News
SpaceX Starship rocket set to reach full height for the second time ever
A SpaceX Starship prototype is on track to become the first to reach its full, operational height in a permanent fashion, following in the footsteps of a much earlier prototype that had its nose section temporarily installed last year.
Known as Starship Mk1, that prototype served as more of a learning experience, pathfinder, and mockup over the ~8 months it took to build it and the few weeks it took to destroy it. While its conical nose section was partially outfitted with smaller ‘header’ propellant tanks, it was never fully installed, with SpaceX only temporarily stacking it on top of Starship Mk1’s tank section to serve as the centerpiece of CEO Elon Musk’s October 2019 update event. Mk1’s nosecone was removed shortly after the event was over, while the rocket’s more important tank section was rolled to a nearby launch pad for testing.
More than six months later, Starship SN5 appears to be firmly on its way to becoming the first of SpaceX’s next-generation launch vehicle prototypes to have a (mostly) functional nose section permanently installed. If that ends up being the case, SpaceX’s fifth full-scale Starship prototype may become the first to have multiple Raptor engines installed and the first to perform a high-altitude flight test. Of course, that will depend quite heavily on the fate of Starship SN4, currently trapped in limbo after a May 19th static fire caused SpaceX to partially lose control of the rocket.
While not immediately clear, comments made by CEO Elon Musk and SpaceX officials suggested that the company was aiming to perform low-altitude hops with Starship SN4 and graduate to high-altitude testing with the next prototype off the assembly line (SN5). With a development program as agile as SpaceX’s Starship effort, however, plans are liable to change at almost any moment.
On May 17th, however, it became clear that – at least for the time being – SpaceX fully intends for Starship SN5 to become the first serially-produced ship to have a nosecone installed. On that Sunday, a brand new steel nose section – the fourth built by SpaceX in the last few months – was rolled out of a massive factory tent, revealing labels that rather unambiguously read “SN5”.
SN5 refers to Starship serial number 5, the fifth full-scale rocket prototype overall and fourth built since the start of 2020. Over the last six or so months, SpaceX has dramatically expanded its production footprint in South Texas, reaching a point now where it’s churning out a rough Starship prototype every month, on average. Starship SN5 is no different, with its tank section largely completed as of May 15th, give or take a day or two.
Now, on May 19th, a new collection of five stacked steel rings appeared alongside Starship SN5’s largely completed tank and engine section. Combined with the new nosecone labeled “SN5”, it’s now readily and unequivocally apparent that the prototype is probably a matter of days away from having a nosecone installed. Unless SpaceX has adopted different methods for Starship SN6 production and assembly, a stack of five steel rings – lacking any sign of a tank dome welded inside it – will serve as the base that SN5’s nosecone can be stacked on top of. Once stacked with its nose section, Starship SN5 will measure some 50m (~165 ft) tall – at least several meters taller than a Falcon 9 booster.
The nosecone itself is also quite interesting, featuring two sets of four mysterious thruster nozzles, signs of interior components and reinforcements, and two recessed struts presumably meant to attach to Starship’s forward flaps.
While exciting, there is certainly still a chance that Starship SN4 – trapped at the launch pad – will have to be destroyed or will be unsalvageable even if SpaceX is able to finally access and safe the prototype. If so, Starship SN5 will likely take its place, performing a Raptor static fire, a ~150m (~500 ft) hop test, and an additional ~3 km (~1.9 mi) flight test before potentially moving on to triple Raptor operations and high-altitude flights. Stay tuned for updates on SN4’s fate and SN5’s production status.
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
