Connect with us
starlink-1-4-billion-revenue-spacex starlink-1-4-billion-revenue-spacex

News

SpaceX Starlink Gen2 constellation weakened by “partial” FCC grant

Published

on

More than two and a half years after SpaceX began the process of securing regulatory approval for its next-generation Starlink constellation, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has finally granted the company a license – but only after drastically decreasing its scope.

In May 2020, SpaceX filed its first FCC license application for Starlink Gen2, an upgraded constellation of 30,000 satellites. In the second half of 2021, SpaceX amended its Starlink Gen2 application to take full advantage of the company’s more powerful Starship rocket and further improve the constellation’s potential utility. Only in December 2021 did the FCC finally accept SpaceX’s Gen2 application for filing, kicking off the final review process.

On November 29th, 2022, the FCC completed that review and granted SpaceX permission to launch just 7,500 of the ~30,000 Starlink Gen2 satellites it had requested permission for more than 30 months prior. The FCC offered no explanation of how it arrived at its arbitrary 75% reduction, nor why the resulting number is slightly lower than a different 7,518-satellite Starlink Gen1 constellation SpaceX had already received a license to deploy in late 2018. Adding insult to injury, the FCC repeatedly acknowledges that “the total number of satellites SpaceX is authorized to deploy is not increased by our action today, and in fact is slightly reduced.”

That claimed reduction is thanks to the fact that shortly before this decision, SpaceX told the FCC in good faith that it would voluntarily avoid launching the dedicated V-band Starlink constellation it already received a license for in order “to significantly reduce the total number of satellites ultimately on orbit.” Instead, once Starlink Gen2 was approved, it would request permission to add V-band payloads to a subset of the 29,988 planned Gen2 satellites, achieving a similar result without the need for another 7,518 satellites.

In response, the FCC slashed the total number of Starlink Gen2 satellites permitted to less than the number of satellites approved by the FCC’s November 2018 Starlink V-band authorization; limited those satellites to middle-ground orbits, entirely precluding Gen2 launches to higher or lower orbits; and didn’t even structure its compromise in a way that would at least allow SpaceX to fully complete three Starlink Gen2 ‘shells.’ Worse, the FCC’s partial grant barely mentioned SpaceX’s detailed plans to use new E-band antennas on Starlink Gen2 satellites and next-generation ground stations, simply stating that it will “defer acting on” the request until “further review and coordination with Federal users.”

Advertisement
The FCC’s “partial grant” only allows SpaceX to launch 7,500 of 10,080 Starlink Gen2 satellites meant to operate at altitudes between 525 and 535 kilometers.

Throughout the partial grant, the FCC couches its decision to drastically downscale SpaceX’s Starlink Gen2 constellation in terms of needing more time “to evaluate the complex and novel issues on the record before [the Commission],” raising the question of what exactly the Commission was doing instead in the 30 months since SpaceX’s first Gen2 application and 15 months since its Gen2 modification. In comparison, SpaceX received a full license for its 7,518-satellite V-band constellation less than five months after applying. SpaceX’s 4,408-satellite Starlink Gen1 constellation – the first megaconstellation ever reviewed by the modern FCC – was licensed 16 months after its first application and eight months after a modified application was submitted.

Adding to the oddity of the unusual and inconsistent decision-making in this FCC ruling, the Commission openly acknowledges that the idea to grant SpaceX permission to launch a fraction of its Starlink Gen2 constellation came from Amazon’s Project Kuiper [PDF], a major prospective Starlink competitor. The FCC says it agreed with Amazon’s argument, stating that “the public interest would be served by taking this approach in order to permit monitoring of developments involving this large-scale deployment and permit additional consideration of issues unique to the other orbits SpaceX requests.”

The V-band Starlink constellation already approved by the FCC was for 7,518 satellites in very low Earth orbits (~340 km). In the first 4,425-satellite Starlink constellation licensed by the FCC, the Commission gave SpaceX permission to operate 2,814 satellites at orbits between 1100 and 1300 kilometers. Increasingly conscious of the consequences of space debris, which would last hundreds of years at 1000+ kilometers, SpaceX later requested permission in 2019 and 2020 to launch those 2,814 satellites to around 550 kilometers, where failed satellites would reenter in just five years. For unknown reasons, the FCC only fully approved the change two years later, in April 2021.

