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.
News
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Investor's Corner
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.