News
Amazon chooses everyone but SpaceX to launch its Starlink competitor
Amazon has announced a series of record-breaking launch contracts that will place a “majority” of its 3,236-satellite Project Kuiper constellation in orbit in the hope of blanketing the Earth with high-quality internet alongside OneWeb, Starlink, Telesat, and others.
Of 68 firm launch contracts and a total of 83 contracts including unexercised options, SpaceX – the world’s most cost-effective, available launch provider – is fully absent. Instead, Amazon, has awarded three batch contracts to United Launch Alliance (ULA), Arianespace, and Blue Origin. Prior to this announcement, Amazon had already purchased two launches of prototype satellites on startup ABL Space’s RS1 rockets and nine operational launches on ULA Atlas V rockets, rounding out what is undoubtedly the most expensive set of commercial launch purchases in spaceflight history.
More likely than not, Amazon is paying a bare minimum of $100 million per launch, though $150-200 million is probably closer to reality. All three of the rockets now scheduled to launch most Kuiper satellites have yet to fly. Arianespace’s Ariane 6 and ULA’s Vulcan Centaur could debut in late 2022, though 2023 is more likely. Blue Origin’s partially reusable New Glenn is unlikely to fly before 2024 or even 2025.
Amazon has now purchased:
- 9 Atlas V launches, each likely costing $150-200 million.
- 12 New Glenn launches, with options for 15 more. Blue Origin says New Glenn will be able to carry 61 satellites per launch. The company has yet to reveal pricing but $100 million per launch is a probable floor.
- 18 Ariane 6 launches carrying 35-40 satellites apiece. As of 2014, the rocket’s most capable variant was expected to cost at least €115 million (~$125 million) per launch.
- 38 Vulcan Centaur launches carrying 45 satellites apiece. ULA wants the cheapest Vulcan variant to cost ~$100 million. Project Kuiper, which likely needs the most expensive Vulcan variant, will probably pay closer to $125-150 million per launch.
All told, assuming Atlas V can launch at least 15-20 satellites apiece, Amazon’s latest contract likely means that the company has secured enough launch capacity to fully launch the first phase of its Project Kuiper constellation without exercising options. Those 77 operational launches will likely cost the company a minimum of $9.5-10 billion before accounting for the cost of Kuiper satellites or payload adapters.
According to NASA’s ELVPerf calculator, which uses official data provided by each company, Vulcan’s heaviest VC6 variant can launch ~27 tons (~60,000 lb) and New Glenn can launch ~35 tons (~77,000 lb) to a low 300-kilometer (~190 mile) insertion orbit. Ariane 6’s most capable ’64’ variant will likely be able to launch about 20 tons (~44,000 lb) to the same orbit, though official info is only available for a circular 500-kilometer orbit. Assuming Project Kuiper launches are not volume constrained, meaning that most of each rocket’s available performance is being taken advantage of, each Kuiper satellite likely weighs no more than 500-600 kilograms (1100-1300 lb).
Falcon 9 recently broke an internal payload record with the successful launch of 16.25 tons of Starlink satellites to a similarly low insertion orbit. Including the mass of a payload adapter and deployment mechanism, Falcon 9’s true performance was likely closer to 17-18 tons. Combined with Falcon 9’s cheapest public commercial launch contract (~$50 million), it’s possible that SpaceX’s partially reusable Falcon 9 rockets could have launched 25-30 Kuiper satellites apiece for an average cost of ~$1.7 to $2 million per satellite – around 50-80% cheaper than Kuiper’s likely average.
Those significant savings don’t consider SpaceX’s next-generation Starship launch vehicle, which will likely reach orbit and begin commercial launches at least a year before New Glenn. Starship could feasibly carry 100-150 Kuiper satellites per launch and, if full reusability is achieved, might cost less than Falcon 9 despite offering at least five times the performance.
Per Amazon’s Project Kuiper FCC constellation license, the company will need to launch half of its constellation – 1618 satellites – by July 2026. It’s not actually clear if Arianespace, ULA, and Blue Origin will be able to collectively complete the roughly 36 launches that will require over the next four years. In the last four years, Arianespace’s Ariane 5 and ULA’s Atlas and Delta rockets have collectively launched 38 times. The first Kuiper satellite prototype is scheduled to launch no earlier than late 2022, meaning that operational launches are unlikely to begin before mid-2023.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
