News
SpaceX closes out 2021 with $1.85 billion in new funding
On the eve of the last day of 2021, SEC filings show that SpaceX has secured another $337 million, bringing the total funding the company has raised this year to approximately $1.85 billion.
While there’s evidence that SpaceX’s Falcon and Dragon launch business is easily profitable on its own, the company has been simultaneously developing a next-generation rocket (Starship) and an unprecedentedly ambitious internet satellite constellation (Starlink) for at least the last 5-6 years. Additionally, SpaceX developed Falcon booster reusability and Falcon Heavy entirely on its own at a total cost of at least $1-2 billion. In short, rocket development is incredibly expensive, and adding a far more ambitious rocket and an immense satellite constellation into the mix has created an insatiable demand for fresh capital.
Investors have been more than eager to satisfy that demand, practically chomping at the bit to buy SpaceX equity or debt over the last six years. Since 2015, SpaceX has raised an average of more than $1B per year for the last seven years.
That funding has accomplished a great deal. As of the end of 2021, SpaceX has built and launched 1869 operational Starlink satellites in 25 months, more than 1750 of which are still in orbit and working. SpaceX has also built hundreds of thousands of ‘user terminals’ – dishes and WiFi routers that currently connect more than 150,000 subscribers to the internet even while the service remains in beta.
Starship, while somewhat behind its CEO’s optimistic schedules, continues to march towards its first spaceflight and orbital-velocity launch attempt – possibly in the first half of 2022. With help from its Hawthorne, CA headquarters, SpaceX’s Starbase factory continues to churn out Starship, Super Heavy booster, and test tank prototypes and appears to be ramping back up after six or so months of relative quiet. Having produced approximately 150 Raptor 1 and Raptor 1.5 engines in the last two years, Hawthorne is now focused on ramping up production of Raptor 2 – an upgraded engine variant capable of producing up to 25% more thrust while, in theory, being far cheaper to produce.
In about 12 months, SpaceX has also built – from nothing – an orbital launch site on the verge of being ready to support the first test flights of the largest, heaviest, and most powerful rocket ever built. To accommodate the massive vehicle, SpaceX has also nearly completed the largest cryogenic tank farm ever built for a launch site and partially filled at least four or five of its seven cryogenic storage tanks. Alongside that tank farm, the company has more or less completed a skyscraper-sized launch tower and outfitted it with three giant, moving arms – two of which are designed to stack Starship on Super Heavy and, maybe one day, catch ships and boosters out of mid-air.
According to a company-wide email CEO Elon Musk recently wrote but subsequently downplayed on Twitter, SpaceX’s financial health could be heavily dependent on the successful start and expansion of Raptor 2 production to enable Starship to begin launching new and much-improved Starlink V2.0 satellites. Those satellites are several times larger than V1.0 or V1.5 spacecraft, apparently making it hard or impossible for Falcon 9 to cost-effectively launch them.
On top of building and activating new factories capable of producing millions of Starlink user terminals per year, completing the first phase of orbital Starship development, ramping up Raptor 2 production, starting to build a fleet of operational Starships and Super Heavy boosters, continuing Falcon 9 Starlink V1.5 launches, and simultaneously building or completing no less than three orbital Starship launch sites in Florida and Texas, SpaceX thus also apparently needs to complete Starlink V2.0 satellite development and effectively build one or several entirely new production lines to start producing the substantially different spacecraft.
A large portion of SpaceX’s 2021 funding – especially the ~$337M raised in the last two weeks – will likely help support a portion of all those development efforts next year.
News
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile want 290 MHz cut from an FCC satellite plan before Thursday.
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are asking the Federal Communications Commission to pull nearly 300 MHz of spectrum out of a proposal that would let satellite companies like SpaceX offer cell service directly to ordinary phones. The request lands one day before the agency votes on it.
The FCC will vote Thursday, October 29, on a notice of proposed rulemaking that would make an additional 482 MHz available for direct to device service, expanding the number of eligible bands from five to 13, according to the FCC fact sheet. It would also scrap the rule requiring a satellite operator to lease spectrum from carriers, replacing it with a certification that the operator has coexistence agreements in place or holds the terrestrial license itself.
That second path matters for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported earlier this month, SpaceX agreed to buy Grain Management’s nationwide 800 MHz portfolio to turn Starlink Mobile into a full US carrier, adding to the spectrum it already bought from EchoStar.
The carriers want two bands removed, 2.5 GHz and 3.45 GHz, which make up 290 MHz of the 482 MHz on the table. Through industry group CTIA, they argued that about 300 million users depend on those bands and that satellite operations in them are not technically feasible. T-Mobile, which calls 2.5 GHz the foundation of its Ultra Capacity 5G network, said in its own filing that satellite interference could wipe out up to 96% of a cell site’s uplink coverage area and cut uplink speeds by 88% to 99%.
Executives from all three carriers met with FCC staff on October 20, and T-Mobile CEO Srini Gopalan met separately with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. T-Mobile’s role stands out because it is still SpaceX’s US launch partner for Starlink Mobile. The three carriers have also teamed up on their own satellite joint venture to pool spectrum, a move widely seen as a response to Starlink.
SpaceX is asking for the opposite. In an October 23 filing after meetings with FCC staff and commissioners’ offices, the company asked regulators to add the 902 to 928 MHz band to the proposal. “Doing so now saves time later,” SpaceX wrote. The company also asked the FCC to modernize interference rules and align satellite deployment requirements with those for terrestrial cell networks, saying the goal is to let satellite and ground networks work together so Americans stay connected wherever they are.
The carriers have not been shy about how they view SpaceX as a competitor. On Verizon’s third quarter earnings call Monday, its chief executive said Starlink Mobile “just can’t compete with a terrestrial network” and estimated SpaceX would need four to six years and $300 billion to $500 billion to build a full US carrier network.
Thursday’s vote will not settle which bands survive. Adopting the notice opens a public comment period, with final rules to come later in the proceeding. The FCC already considered and rejected 2.5 GHz for satellite coverage once, in 2024. SpaceX also is not the only satellite player watching: the FCC approved Amazon’s $11.6 billion acquisition of Globalstar on October 27, giving its planned direct to device fleet its own mobile satellite spectrum.
A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.
The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.
There were no injuries reported.
🚨 A Tesla Semi reportedly caught fire, with California Highway Patrol confirming. The Semi was on I-880 SB
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.
However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.
@Tslachan From on of the videos looks like it’s an old Semi (not the refresh version that recently started production) https://t.co/KzwmR2kXow
— Area Under The Curve 🎗️ (@AreaUnderCurve) October 28, 2026
At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.
The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.
The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.
Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.
A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.
“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”
🚨 Here’s the first look at Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away function in action:
Apparently this driver accidentally enabled it and drove forward; you can see the Supercharger pull with the car.
Tesla said previously this would cost up to $25k if not used properly. https://t.co/B4qQRrsO6B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.
Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.
Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:
- You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
- You must leave the area immediately.
- Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
- Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.
After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know
