In a rare victory for international launch competition, SpaceX has snagged a contract to launch an Italian Earth observation satellite from European launch monopoly and political heavyweight Arianespace.
After spending the better part of a decade treading water as SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket came to dominate the global launch market, Arianespace has become increasingly reliant on European Space Agency (ESA) and European Union (EU) agreements that require signatories to launch domestic satellites and spacecraft on the Ariane 5, Ariane 6, and Italian Vega rockets. Save for a few slow-moving technology development programs that have yet to bear any actionable fruit, the company – heavily subsidized by the European Union – has almost completely failed to face the threat posed by SpaceX head-on by prioritizing the development of rockets that can actually compete with Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy on cost, performance, and availability.
Instead, over the last five or so years, Arianespace and the European Space Agency have increasingly pursued political agreements and legislation that commit member states to only fly payloads on Ariane 5, Ariane 6, and Vega rockets if at all possible.
A recent development offers the best look yet at what many European space agencies likely suffer through as a consequence of their governments signing away access to an increasingly competitive launch industry – often seemingly in return for Arianespace selecting contractors or (re)locating development hubs or factories in certain countries. Notably, sometime in September 2021, the Italian Space Agency (ASI) confirmed signs that it was moving the launch of its COSMO SkyMed CSG-2 Earth observation satellite from a new Arianespace rocket to SpaceX’s Falcon 9.
“The second COSMO SkyMed Second Generation satellite (CSG-2) was planned to be launched with VEGA-C within 2021, but the launcher development has been impacted by the VV15 and VV17 failures and, above all, by the COVID pandemic. The delays, postponing the VEGA-C Maiden Flight to Q1 2022, with a consequent tight schedule of launches in 2022, made the launch period of CSG-2 no longer compatible with the needs of the COSMO Mission. Since Arianespace backlog was already full on Soyuz and Ariane systems in 2021, it was not possible to have a European backup solution compliant with the CSG-2 schedule, thus an alternative solution with the US provider SPACE X has been adopted allowing to keep the CSG-2 launch within the current year. In line with its long-lasting support ensured to the European launch industry, ASI confirmed its trust in Arianespace and VEGA-C capabilities by contracting the launch of the CSG-3 satellite, planned for 2024. Moreover, other future launch opportunities for ASI missions with VEGA-C are under discussion, confirming Arianespace as a key partner for the Agency.“
Italian Space Agency (ASI) – September 2021
Weighing around 2.2 tons (~4900 lb), SkyMed CSG-2 is the second of four synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellites designed to “[observe] Earth from space, meter by meter, day and night, in any weather conditions, to help predict landslides and floods, coordinate relief efforts in case of earthquakes or fires, [and] check crisis areas.” Primarily focused on the Mediterranean, the nature of sun-synchronous orbits (SSOs) nevertheless give SkyMed satellites views of most of the Earth’s surface every day.
SkyMed CSG-1 debuted on an Arianespace Soyuz rocket in December 2019, while CSG-2 was originally scheduled to launch sometime in 2021 on one of the first Arianespace Vega-C rockets. However, in July 2019 and November 2020, the Vega rocket Vega-C is based on suffered two launch failures separated by just a single success. Aside from raising major questions about operator Arianespace and Vega manufacturer Avio’s quality assurance, those near-back-to-back failures also delayed Vega’s launch manifest by years. Combined with limited launch cadence and a jam-packed manifest for Arianespace’s other rockets, that meant that Italy would have likely had to wait 1-2 years to launch SkyMed CSG-2 on a European or Italian-made rocket.
Apparently valuing a timely, affordable launch more than the path of least political resistance, the Italian Space Agency chose to remanifest the second SkyMed satellite on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket scheduled to launch no earlier than November 2021. However, based on ASI’s explanation of the move in the quote above, the space agency clearly felt a need to very carefully explain its decision while also repeatedly (and almost fearfully so) signaling its unwavering “trust” in and dedication to “key partner” Arianespace.