The “other orbits [requested by SpaceX]” that the FCC says create unique issues that demand “additional consideration” of Starlink Gen2 are for 19,400 satellites between 340 and 360 kilometers and 468 satellites between 604 and 614 kilometers. Starlink satellites are expected to be around four times heavier and feature a magnitude more surface area, but the fact remains that the FCC has already granted SpaceX permission to launch almost 3000 smaller satellites to orbits much higher than 604 kilometers and more than 7500 satellites to orbits lower than 360 kilometers. It’s thus hard not to conclude that the Commission’s claims that a partial license denial was warranted by “concerns about orbital debris and space safety,” and “issues unique to…other orbits” are incoherent at best.

SpaceX has already built a significant number of Starlink Gen2 prototypes.

Perhaps the strangest inclusion in the partial grant is a decision by the FCC to subject SpaceX to an arbitrary metric devised by another third-party, for-profit company LeoLabs. In a March 2022 letter, LeoLabs reportedly proposed that “SpaceX’s authorization to continue deploying satellites” be directly linked to an arbitrary metric measuring “the number of years each failed satellite remains in orbit, summed across all failed satellites.” The FCC apparently loved the suggestion and made it an explicit condition of its already harsh Starlink Gen2 authorization, even adopting the arbitrary limit of “100 object years” proposed by LeoLabs.

In other words, once the sum of the time required for all failed Starlink Gen2 satellites to naturally deorbit reaches 100 years, the FCC will force SpaceX to “cease satellite deployment” while it “[reviews] sources of satellite failure” and “determine[s] whether there are any adequate and reliable mitigation measures going forward.” The FCC acknowledges that the arbitrary 100-year limit means that the failure of just 20 Starlink satellites at operational orbits would force the company to halt launches. The Commission does not explain how it will decide when SpaceX can restart Starlink launches after a launch halt. SpaceX must simultaneously follow the FCC’s deployment schedule, which could see the company’s license revoked if it doesn’t deploy 3,750 Starlink Gen2 satellites by November 2028 and all 7,500 satellites by November 2031.

Advertisement

Based on the unofficial observations of astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell, SpaceX currently has more 30 failed Starlink Gen1 satellites at or close to their operational altitudes of 500+ kilometers, meaning that SpaceX would almost certainly be forced to stop launching Gen1 satellites if this arbitrary new rule were applied to other constellations. The same is true for competitor OneWeb, which had a single satellite fail at around 1200 kilometers in 2021. At that altitude, it will likely take hundreds of “object years” to naturally deorbit, easily surpassing LeoLabs’ draconian 100-year limit.

In theory, the FCC does make it clear that it will consider changing those restrictions and allowing SpaceX to launch more of its proposed Starlink Gen2 constellation in the future. But the Commission has also repeatedly demonstrated to SpaceX that it will happily take years to modify existing licenses or approve new ones – not a particularly reassuring foundation for investments as large and precarious as megaconstellations.

Ultimately, short of shady handshake deals in back rooms, the FCC’s partial grant leaves SpaceX’s Starlink Gen2 constellation in an undesirable position. For the company to proceed under the current license, it could be forced to redesign its satellites and ground stations to avoid the E-band, or gamble by continuing to build and deploy satellites and ground stations with E-band antennas without a guarantee that it’ll ever be able to use that hardware. There is also no guarantee that the FCC will permit SpaceX to launch any of the ~22,500 satellites left on the table by the partial grant, which will drastically change the financial calculus that determines whether the constellation is economically viable and how expansive associated infrastructure needs to be.

Additionally, if SpaceX accepts the gambit and launches all 7,500 approved Gen2 satellites only for the FCC to fail to approve expansions, Starlink Gen2 would be stuck with zero polar coverage, significantly reducing the constellation’s overall utility. Starlink Gen2 likely represents an investment of at least $30-60 billion (assuming an unprecedentedly low $1-2M to build and launch each 50-150 Gbps satellite). With its partial license denial and the addition of several new and arbitrary conditions, the FCC is effectively forcing SpaceX to take an even riskier gamble with the billions of dollars of brand new infrastructure it will need to build to manufacture, launch, operate, and utilize its Starlink Gen2 constellation.

Advertisement

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Giga Berlin makes big move amid strong sales and demand

“We currently have very good sales figures and have therefore revised our production plans for the third and fourth quarters upwards.”

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Manufacturing

Tesla is making a big move at its factory in Germany, known as Giga Berlin, as managers at the plant have indicated the company plans to increase its production rate for the remainder of the year.

Giga Berlin is responsible for manufacturing Model Y vehicles for several markets worldwide, including those outside of Europe. It was opened in March 2022, and it recently built its 500,000th Model Y in March and its 100,000th new Model Y just three weeks ago.

Due to some encouraging sales figures in the markets it provides vehicles for, Tesla said it is planning to increase production at the factory for the remainder of the year.

