News
SpaceX worth $33B after raising more than $1B for Starlink and Starship
Since April 2018, SpaceX has successfully raised more than $1.24 billion through the sale of equity, likely sold to investors by extrapolating the company’s current record of success to include the potential of its next two products, Starlink and Starship.
Thanks to SpaceX’s successful streak of fundraising, the company is now valued at $33.3 billion according to sources that spoke with CNBC reporter Michael Sheetz. The same source indicated that demand for SpaceX equity remains strong as the company seeks to continue extremely expensive development and production programs. Most notably, SpaceX is simultaneously building two full-scale orbital Starship prototypes at separate facilities in Texas and Florida, readying an earlier Starhopper testbed for serious test flights, and is in the midst of ramping up its Starlink satellite production to levels unprecedented in the history of spaceflight.
Put simply, with SpaceX’s Starship and Starlink programs simultaneously entering into capital-intensive phases of development and production, the company has a huge amount of work on its plate. Most of that work involves testing prototypes with technologies that are frequently unprecedented, as well as refining those designs into something final and worthy of serious production. In the case of Starship, a great deal of integrated testing and design finalization lies ahead before SpaceX can even think about starting serial production of its ~50m (160 ft) tall steel Starships or ~60m (200 ft) Super Heavy boosters.
Although large-scale aerospace development programs already tend to be very expensive, SpaceX (led by CEO Elon Musk) has structured its Starship/Super Heavy development program to be extremely hardware-rich. This is another way to say that prototypes are constantly being built, designs are ever-changing, and hardware is constantly being severely damaged (or even destroyed) during fast-paced testing. SpaceX (and Musk) have often been famous for preferring development programs that move fast and break things, delivering knowledge and optimizing designs through lessons learned (often the hard way). SpaceX also values “scrappiness” in its programs, although that sadly ends up coming at the cost of employee pay (below industry standards) and benefits (scarce bonuses, no 401K-matching, extreme hours, minimal work-life balance).
Put it all together and the results of SpaceX-style development programs have frequently defied cemented industry expectations and beliefs. SpaceX has built – from scratch – entire launch vehicles (Falcon 9 V1.0) and spacecraft (Cargo Dragon) 5-10 times cheaper than NASA believed possible. SpaceX has successfully developed a commercially viable style of reusable rockets and took just ~30 months to go from its first attempted landing to a successful booster recovery and less than 15 months after that to reuse its first booster on a commercial, orbital-class launch. Competitors that vehemently denied that SpaceX would succeed are now 5-10 years behind with disinterested responses to the reusable titan that is Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy.
Still, while SpaceX’s record of commercial and technical spaceflight success is second-to-none since the Apollo Program and the early days of the Space Shuttle, even its extraordinarily cost-effective development style requires major funding in the face of ambitions as grand as Starship and Starlink.
Starlink races ahead
On May 23rd, SpaceX completed an extraordinarily ambitious Starlink launch debut, placing sixty “v0.9” spacecraft into low Earth orbit (LEO). Weighing no less than 16.5 tons (~36,000 lb), SpaceX’s first dedicated Starlink mission also became the heaviest payload the company has ever launched by at least ~30%. Aside from the spectacular statistics associated with the mission, SpaceX also debuted an exotic and largely unprecedented satellite form factor, stacking each flat, rectangular ~230 kg (510 lb) spacecraft like a deck of cards. With Starlink, SpaceX has also flown the first krypton-powered ion thrusters, replacing the traditional xenon to cut as much as $100,000 (or even more) from the cost of each satellite.
“We continue to track the progress of the Starlink satellites during early orbit operations. At this point, all 60 satellites have deployed their solar arrays successfully, generated positive power and communicated with our ground stations. Most are already using their onboard propulsion system to reach their operational altitude and have made initial contact using broadband phased array antennas. SpaceX continues to monitor the constellation for any satellites that may need to be safely deorbited. All the satellites have maneuvering capability and are programmed to avoid each other and other objects in orbit by a wide margin.” — SpaceX, May 31st
~20 days after launch, all 60 satellites are in contact with SpaceX ground controllers and all but 3-4 have managed to successfully begin raising their orbits from ~450 km to 550 km (280-340 mi). Roughly two dozen have already passed 500 km and most should reach their final orbits within 1-2 weeks.
By far the most significant news, however, was CEO Elon Musk’s confidence that SpaceX already has “sufficient capital to build an operational constellation”, likely referring to a constellation of 750-1500 spacecraft capable of either covering the entire US or offering “decent global coverage”. Of note, Musk made this comment days before SpaceX – via SEC filings – effectively announced that it has already raised more than $1B in 2019. A large portion – if not all – of that funding is thus likely bound for Starlink as the program’s shockingly small team of ~400 prepares to aggressively ramp up production.
According to both COO Gwynne Shotwell, Musk, and SpaceX, the company hopes to conduct an additional 1-5 launches of 60 Starlink satellites this year, potentially leaving SpaceX with a constellation of more than 400 satellites – with a total bandwidth of 7 terabits per second (tbps) – after just eight months of launches. Equally significant, SpaceX’s official Starlink.com website states that SpaceX wants to offer real internet service to an unspecified number of US and Canada consumers after just six launches. In other words, SpaceX could deliver the first (possibly alpha or beta) taste of consumer Starlink internet service by the end of 2019.
If SpaceX can deploy the constellation soon and Starlink reaches its cost, performance, and longevity targets, it’s safe to say that SpaceX’s private investors are going to be extraordinarily happy with their financial decision.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
