News
SpaceX valuation to grow by 27% as Starship, Starlink programs seek more funding
CNBC reports that SpaceX is seeking to raise at least $1.725 billion in its first funding round of 2022, potentially boosting the private company’s valuation as high as $127 billion.
The report signals just the latest in a long line of high-profile rounds of funding SpaceX has secured over the last seven years, gradually boosting its valuation by a factor of more than 100. More likely than not, this round will also be fully subscribed or even oversubscribed as investors scramble over a relatively rare opportunity to snag a small slice of SpaceX – a demand so high that Equidate once stated that SpaceX effectively had access to ‘an unlimited amount of funding’ in 2018.
Four years later, it’s clear that Equidate’s position and forecast were prescient. After a few slow years post-2015, SpaceX’s fundraising activity returned with a vengeance in 2019. From 2019 to 2021, the company privately raised more than $5.2 billion – nearly triple the amount of private funding SpaceX raised from 2002 to 2018. In the likely event that the latest in a long line of highly sought-after and oversubscribed SpaceX investment rounds, SpaceX will have ultimately raised between $8.6 and $9 billion since 2015, averaging about $1.3 billion per year over the last seven years.
More likely than not, a vast majority of that $9 billion has gone towards Starlink and Starship – both of which are also almost exclusively responsible for the fact that SpaceX’s valuation outmatches its annual revenue by a factor of several dozen. CEO Elon Musk has stated in 2017 and 2018 that SpaceX invested around $1 billion to develop Falcon booster reusability and more than $500 million to develop a triple-booster variant of Falcon 9 known as Falcon Heavy – still the most capable operational rocket in the world four years after its debut. It’s possible that some portion of SpaceX’s fundraising since 2015 has gone towards basic recurring expenses during years with few launches and relatively little revenue.
However, it’s likely that most or all of the remaining $7-7.5 billion – separate from several lucrative contracts awarded by the US military and NASA – has gone towards Starlink and Starship. In the last few years, SpaceX has effectively built a massive factory and launch pad for the largest rocket ever built (Starship) out of empty lots in South Texas. SpaceX has also turned several nondescript buildings near Seattle, Washington into the most productive satellite factory in spaceflight history and is working on additional factories to mass-produce hundreds of thousands to millions of cutting-edge satellite dishes per year to allow millions of people to connect to the internet through Starlink.
Assuming a rough marginal cost of $500,000 per satellite and $15 million per Falcon 9 launch, SpaceX could have easily spent more than $2 billion just to build and launch the ~2650 Starlink satellites it’s launched to date. Accounting for the annual salaries and overhead needed for the thousands of employees required to build those satellites and conduct more than 50 different Starlink launches, the true cost over several years could be closer to $3-5 billion. Meanwhile, Starbase has rapidly expanded, built vast new infrastructure, mass-produced around two-dozen different Starship tanks and prototypes, completed dozens of tests, built and tested 150-200 Raptor engines, and conducted nine major flight tests.
Up until late 2021, perhaps less than 5-10% of funding for the above activities came directly from US government contracts. While Starlink remains almost entirely privately funded, SpaceX’s Starship program received a major influx of funding and support from NASA through a $3 billion Moon landing contract awarded in April 2021, but protests from two competitors meant that funds from that contract only began reaching SpaceX around the end of the year. Ultimately, it’s not hard to see why SpaceX has needed to raise so much capital in the last three years.
News
Tesla FSD (Supervised) fleet passes 8.4 billion cumulative miles
The figure appears on Tesla’s official safety page, which tracks performance data for FSD (Supervised) and other safety technologies.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) system has now surpassed 8.4 billion cumulative miles.
The figure appears on Tesla’s official safety page, which tracks performance data for FSD (Supervised) and other safety technologies.
Tesla has long emphasized that large-scale real-world data is central to improving its neural network-based approach to autonomy. Each mile driven with FSD (Supervised) engaged contributes additional edge cases and scenario training for the system.
The milestone also brings Tesla closer to a benchmark previously outlined by CEO Elon Musk. Musk has stated that roughly 10 billion miles of training data may be needed to achieve safe unsupervised self-driving at scale, citing the “long tail” of rare but complex driving situations that must be learned through experience.
The growth curve of FSD Supervised’s cumulative miles over the past five years has been notable.
As noted in data shared by Tesla watcher Sawyer Merritt, annual FSD (Supervised) miles have increased from roughly 6 million in 2021 to 80 million in 2022, 670 million in 2023, 2.25 billion in 2024, and 4.25 billion in 2025. In just the first 50 days of 2026, Tesla owners logged another 1 billion miles.
At the current pace, the fleet is trending towards hitting about 10 billion FSD Supervised miles this year. The increase has been driven by Tesla’s growing vehicle fleet, periodic free trials, and expanding Robotaxi operations, among others.