Andrè Thierig, plant manager at Giga Berlin, said to German news outlet DPA on Sunday that market data has encouraged a move to be made regarding the production at the factory:

“We currently have very good sales figures and have therefore revised our production plans for the third and fourth quarters upwards.”

It is interesting to see this kind of narrative from Thierig, especially as data has shown Tesla has struggled in various markets, including Germany, this year.

Sales drops have been reported, but other markets are holding strong, especially those in Northern Europe, such as Norway, where the Model Y saw a nearly 39 percent increase in sales in August compared to the same month the previous year.

Tesla Model Y leads sales rush in Norway in August 2025

Gigafactory Berlin supplies vehicles for other markets, such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, which are strategically important to avoid tariffs. It also builds cars for the Middle East.

Thierig reiterated this point during the interview with DPA:

“We supply well over 30 markets and definitely see a positive trend there.”

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla analyst says Musk stock buy should send this signal to investors

“With Musk’s (Tesla stock) purchase, combined with the upward momentum for delivery expectations and robotaxi rollout, we are becoming more bullish.”

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

Tesla CEO Elon Musk purchased roughly $1 billion in Tesla shares on Friday, and analysts are now breaking down the move as the stock is headed upward.

One of them is William Blair analyst Jed Dorsheimer, who said in a new note to investors on Monday that Musk’s move should send a signal of confidence to stock buyers, especially considering the company’s numerous catalysts that currently exist.

Elon Musk just bought $1 billion in Tesla stock, his biggest purchase ever

Dorsheimer said in the note:

“With Musk’s (Tesla stock) purchase, combined with the upward momentum for delivery expectations and robotaxi rollout, we are becoming more bullish. This purchase is Musk’s first buy since 2020. To us, this sends a strong signal of confidence in the most important part of Tesla’s future business, robotaxi.”

Musk putting an additional $1 billion back into the company in the form of more stock ownership is obviously a huge vote of confidence.

He knows more than anyone about the progress Tesla has made and is making on the Robotaxi platform, as well as the company’s ongoing efforts to solve vehicle autonomy. If he’s buying stock, it is more than likely a good sign.

Tesla has continued to expand its Robotaxi platform in a number of ways. The project has gotten bigger in terms of service area, vehicle fleet, and testing population. Tesla has also recently received a permit to test in Nevada, unlocking the potential to expand into a brand-new state for the company.

In the note, Dorsheimer also touched on Musk’s recent pay package, revealing that William Blair recently met with Tesla’s Board of Directors, who gave the firm some more color on the situation:

“We recently participated in a meeting with Tesla’s board of directors to discuss the details of Musk’s performance package. The board is confident of its position in the Delaware case and anticipates a verdict by end of year. It does not expect a similar situation to occur under new Texas jurisdiction. Musk has the board’s full support, and we expect he’ll get more than enough shareholder support for this to pass with flying colors.”

Tesla stock is up over 6 percent so far today, trading at $421.50 at the time of publication.

Continue Reading

News

Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas dubs Tesla FSD a “game changer” after marathon drive

Jonas reported that FSD handled more than 99% of the miles.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Europe & Middle East/X

Morgan Stanley’s analyst Adam Jonas shared a notable endorsement of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) software after completing a 1,400-mile round trip from New York to Michigan in his Model Y. 

Jonas reported that FSD handled more than 99% of the miles, calling the system “a game changer” for long-distance driving.

Hands-free experience

Jonas drove his 2021 Tesla Model Y equipped with Hardware 3 and FSD Supervised v12.6.4, and he used the system nearly the entire trip. “Having your hands off the wheel and feet off the pedals for nearly 12 hours of driving is a real game changer that is hard to appreciate without experiencing it for yourself,” he noted.

He explained that outside of two heavy downpours, one on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and another in suburban Detroit, plus some light maneuvering in fast food parking lots, FSD handled the drive without any human intervention. “FSD made no mistakes or close calls that I recall. The system handles highways very safely and confidently. I cannot imagine buying another EV without FSD.”

Broader implications

Jonas added that he has used FSD consistently over the past 18 months, and the $8,000 he paid for the feature feels like a bargain considering the value. He also praised Tesla’s Supercharging network, which supported his trip without issue.

Advertisement

Jonas has been one of Wall Street’s most closely followed voices on Tesla, and his comments add weight to the ongoing debate about the role of autonomy in the company’s future. His current price target for Tesla stock stands at $410. During Morgan Stanley’s 13th Annual Laguna Conference, he echoed similar experiences with Tesla’s software, emphasizing that FSD “probably drove well over 99% of the miles” on his recent trips.

Continue Reading

Trending