News
SpaceX aces 60th orbital launch of 2022
SpaceX has completed its 60th orbital launch of 2022, marking the first time the company has fully hit a public cadence target set by one of its executives.
By every possible measure, 2022 has been a groundbreaking year for SpaceX even when considering the vast list of achievements it’s racked up over the last half-decade. It owns and operates the largest satellite constellation in history by an order of magnitude. Its Starlink satellite internet service has secured more than a million subscribers less than two years after entering beta. It operates the only routinely reusable orbital-class rockets and orbital spacecraft currently in service. Its Falcon 9 workhorse has launched more in one year than any other single rocket in history. It’s regularly launching at a pace that hasn’t been sustained by any one country – let alone a single company – in 40 years. It’s managing that near-historic cadence while simultaneously recovering and reusing boosters and fairings that represent some 70% of the value of almost every rocket it launches.
And now, SpaceX can also proudly show that it was able to hit a launch cadence target that seemed impossibly ambitious when CEO Elon Musk first shared it nine months ago.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
Exactly nine months later, SpaceX has just completed its 60th launch of 2022. 69 days after its last orbital-class launch, Falcon 9 booster lifted off for the 11th time with a somewhat mysterious batch of 54 Starlink satellites. A bit less than nine minutes after liftoff, B1062 touched down 660 kilometers (410 mi) downrange on SpaceX drone ship A Shortfall Of Gravitas (ASOG). Seconds prior, Falcon 9’s expendable upper stage reached orbit, shut down its lone Merlin Vacuum engine, and began slowly spinning itself end over end.
Nineteen minutes after leaving the ground, the stack of 54 Starlink satellites was released all at once, slowly spreading out like a splayed deck of cards. Over the coming hours, days, and weeks, those satellites will naturally spread out, deploy solar arrays, stabilize their attitudes, test their payloads, and begin climbing toward an operational orbit somewhere between 480 and 580 kilometers (300-360 mi) above Earth’s surface.
As previously discussed, SpaceX’s so-called “Starlink 5-1” mission raises a number of questions that the company’s launch webcast and communications unfortunately failed to answer. First and foremost, the “5-1” name is nonsensical. The only information SpaceX did disclose about the mission is that it’s the “first [launch] of Starlink’s upgraded network…under [a] new license,” implying – but not actually confirming – that “Starlink 5-1” is the first launch for the Starlink Gen2 constellation.
The orbit the launch targeted only matches one of the Gen2 ‘shells’ the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently approved. Using a naming scheme that’s been consistent for a year and a half, “5-1” implies that the mission is the first launch of Starlink Gen1’s fifth ‘shell’ or group, which the orbit it was actually launched to explicitly makes impossible. It’s very odd that SpaceX did not explicitly call the mission what it actually is: the first launch of an entirely new Starlink Gen2 constellation. The name ultimately doesn’t matter much, but is now likely to create confusion given that SpaceX’s Starlink Gen1 constellation has a fifth shell that may begin launches in the near future.
Additionally, outside of a single obscure FCC filing submitted two months ago, it’s long been stated and implied that the Starlink Gen2 constellation’s main advantage over Gen1 was the much larger size of the Gen2/V2 satellites. But the satellites launched on “Starlink 5-1” appear to be virtually identical to all recent Starlink V1.5 satellites, which CEO Elon Musk once suggested were so cost-inefficient that they could risk bankrupting SpaceX in November 2021.
There is one obvious explanation for why SpaceX would launch ordinary Starlink V1.5 satellites in place of the larger V2 variants that will supposedly make the internet constellation more financially sustainable: a desire to add new customers as quickly as possible, no matter the relative cost. While a much smaller V1.5 satellite likely offers around 3-8 times less usable bandwidth than one of the larger V2 variants SpaceX is developing, it may still be true that a V1.5 satellite is better than nothing while larger V2 satellites are stuck behind development delays or waiting on SpaceX’s next-generation Starship rocket.
SpaceX will almost certainly want to replace any V1.5 satellites with V2 satellites when the opportunity arises, but in the meantime, V1.5 satellites launched as part of the Gen2 constellation may technically allow SpaceX to temporarily double the amount of bandwidth available where most people (and Starlink customers) live. Ultimately, that means that it makes a lot of sense for SpaceX to prioritize Gen2 launches. It doesn’t appear that SpaceX will go that far, but the Starlink Gen1 constellation is so far along that the company could easily leave the constellation as-is and prioritize Gen2 Falcon 9 launches for all of 2023 without risking an FCC penalty. SpaceX simply needs to finish its Gen1 constellation before April 2027 to avoid breaking those rules.
Instead, it looks like SpaceX will roughly split its launch and V1.5 satellite manufacturing capacity between Starlink Gen1 and Gen2 moving forward. That will let SpaceX significantly expand bandwidth where most customers live while also finishing the polar-orbiting Gen1 shells that will let the older constellation better serve maritime and aviation subscribers, and reach Starlink’s most remote customers.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
