News
SpaceX to launch secret “Zuma” payload same day as Tesla Semi event
SpaceX has completed preparations and is ready to launch the highly secretive “Zuma” satellite(s) at 5pm/8pm PST/EST on Thursday, November 16th, the same day Tesla will be holding its semi-truck unveiling event.
Updated: SpaceX has rescheduled the Zuma mission.
SpaceX's highly secretive mission originally scheduled for today has been rescheduled for 8pm ET Fri., Nov. 17. On-the-ground photos from today – https://t.co/CUHuwP2lT3 pic.twitter.com/TZVBhjTOzw
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 16, 2017
The Zuma launch campaign has been veiled in an extraordinary level of secrecy for SpaceX and the US launch industry in general, and this has piqued the interest of many.
In the last decade or two, the United States military apparatus has launched many dozens of satellites, and secrecy on the order of Zuma is unusual to say the least. Missions for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) typically feature some level of media presence and have developed a community of fans in the age of social media, taking advantage of cartoonish mission logos that can often be entertaining, if not vaguely disturbing.
Some of the more ‘unique’ NROL logos in recent years. (NRO)
However, no federal agency has yet to announce involvement in Zuma. The full extent of public information available can be found in a handful of tweets, with drastically less official info available from a leaky source on Reddit. Thus far, Northrop Grumman is known to have at least procured Zuma’s launch from SpaceX, and the same statement indirectly suggested that Zuma was in fact a government-related mission. NRO is the obvious option, with the Air Force or another branch of the US military or intelligence apparatus also a distinct possibility. It is entirely possible that the nature and parent of the mission will remain secret for the indefinite future, even after its launch.
Nevertheless, a handful of details allow us to speculate in greater detail. In May 2017, SpaceX launched NROL-76, a Department of Defense satellite that was intriguingly observed to have made very close passes to the International Space Station, far too close to have been a coincidence. Based on Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) filed with the FAA and discussed earlier this week, it appears Zuma may be placed in an orbit very similar to that of NROL-76, suggesting that Zuma could be an iteration on NROL-76’s supposed orbit-to-orbit data gathering capabilities. This time, however, agency involvement has been completely shadowed. A blank fairing, sans any NROL-reminiscent logo, will be the tell-tale sign come tomorrow, when Teslarati’s launch photographer Tom Cross arrives at Kennedy Space Center for camera setup.
Northrop Grumman on #SpaceX Zuma launch: "This represents a cost effective approach to space access for government missions. Northrop realizes that this is monumental responsibility and has taken great care to ensure the most affordable and lowest risk scenario for Zuma."
— Robin Seemangal (@nova_road) November 13, 2017
Meanwhile, as has become shockingly routine, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 first stage, core 1043, will conduct a Return to Launch Site (RTLS), landing at LZ-1 just a few miles from its launch pad. Like NROL-76, we can expect live coverage of the second stage and payload to end immediately after stage separation; bittersweet but esoteric fans, but likely to result in a unique focus on the stage returning to Earth.
On the horizon
Possibly more exciting than the launch itself, Zuma is expected to be the last launch from SpaceX’s Kennedy Space Center LC-39A facilities until Falcon Heavy, currently aiming for an inaugural flight around December 29th. After a solid year of repairs and refurbishment, SpaceX’s LC-40 launch pad is anticipating a return to flight operations with the CRS-13 Cargo Dragon mission on December 4th. Located within the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station just a few miles south of LC-39A, LC-40 suffered widespread damage after a Falcon 9 catastrophically failed while preparing for a static fire test on the pad.
Despite the tragic loss of vehicle and the Amos-6 payload, SpaceX has maintained a strong relationship with the owner, Spacecom, and was recently chosen for both a contractual reflight in 2019 and an additional launch in 2020.
SpaceX has also made great strides since returning to flight after Amos-6 in January 2017, and has enjoyed a truly groundbreaking year of incredible progress towards the goal of rapid reusability. Quite fittingly, LC-40 is expected to return to action while hosting yet another commercial reuse of a Falcon 9 first stage, this time with the hugely significant approval of NASA. The space agency has yet to make this decision resoundingly public, but respected industry insider NASASpaceflight.com has stated that it is all but in stone at this point in time. In a sense, the disaster that severely damaged LC-40 acted as a since-heeded wake-up call for SpaceX, and the venerable pad will rise from those ashes into a new era of reusable rocketry, led wholeheartedly by SpaceX.
Be sure to follow our Instagram stories and see live action directly from the launch site at the Kennedy Space Center!
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
