reliability upgrade; essentially, they’re a must-have. Early sightings suggest the design may extend to rear cameras as well, creating a comprehensive cleaning architecture that keeps the entire vision suite operational in harsh environments.
Without it, even the most advanced neural nets struggle when their “eyes” are compromised.
What Does This Mean for AI4 Cars?
This Cybercab detail raises timely questions for AI4 cars already on the road. While Hardware 4 delivers superior compute and camera resolution compared to earlier versions, production models typically lack dedicated side and rear washers. Tesla has included them on Model Y robotaxis that it is using in the fleet:
Tesla Robotaxi has a highly-requested hardware feature not available on typical Model Ys
As Tesla refines unsupervised FSD for broader release, the gap in environmental resilience becomes evident. Software improvements can help mitigate issues, but they cannot fully replace physical cleaning in heavy rain or muddy conditions. Analysts and owners increasingly speculate that AI4 vehicles may eventually require similar washer retrofits — or a future AI4.5 variant — to match the Cybercab’s all-weather readiness and support the same level of autonomy.
As testing progresses, the Cybercab’s washer mechanism highlights Tesla’s pragmatic focus on real-world robustness. It may well become the hardware piece that determines how quickly and reliably FSD scales from prototypes to everyday vehicles.
Tesla faces Full Self-Driving pushback in EU over ‘speeding’
Tesla teases greater Grok FSD integration and ‘Banish’ feature ‘in about 3 months’
