News
SpaceX Starship aborts Raptor engine test, briefly catches fire
Update: On March 15th, SpaceX got within milliseconds of Starship serial number 11’s (SN11) first Raptor engine test but suffered an abort just before full ignition, briefly leaving the rocket on fire.
Around 12:26 pm CDT, after an otherwise nominal static fire flow, Starship SN11 momentarily ignited one or two of its three Raptor engines’ preburners, referring to a central component that burns cryogenic liquid propellant into gas that’s ready for combustion. As with all preburner tests, intentional or otherwise, the end result looked a bit like a weak static fire and produced a small but visible amount of flame and thrust. Unlike intentional preburner tests, the static fire abort seemingly ignited something hidden inside Starship SN11’s and appeared to burn for at least another 30-40 seconds.
Raptor has proven itself to be an extremely durable engine, up to and including surviving visible onboard fires during actual Starship flight tests. Nevertheless, depending on the source of SN11’s post-abort fire and what it may or may not have burned or damaged, it’s no surprise that SpaceX ended testing for the day instead of quickly trying again, which it’s done several times prior. If the fire was largely harmless, SpaceX has already distributed notices suggesting a second attempt could happen as early as 6am to 12pm CDT (UTC-5) on Tuesday, March 16th. If more time is needed, SpaceX has the rest of the week to conduct any necessary repairs or swap out SN11’s Raptor engines.
Public documents show that SpaceX has plans to static fire and launch its latest Starship prototype within a two-day period that could begin later today.
SpaceX shipped Starship SN11 from its Boca Chica, Texas rocket factory to test and launch facilities a mile down the road on March 8th, less than five days after Starship SN10 exploded minutes after touchdown. The very next day, SpaceX completed ambient-temperature proof testing, filling Starship with benign nitrogen gas to check for leaks and verify system health. Two days after that, Starship SN11 appeared to complete a several-hour cryogenic proof test – swapping nitrogen gas for its supercool liquid form – without issue.
Despite the seemingly successful ‘cryo proof,’ something prevented a subsequent static fire test planned on March 12th before any attempt could be made, delaying the next attempt until after the approaching weekend. An agreement between SpaceX, Cameron County, and the state of Texas currently prevents road closures (and thus rocket testing) on weekends falling between Labor Day and Memorial Day, rules meant to preserve some level of public access to Boca Chica Beach.
As a result, unless SpaceX is already ready to launch (it has waivers for three such weekend closures for launch attempts), the company has to wait until Monday even if a minor issue fixable in hours or a day or so scrubs Friday test plans. While inconvenient, it’s worth noting that the existence of that public beach and the strong regulations that protect its public domain is likely one of the only reasons the general public can still get as close as they can to SpaceX’s Boca Chica ‘Starbase’.
For whatever reason, that road closure agreement does still mean that SpaceX will (in theory) be able to test and launch any day of the week from May 31st to September 6th, save for a few holidays, effectively boosting the number of opportunities by 40% for those 14 weeks. Until then, SpaceX is doing everything it can to take full advantage of the five days a week it is allowed to test Starship prototypes. N
Notably, although Starships SN8 and SN9 both hit a few weeks of technical and regulatory snags while preparing for their high-altitude launch attempts, SpaceX has been gradually speeding up that process over time. Starship SN10, the first prototype of its kind to land in one piece, took just 33 days to go from pad arrival to liftoff and spent just 8 days between its first static fire and launch attempts. The same feats took Starship SN8 77 and 50 days, respectively, with SN9 splitting the difference at 43 days from transport to liftoff and 28 days between its first static fire and launch attempts.
Road closure requests, a safety warning for residents, and a Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) filed with the FAA all suggest that SpaceX’s current plan is to attempt Starship SN11’s first triple-Raptor static fire between 6am and 12pm CDT on Monday, March 15th. If that test goes almost perfectly, SpaceX wants to turn the rocket around for a 10 km (6.2 mi) launch attempt on Tuesday, March 16th – the very next day. Given the past performance of high-altitude Starship prototypes, that target is decidedly ambitious and likely to incur delays, but it still reveals the true scope of SpaceX’s goals even at this early stage of development.
If Starship SN11 does manage to launch within a few days of its first static fire attempt, SpaceX would still crush SN10’s 33-day record by a factor of three. Stay tuned for updates on Monday’s possible Starship static fire and rapid Tuesday turnaround attempt
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
