News
SpaceX lays off 10% of staff by email as Falcon Heavy, BFR, and Starlink ramp up
In an unusual move for a privately-held company that raised $500M-750M in the last six months alone and is the 2nd or 3rd most-valuable VC-backed entity in the United States (~$30B), SpaceX abruptly announced a decision to lay off ~10% of its workforce of 7,000+, effective immediately as of January 11th.
Although layoffs are often a necessary evil in particularly competitive industries or underperforming companies, SpaceX is not exactly a strong fit for either characteristic. The company also opted for a truly bizarre and impersonal layoff method so unfriendly that several employees described it feeling like a corporate “Hunger Games” or a “purge”.
https://twitter.com/seanbhart/status/1084139223760945152
Over the past six or so months, a number of reports – most recently confirmed by SEC filings showing ~$270M of $500M raised – noted that SpaceX was seeking considerable investment and capital influx in the form debt (a leveraged loan) and equity sales to the tune of $250M (loan) and $500M (equity) after some back and forth with investors and banks and additional fine-tuning. The terms of SpaceX’s 2018 fundraises are unknown but Bloomberg did acquire information suggesting that the company was only profitable or break-even with after a range of very specific and dubious accounting decisions. Put more bluntly, SpaceX did not demonstrate actionable profitability to investors during their 2018 pitches.
“[SpaceX showed] positive earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization of around $270 million for the twelve months through September … But that’s because it included amounts that customers had prepaid and because it excluded costs related to non-core research and development. Without those adjustments, earnings for the period were negative.” – Bloomberg, 19 November 2018
However, the fact of the matter is that SpaceX’s profitability is and has long been nearly irrelevant as long as the company was still able to convince investors that it was wisely investing its funds in potentially revolutionary present and future projects like Falcon Heavy, reusable rockets, BFR, and Starlink. Essentially, if SpaceX could show that they could be profitable if they wanted to be, investors were willing to swallow unusual risks in return for prestige and a potentially vast payout down the road. The decision to lay off 10% of the company’s workforce immediately after raising anywhere from $500-750M could indicate that layoffs were either directly or indirectly related to the terms of its fundraising rounds.
When you're talking about 850 layoffs across the company, there's no way even the best company at hiring/firing decisions is going to avoid making tons of mistakes about who they kept and who they let go.
— Jonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur) January 12, 2019
Notably, some basic back-of-the-napkin estimates would suggest that cutting 10% (say 700-800 employees) at an average salary (or equivalent hourly pay) of ~$90K/year* with an average overhead of 30% would reduce SpaceX’s operational costs by $80-100M annually, potentially enough to sway the above financial account enough to show a small annual profit or at least allow the company to break even. Put frankly, $80-100M per year is not nearly enough to plausibly fund SpaceX’s BFR and Starlink development programs at anything close to the ambitious schedules CEO Elon Musk has laid out for the company, including orbital BFR launches as early as 2020 and getting Starlink to initial operational status around the same time (2020-2021).
-
- Falcon 9 Block 5 booster B1049. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Falcon Heavy clears the tower. (Photo: Tom Cross/Teslarati)
-
- BFR (2018) breaks through a cloud layer shortly after launch. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX’s Starhopper seen in a January render and a January photo. (SpaceX/Elon Musk)
-
- One of the first two prototype Starlink satellites separates from Falcon 9’s upper stage, February 2018. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX’s first two Starlink prototype satellites are pictured here before their inaugural launch, showing off a thoroughly utilitarian bus and several advanced components. (SpaceX)
However, saving ~$100M annually might be enough to sway investors that are less prestige-hungry and more conservative to bet on a successful but still relatively high-risk launch company. To be even more generous, one could assume that ~800 employees were strategically cut to remove entire internal groups or departments no longer needed, perhaps doubling or tripling the annual savings to $200M-$300M, still not even close to enough money to fund more than 10-20% of expected BFR and Starlink capex.
In September 2018, CEO Elon Musk estimated the new rocket would cost ~$5B to develop (no less than $2B, no more than $10B) on its own, entirely excluding the $10B COO/President Gwynne Shotwell estimated SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet constellation would cost to complete in April 2018. Working on profits of less than $300M a year, it would take SpaceX decades of stable earnings to foot that collective $12B-20B bill.