That part of the Italian Space Agency’s statement appeared to be a rather distinct reassertion of fealty to Arianespace is made even more unusual by the fact that the Vega rocket SkyMed CSG-2 was meant to fly on is mainly built in Italy by aerospace company Avio – independently owned but a major Arianespace supplier. Further, ASI directing the apologetic portion of its explanation to Arianespace is no less odd given that Arianespace is a private company theoretically independent of space agencies, while moving from Vega to Falcon 9 primarily impacts Avio more than Arianespace and risks raising the ire of Vega development partner ESA. Even further still, ASI itself – not ESA, Avio, or Arianespace – is the source of a majority of Vega development funding over the last decade and a half.
Regardless, at the simplest level, there are clear motivating factors for a space agency primarily funding the development of a certain launch vehicle to want to fly its own payloads on said self-funded rocket. However, after likely taking things a step further and encouraging ESA and the EU to commit to launching as many payloads as possible on its ESA-approved Vega rocket, the Italian Space Agency itself is now discovering the downsides of pushing for political arrangements beneficial to domestic industries while being forced to figure out just how politically viable it is to pursue non-European launch alternatives. There might be a small chance that Italy’s brief taste of freedom to use rockets other than Vega and Ariane 5/6 could encourage other EU members to push back and fight for access to cheaper, more reliable launches. However, it looks far more likely that SkyMed CSG-2 will be a rare outlier for years to come.
News
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.2.5 might be the most confusing release ever
With each Full Self-Driving release, I am realistic. I know some things are going to get better, and I know some things will regress slightly. However, these instances of improvements are relatively mild, as are the regressions. Yet, this version has shown me that it contains extremes of both.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.2.5 hit my car back on Valentine’s Day, February 14, and since I’ve had it, it has become, in my opinion, the most confusing release I’ve ever had.
With each Full Self-Driving release, I am realistic. I know some things are going to get better, and I know some things will regress slightly. However, these instances of improvements are relatively mild, as are the regressions. Yet, this version has shown me that it contains extremes of both.
It has been about three weeks of driving on v14.2.2.5; I’ve used it for nearly every mile traveled since it hit my car. I’ve taken short trips of 10 minutes or less, I’ve taken medium trips of an hour or less, and I’ve taken longer trips that are over 100 miles per leg and are over two hours of driving time one way.
These are my thoughts on it thus far:
Speed Profiles Are a Mixed Bag
Speed Profiles are something Tesla seems to tinker with quite frequently, and each version tends to show a drastic difference in how each one behaves compared to the previous version.
I do a vast majority of my FSD travel using Standard and Hurry modes, although in bad weather, I will scale it back to Chill, and when it’s a congested city on a weekend or during rush hour, I’ll throw it into Mad Max so it takes what it needs.
Early on, Speed Profiles really felt great. This is one of those really subjective parts of the FSD where someone might think one mode travels too quickly, whereas another person might see the identical performance as too slow or just right.
To me, I would like to see more consistency from release to release on them, but overall, things are pretty good. There are no real complaints on my end, as I had with previous releases.
In a past release, Mad Max traveled under the speed limit quite frequently, and I only had that experience because Hurry was acting the same way. I’ve had no instances of that with v14.2.2.5.
Strange Turn Signal Behavior
This is the first Full Self-Driving version where I’ve had so many weird things happen with the turn signals.
Two things come to mind: Using a turn signal on a sharp turn, and ignoring the navigation while putting the wrong turn signal on. I’ve encountered both things on v14.2.2.5.
On my way to the Supercharger, I take a road that has one semi-sharp right-hand turn with a driveway entrance right at the beginning of the turn.
Only recently, with the introduction of v14.2.2.5, have I had FSD put on the right turn signal when going around this turn. It’s obviously a minor issue, but it still happens, and it’s not standard practice:
How can we get Full Self-Driving to stop these turn signals?