With the fleet now past 8.4 billion cumulative miles, Tesla’s supervised system is approaching that threshold, even as regulatory approval for fully unsupervised deployment remains subject to further validation and oversight.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk fires back after Wikipedia co-founder claims neutrality and dubs Grokipedia “ridiculous”
Musk’s response to Wales’ comments, which were posted on social media platform X, was short and direct: “Famous last words.”
Elon Musk fired back at Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales after the longtime online encyclopedia leader dismissed xAI’s new AI-powered alternative, Grokipedia, as a “ridiculous” idea that is bound to fail.
Musk’s response to Wales’ comments, which were posted on social media platform X, was short and direct: “Famous last words.”
Wales made the comments while answering questions about Wikipedia’s neutrality. According to Wales, Wikipedia prides itself on neutrality.
“One of our core values at Wikipedia is neutrality. A neutral point of view is non-negotiable. It’s in the community, unquestioned… The idea that we’ve become somehow ‘Wokepidea’ is just not true,” Wales said.
When asked about potential competition from Grokipedia, Wales downplayed the situation. “There is no competition. I don’t know if anyone uses Grokipedia. I think it is a ridiculous idea that will never work,” Wales wrote.
After Grokipedia went live, Larry Sanger, also a co-founder of Wikipedia, wrote on X that his initial impression of the AI-powered Wikipedia alternative was “very OK.”
“My initial impression, looking at my own article and poking around here and there, is that Grokipedia is very OK. The jury’s still out as to whether it’s actually better than Wikipedia. But at this point I would have to say ‘maybe!’” Sanger stated.
Musk responded to Sanger’s assessment by saying it was “accurate.” In a separate post, he added that even in its V0.1 form, Grokipedia was already better than Wikipedia.
During a past appearance on the Tucker Carlson Show, Sanger argued that Wikipedia has drifted from its original vision, citing concerns about how its “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” framework categorizes publications by perceived credibility. As per Sanger, Wikipedia’s “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” list leans heavily left, with conservative publications getting effectively blacklisted in favor of their more liberal counterparts.
As of writing, Grokipedia has reportedly surpassed 80% of English Wikipedia’s article count.
News
Tesla Sweden appeals after grid company refuses to restore existing Supercharger due to union strike
The charging site was previously functioning before it was temporarily disconnected in April last year for electrical safety reasons.
Tesla Sweden is seeking regulatory intervention after a Swedish power grid company refused to reconnect an already operational Supercharger station in Åre due to ongoing union sympathy actions.
The charging site was previously functioning before it was temporarily disconnected in April last year for electrical safety reasons. A temporary construction power cabinet supplying the station had fallen over, described by Tesla as occurring “under unclear circumstances.” The power was then cut at the request of Tesla’s installation contractor to allow safe repair work.
While the safety issue was resolved, the station has not been brought back online. Stefan Sedin, CEO of Jämtkraft elnät, told Dagens Arbete (DA) that power will not be restored to the existing Supercharger station as long as the electric vehicle maker’s union issues are ongoing.
“One of our installers noticed that the construction power had been backed up and was on the ground. We asked Tesla to fix the system, and their installation company in turn asked us to cut the power so that they could do the work safely.
“When everything was restored, the question arose: ‘Wait a minute, can we reconnect the station to the electricity grid? Or what does the notice actually say?’ We consulted with our employer organization, who were clear that as long as sympathy measures are in place, we cannot reconnect this facility,” Sedin said.
The union’s sympathy actions, which began in March 2024, apply to work involving “planning, preparation, new connections, grid expansion, service, maintenance and repairs” of Tesla’s charging infrastructure in Sweden.
Tesla Sweden has argued that reconnecting an existing facility is not equivalent to establishing a new grid connection. In a filing to the Swedish Energy Market Inspectorate, the company stated that reconnecting the installation “is therefore not covered by the sympathy measures and cannot therefore constitute a reason for not reconnecting the facility to the electricity grid.”
Sedin, for his part, noted that Tesla’s issue with the Supercharger is quite unique. And while Jämtkraft elnät itself has no issue with Tesla, its actions are based on the unions’ sympathy measures against the electric vehicle maker.
“This is absolutely the first time that I have been involved in matters relating to union conflicts or sympathy measures. That is why we have relied entirely on the assessment of our employer organization. This is not something that we have made any decisions about ourselves at all.
“It is not that Jämtkraft elnät has a conflict with Tesla, but our actions are based on these sympathy measures. Should it turn out that we have made an incorrect assessment, we will correct ourselves. It is no more difficult than that for us,” the executive said.
Tesla FSD (Supervised) fleet passes 8.4 billion cumulative miles
Elon Musk fires back after Wikipedia co-founder claims neutrality and dubs Grokipedia “ridiculous”