“To continue delivering for our customers and to succeed in developing interplanetary spacecraft and a global space-based Internet, SpaceX must become a leaner company. Either of these developments, even when attempted separately, have bankrupted other organizations. This means we must part ways with some talented and hardworking members of our team. We are grateful for everything they have accomplished and their commitment to SpaceX’s mission. This action is taken only due to the extraordinarily difficult challenges ahead and would not otherwise be necessary.” – SpaceX, January 11
* (Source: Payscale)
A new level of “counterintuitive”
Regardless of whether SpaceX had sincere and angelic motivations for these layoffs (it’s nearly impossible to know), the single most unpleasant aspect of the whole ordeal is how the company managed it and communicated with employees. According to comments and hints from a dozen or more employees, the process began with next to no official warning around lunchtime on Friday, January 11th. Employees attended an all-hands meeting where they were told in frank terms that a major portion of the company – those deemed to be lower performers – would be laid off within 24 hours. All 7000+ employees were told around the same time.
The catch: nobody was told who exactly would be cut – instead, SpaceX would force every single employee to leave work early on Friday and spend 12-24 hours in total uncertainty until an unspecified time on Saturday, when they were – in theory – supposed to receive an email telling them whether or not they still had a job waiting for them on Monday. In many cases, workers were forced to call a number provided by SpaceX and ask the company themselves if they still had jobs, not even receiving the absolute minimum courtesy of some sort of call or notification. Whether the given employee was five months or five years senior, the process was identical – ~24 hours of avoidable existential uncertainty followed by an automated email or phone call that you had to make yourself.
Nobody was offered a clear explanation as to why they were chosen out of all SpaceX employees. Workers who had given their heart, soul, blood, sweat, and tears to SpaceX for more than half a decade were – very literally – fired over email without the simplest explanation and told to not return to work unless returning company property, effective immediately. Thanks to California’s WARN Act protections, all laid off employees in California will thankfully be paid for two additional months (until March 11, 2019) to support job searching and re-training.
-
- A bittersweet sunrise as Falcon 9 B1049 arrives in port. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Workers process Falcon 9 B1048 after recovery. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Workers process Falcon 9 B1046 after the booster’s third flawless launch and landing in seven months. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- SpaceX recovery technicians work on Falcon 9 with similar cherry-picker lifts, offering a sense of scale of the new Starship water tower. (Pauline Acalin)
It’s impossible to know who exactly within SpaceX thought this method of layoffs was preferable to something at least a modicum more humane. It’s equally unclear why these layoffs are happening now, and SpaceX’s official statement appears to be an unsatisfactory half-answer at best. To the 90% that remain, one can only wish them the best and hope that those 10% cut from the company were not all as essential as some of them seem to have been. In the meantime, it appears that SpaceX will continue to push ahead in attempts to improve Falcon 9 reusability, field the next Falcon Heavy, build out and launch Starlink, and develop BFR.
Some of those at SpaceX responsible for enabling the company’s many, many extraordinary achievements hopefully still remain and will be able to ensure that the company keeps heading down the right paths in spite of major speedbumps like this. If you or anyone you know knows someone who works at SpaceX or have been inspired by the company’s mission and many successes in spite of the odds, make sure to be cognizant and appreciative of the tens or hundreds of thousands of rewarded (and unrewarded) hours of hard work that go into every single major and minor SpaceX achievement. To any employees reading, thank you for your dedication and keep fighting the hard fight.
Happy Labor Day! We feel so lucky to work with such an awesome team @SpaceX. pic.twitter.com/aXQXN3fGlA
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) September 3, 2013
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has awarded the 2025-2026 Tesla Cybertruck crew cab pickup its highest honor: Top Safety Pick+. This marks the Cybertruck as the only full-size pickup to achieve this distinction in recent evaluations.
The award applies specifically to vehicles built after April 2025, following structural upgrades including front underbody reinforcements and footwell modifications.
These changes enabled strong performance in updated crash tests. The Cybertruck earned “Good” ratings in the small overlap front (driver and passenger sides), updated moderate overlap front, and updated side tests—core requirements for the Top Safety Pick+ designation.
It also secured acceptable or good headlights across trims and a “Good” rating for its standard front crash prevention system in pedestrian scenarios, along with acceptable or good performance in vehicle-to-vehicle testing.