There’s no need to use one here; the straight path is a driveway, not a public road. The right turn signal here is unnecessary pic.twitter.com/7uLDHnqCfv
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 28, 2026
When sharing this on X, I had Tesla fans (the ones who refuse to acknowledge that the company can make mistakes) tell me that it’s a “valid” behavior that would be taught to anyone who has been “professionally trained” to drive.
Apparently, if you complain about this turn signal, you are also claiming you know more than Tesla engineers…okay.
Nobody in their right mind has ever gone around a sharp turn when driving their car and put on a signal when continuing on the same road. You would put a left turn signal on to indicate you were turning into that driveway if that’s what your intention was.
Like I said, it’s a totally minor issue. However, it’s not really needed, and nor is it normal. If I were in the car with someone who was taking a simple turn on a road they were traveling, and they signaled because the turn was sharp, I’d be scratching my head.
I’ve also had three separate instances of the car completely ignoring the navigation and putting on a signal that is opposite to what the routing says. Really quite strange.
Parking Performance is Still Underwhelming
Parking has been a complaint of mine with FSD for a long time, so much so that it is pretty rare that I allow the vehicle to park itself. More often than not, it is because I want to pick a spot that is relatively isolated.
However, in the times I allow it to pull into a spot, it still does some pretty head-scratching things.
Recently, it tried to back into a spot that was ~60% covered in plowed snow. The snow was piled about six feet high in a Target parking lot.
A few days later, it tried backing into a spot where someone failed the universal litmus test of returning their shopping cart. Both choices were baffling and required me to manually move the car to a different portion of the lot.
I used Autopark on both occasions, and it did a great job of getting into the spot. I notice that the parking performance when I manually choose the spot is much better than when the car does the entire parking process, meaning choosing the spot and parking in it.
It’s Doing Things (For Me) It’s Never Done Before
Two things that FSD has never done before, at least for me, are slow down in School Zones and avoid deer. The first is something I usually take over manually, and the second I surprisingly have not had to deal with yet.
I had my Tesla slow down at a school zone yesterday for the first time, traveling at 20 MPH and not 15 MPH as the sign suggested, but at the speed of other cars in the School Zone. This was impressive and the first time I experienced it.
I would like to see this more consistently, and I think School Zones should be one of those areas where, no matter what, FSD will only travel the speed limit.
Last night, FSD v14.2.2.5 recognized a deer in a roadside field and slowed down for it:
🚨 Cruising home on a rainy, foggy evening and my Tesla on Full Self-Driving begins to slow down suddenly
FSD just wanted Mr. Deer to make it home to his deer family ❤️ pic.twitter.com/cAeqVDgXo5
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 4, 2026
Navigation Still SUCKS
Navigation will be a complaint until Tesla proves it can fix it. For now, it’s just terrible.
It still has not figured out how to leave my neighborhood. I give it the opportunity to prove me wrong each time I leave my house, and it just can’t do it.
It always tries to go out of the primary entrance/exit of the neighborhood when the route needs to take me left, even though that exit is a right turn only. I always leave a voice prompt for Tesla about it.
It still picks incredibly baffling routes for simple navigation. It’s the one thing I still really want Tesla to fix.
Investor's Corner
Tesla gets tip of the hat from major Wall Street firm on self-driving prowess
“Tesla is at the forefront of autonomous driving, supported by a camera-only approach that is technically harder but much cheaper than the multi-sensor systems widely used in the industry. This strategy should allow Tesla to scale more profitably compared to Robotaxi competitors, helped by a growing data engine from its existing fleet,” BoA wrote.
Tesla received a tip of the hat from major Wall Street firm Bank of America on Wednesday, as it reinitiated coverage on Tesla shares with a bullish stance that comes with a ‘Buy’ rating and a $460 price target.
In a new note that marks a sharp reversal from its neutral position earlier in 2025, the bank declared Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology the “leading consumer autonomy solution.”
Analysts highlighted Tesla’s camera-only architecture, known as Tesla Vision, as a strategic masterstroke. While technically more challenging than the multi-sensor setups favored by rivals, the vision-based approach is dramatically cheaper to produce and maintain.
