News
Stoke Space to build SpaceX Raptor engine’s first real competitor
Seattle startup Stoke Space has revealed plans to develop an efficient rocket engine similar to the Raptors that power SpaceX’s Starship.
Formed in October 2019, Stoke Space secured its first significant round of funding – $9.1 million – less than three years ago. At that time, CEO and co-founder Andy Lapsa says that the startup had just five employees, no permanent workspace, and a “barren field” for a test site. Within 18 months, Stoke Space had turned that empty field into an impressive test facility, conducted numerous component tests, and assembled its first full-scale rocket engine – an exotic UFO-like device unlike any seen before.
It also raised another $65 million – enough funding to begin earnestly developing a potentially revolutionary rocket capable of launching more than 1.65 tons (~3600 lb) into orbit for less than half a million dollars. To realize that extremely ambitious goal, Stoke Space has taken the even more ambitious step of attempting to make the first rocket it develops fully reusable. Simultaneously, the company has incorporated several exotic technologies into that rocket, recently culminating in a surprise announcement that it will attempt to develop one of the most difficult types of engines to power that rocket’s booster stage.
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
Full-flow staged combustion
At the end of an extended interview and tour with YouTuber Tim Dodd (The Everyday Astronaut), CEO Andy Lapsa revealed that Stoke Space has decided to build a full-flow staged combustion (FFSC) engine for the first stage of its reusable rocket. FFSC is the most efficient type of combustion cycle available for a chemical bipropellant rocket engine, but it’s also the most difficult to develop.
A full-flow engine attempts to squeeze every possible ounce of performance out of the propellant it consumes. The most powerful and efficient chemical rocket engines must consume huge volumes of propellant in a short amount of time without destroying the launch vehicle they’re attached to. To create pressure and spin the pumps that are needed to feed that propellant into their main combustion chamber, engines often burn a small amount of propellant in a separate gas generator or preburner. Gas-generator engines vent that exhaust overboard, reducing efficiency but making for a much simpler design. Staged-combustion engines use preburners to create gas that pumps liquid propellant, and that exhaust gas is eventually injected into the main combustion chamber.
Full-flow staged combustion sets itself apart by having two separate pumps and preburners for oxidizer and fuel. Unlike simpler variants of staged combustion, FFSC engines turn all of their propellant into gas before injecting it into the combustion chamber. That hot gas increases the heat of combustion and the pressure inside the combustion chamber, ensuring that virtually all of the propellant that flows through the engine is combusted and turned into thrust as efficiently as possible. FFSC is exceptionally difficult because of the extra-high temperatures and pressures it requires, as well as the need for an oxygen-rich preburner and pump. In a high-pressure, hot-oxygen environment, virtually anything imaginable – including most metals – will spontaneously combust.
Only complex custom-designed alloys can survive those conditions. SpaceX’s Raptor, the only FFSC engine that has ever flown, is especially difficult because it’s meant to be highly reusable. To be successful, Raptor will have to survive those conditions dozens or even hundreds of times in a row with little to no maintenance in between.
The first booster engine Stoke Space ever attempts to build will be a reusable full-flow staged combustion engine powered by liquid methane and liquid oxygen – essentially a smaller version of SpaceX’s Raptor. Stoke’s booster is otherwise familiar and features deployable landing legs like SpaceX’s Falcon boosters. Lapsa says it will likely also have grid fins.
Reusing the upper stage
In some ways, the upper stage of Stoke’s first rocket is even more ambitious. Powered by hydrogen and oxygen propellant, Stoke has designed a conical capsule-like upper stage with an integral fairing. The upper stage’s propulsion is exotic and unique. A large pump will feed propellant to up to 30 combustion chambers distributed around the rim of its heat shield. The exhaust coming from those 30 chambers will expand and partially push against the upper stage’s equally exotic metallic, liquid-cooled heat shield. That expansion against the heat shield improves the efficiency of the upper stage and means that its engine will technically be an aerospike.
Stoke has already begun testing a full-scale version of the upper stage’s UFO-like rocket engine with 15 combustion chambers. Since testing began in the second half of 2022, Stoke has completed dozens of static fires. Everyday Astronaut’s tour also revealed that the startup has made significant progress fabricating and assembling its first full-scale upper stage prototype – tanks, nosecone, heat shield, engine, and all.
Reminiscent of SpaceX’s Grasshopper and Starhopper campaigns, Stoke plans to conduct hop tests with that prototype if it makes it through qualification testing. On February 7th, Stoke also revealed that it’s begun testing a crucial component of its full-flow booster engine. All told, Stoke Space is making progress at a remarkable pace and continues to tackle the hardest problems. The startup has also avoided widely publicizing any specific deadlines, instead choosing to let hardware and tangible results speak for themselves. Only time will tell if that approach pays off, but Stoke is off to an exceptionally impressive start in an industry full of impressive rocket startups.
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