The Cybertruck avoided every single pedestrian collision, including:
- Daytime child crossing
- Nightitime adult crossing
- Night parallel adult
In IIHS pedestrian front crash prevention tests, @Cybertruck avoided every single collision – daytime, nighttime & different angles
It was also the only pickup to earn Top Safety Pick+ (highest award) in 2026https://t.co/BNPqT9TbsW pic.twitter.com/M6nwDisBFK
— Tesla (@Tesla) June 24, 2026
In the large pickup category, competitors such as the Toyota Tundra received only a standard Top Safety Pick, while the Ford F-150 and Ram 1500 did not qualify for either award. This positions the Cybertruck as a standout in occupant protection and crash avoidance among its peers.
Credit: IIHS
Ironically, the same vehicle celebrated for superior U.S. safety performance remains banned from public roads in the United Kingdom and much of Europe. Regulators there cite the Cybertruck’s sharp external edges and highly rigid stainless-steel construction as failing pedestrian-protection standards. European and UK rules require rounded surfaces on protruding parts to minimize injury risk in collisions with vulnerable road users.
Critics also point to the truck’s substantial weight and unyielding body structure, which some argue could transfer more force to other vehicles or pedestrians rather than absorbing it.
Tesla’s engineering philosophy underpins the Cybertruck’s strong IIHS results. The vehicle features a distinctive stainless-steel exoskeleton made from ultra-hard 30X cold-rolled stainless steel. This provides exceptional structural rigidity and a robust safety cage that resists deformation in side impacts and rollovers.
Engineers designed integrated load paths to channel crash forces away from the occupant compartment while allowing controlled energy absorption in key zones. Post-April 2025 refinements to the front underbody further optimized performance in overlap crashes.
Complementing the passive structure is Tesla’s advanced active safety suite, including the standard Collision Avoidance Assist system with automatic emergency braking. This contributed directly to the vehicle’s strong front crash prevention scores. The skateboard platform and low center of gravity also enhance stability and handling, reducing the likelihood of certain crashes.
The IIHS recognition highlights how Tesla’s combination of high-strength materials, structural innovation, and software-driven safety systems can deliver top-tier protection in rigorous testing. While global regulatory differences on design and pedestrian interaction continue to limit the Cybertruck’s availability outside North America, its U.S. safety credentials set a new benchmark for full-size pickups.
Elon Musk
SpaceX’s newest Starmind will make earth data centers obsolete
Elon Musk confirmed Starmind as SpaceX’s AI satellite constellation name, targeting one million orbital compute nodes.
Elon Musk confirmed that Starmind will be the official name of SpaceX’s planned AI satellite constellation, following a trademark filing by xAI that surfaced earlier this week. Starmind is what’s being described to the FCC as a constellation of up to one million AI satellites
It’s worth noting that SpaceX’s Starlink communication satellite and Starmind are built on the same orbital infrastructure concept but serve entirely different purposes. Starlink is a connectivity network, with satellites receiving and relaying data between points on Earth, and functioning as a high-speed internet backbone in space. The satellites themselves do not process or think, and move information from one place to another, the same function a fiber cable performs underground.
SpaceX just forced Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to team up for the first time in history
Starmind, on the other hand, is something completely different, and tather than moving data, its satellites would compute data through artificial intelligence and directly in orbit using onboard processors powered by large solar arrays. Where a Starlink satellite is essentially a very fast pipe, a Starmind satellite is a server. The practical implication is that Starmind would allow AI models to run inference, process queries, and generate outputs from space, then beam results down to users anywhere on Earth within milliseconds, and without the data ever needing to travel to a terrestrial data center.
Starship will be able to carry 30 to 50 AI1 satellites per launch, delivering the equivalent of dozens of server racks per flight, with no land acquisition, no power grid approval, and no cooling infrastructure required on the ground.
SpaceX is pursuing this new technology as terrestrial data centers are running into hard limits such as lack of physical space, community opposition, and power and water consumption at a scale that is increasingly difficult to permit. Space has unlimited solar power, natural vacuum cooling, and no zoning boards. Musk said in a June 8 video presentation that he expects space to become the lowest-cost location to deploy AI compute within two to three years. Two AI1 prototypes are scheduled to launch in early 2027, with volume production targeted for the end of that year at a new facility called Gigasat.
The real world applications Starmind enables extend well beyond powering Grok. A constellation of orbiting AI processors could run inference workloads for any paying customer, anywhere on Earth, with latency measured in milliseconds rather than the seconds associated with ground-based cloud routing across continents. Starmind, if it scales as described, would make SpaceX the landlord of AI compute the same way Starlink made it the landlord of satellite internet.
Tesla and driver sued by family of woman killed in Texas crash: what we know
Tesla Cybertruck is officially the safest pickup, IIHS says