This cost edge, combined with Tesla’s rapidly expanding real-world data engine, positions the company to scale robotaxis far more profitably than competitors, BofA argues in the new note:
“Tesla is at the forefront of autonomous driving, supported by a camera-only approach that is technically harder but much cheaper than the multi-sensor systems widely used in the industry. This strategy should allow Tesla to scale more profitably compared to Robotaxi competitors, helped by a growing data engine from its existing fleet.”
The bank now attributes roughly 52% of Tesla’s total valuation to its Robotaxi ambitions. It also flagged meaningful upside from the Optimus humanoid robot program and the fast-growing energy storage business, suggesting the auto segment’s recent headwinds, including expired incentives, are being eclipsed by these higher-margin opportunities.
Tesla’s own data underscores exactly why Wall Street is waking up to FSD’s potential. According to Tesla’s official safety reporting page, the FSD Supervised fleet has now surpassed 8.4 billion cumulative miles driven.
Tesla FSD (Supervised) fleet passes 8.4 billion cumulative miles
That total ballooned from just 6 million miles in 2021 to 80 million in 2022, 670 million in 2023, 2.25 billion in 2024, and a staggering 4.25 billion in 2025 alone. In the first 50 days of 2026, owners added another 1 billion miles — averaging more than 20 million miles per day.
This avalanche of real-world, camera-captured footage, much of it on complex city streets, gives Tesla an unmatched training dataset. Every mile feeds its neural networks, accelerating improvement cycles that lidar-dependent rivals simply cannot match at scale.
Tesla owners themselves will tell you the suite gets better with every release, bringing new features and improvements to its self-driving project.
The $460 target implies roughly 15 percent upside from recent trading levels around $400. While regulatory and safety hurdles remain, BofA’s endorsement signals growing institutional conviction that Tesla’s data advantage is not hype; it’s a tangible moat already delivering billions of miles of proof.
News
Tesla to discuss expansion of Samsung AI6 production plans: report
Tesla has reportedly requested an additional 24,000 wafers per month, which would bring total production capacity to around 40,000 wafers if finalized.
Tesla is reportedly discussing an expansion of its next-generation AI chip supply deal with Samsung Electronics.
As per a report from Korean industry outlet The Elec, Tesla purchasing executives are reportedly scheduled to meet Samsung officials this week to negotiate additional production volume for the company’s upcoming AI6 chip.
Industry sources cited in the report stated that Tesla is pushing to increase the production volume of its AI6 chip, which will be manufactured using Samsung’s 2-nanometer process.
Tesla previously signed a long-term foundry agreement with Samsung covering AI6 production through December 31, 2033. The deal was reportedly valued at about 22.8 trillion won (roughly $16–17 billion).
Under the existing agreement, Tesla secured approximately 16,000 wafers per month from the facility. The company has reportedly requested an additional 24,000 wafers per month, which would bring total production capacity to around 40,000 wafers if finalized.
Tesla purchasing executives are expected to discuss detailed supply terms during their visit to Samsung this week.
The AI6 chip is expected to support several Tesla technologies. Industry sources stated that the chip could be used for the company’s Full Self-Driving system, the Optimus humanoid robot, and Tesla’s internal AI data centers.
The report also indicated that AI6 clusters could replace the role previously planned for Tesla’s Dojo AI supercomputer. Instead of a single system, multiple AI6 chips would be combined into server-level clusters.
Tesla’s semiconductor collaboration with Samsung dates back several years. Samsung participated in the design of Tesla’s HW3 (AI3) chip and manufactured it using a 14-nanometer process. The HW4 chip currently used in Tesla vehicles was also produced by Samsung using a 5-nanometer node.
Tesla previously planned to split production of its AI5 chip between Samsung and TSMC. However, the company reportedly chose Samsung as the primary partner for the newer AI6 chip.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.2.5 might be the most confusing release ever
Tesla gets tip of the hat from major Wall Street firm on self-driving prowess
