News
SpaceX board member says Starlink prototype satellites “are working wonderfully”
Speaking in a Satellite Innovation 2018 keynote, long-time SpaceX investor and board member Steve Jurvetson made a quiet but significant comment about the company’s Starlink satellite constellation efforts, stating that the first two prototype spacecraft – currently in orbit – “are working wonderfully.”
Standing in contrast to recent speculation that SpaceX’s Starlink project had experienced major failures with on-orbit hardware, Jurvetson may be a biased source but still has a major vested interest in SpaceX’s long-term success – supporting billions dumped into a satellite constellation with no real returns in sight would serve to seriously harm his significant investments in the company.
He would say that? Maybe, but @dfjsteve Jurvetson, early @SpaceX & @planet investor, told Satellite Innovation conference Oct 10, regarding SpaceX's two Starlink test sats launched in February: pic.twitter.com/WHzJlPUEPA
— Peter B. de Selding (@pbdes) October 12, 2018
Perhaps the most trustworthy source of SpaceX information outside of the company itself, Jurvetson expressed considerable confidence in SpaceX’s Starlink achievements thus far.
“I personally think SpaceX is in the lead [with Ku- and Ka-band phased arrays that could make (global LEO satellite broadband) possible] … Tintin 1 and 2 [are working wonderfully].” – Steve Jurvetson, Satellite Innovation 2018
Previously discussed on Teslarati, SpaceX’s growing experience with phased array antennas is undoubtedly a boon for the company’s proposed Starlink internet constellation, just one of several companies actively pursuing the increasingly competitive low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite broadband market. Fundamentally, phased array antennas will eventually take over nearly all multipurpose orbital communications thanks to the sheer simplicity and potential technical superiority of the technology.
Phased array antennas get their name from the fact that they have no moving parts – rather than moving a physical dish or angling dedicated ‘beams’, phased arrays actively use signal interference to very precisely shape, direct, and regulate line-of-sight communications beams. Currently quite immature, the draw of the technology is the sheer simplicity and reliability of antennas that require no moving parts, eliminating a major mode of failure and the inherent physical limitations of current antenna tech. Without something like phased arrays, LEO communications satellites would struggle to accurately and reliably track ground stations and gateways while traveling multiple kilometers per second.
-
- Traditional geostationary commsats like Telstar 19V feature dish-style antennas. The weird lumps and bumps on each dish are there by design, enabling the oddly specific coverage footprints seen to the right. (Telstar)
-
- Telstar 19V’s coverage map. Each coverage blob is there by design and is accomplished by physically shaping the antenna dish.
-
- LEO communications satellites like Iridium’s NEXT constellation feature totally flat panels of phased array antennas, capable of forming beams digitally. (Harris)
Large communications satellites in geostationary orbit do not face this problem. Thanks to their inherently fixed positions over ground targets (hence “geostationary“), designers and manufacturers have learned to quite literally mold each satellite’s on-orbit antennas to explicitly prioritize certain areas on the ground. This process tends to involve a prior determination of markets where demand for satellite communications is or will be highest, while also avoiding wasted coverage over areas with no need for it. However, once the antenna is launched, its beams are almost completely permanent. If markets change, the satellite simply cannot adapt.
Phased arrays, on the other hand, can almost entirely change where their many beams are directed, how much bandwidth is dedicated to certain locations, and all while accurately tracking moving targets with very few limitations. As a result, satellites with phased array antennas are sort of the communications jacks of all trades, capable of offering high-bandwidth connectivity to stationary user terminals, large ground stations, and moving vehicles simultaneously from with the same antenna array.
-
- 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)
-
- Patent diagrams like this show various subcomponents of a sandwiched phased array antenna, comprised of multiple printed circuit boards. (SpaceX)
-
- The technical term for this is “science rectangle.” In all seriousness, this is actually an extraordinary glimpse at custom silicon developed in-house at SpaceX, in this case a semiconductor die. (SpaceX)
-
- One of the first two prototype Starlink satellites separates from Falcon 9’s upper stage in February 2018. (SpaceX)
If SpaceX can perfect this, they will be the only company in the world to have done so on-orbit, while other satellite operators like Iridium have managed to build and launch low-bandwidth phased arrays but have yet to attempt to do so with the bands optimal for broadband internet or at a scale that might work for constellations of hundreds or even thousands of satellites. If Jurvetson is to be believed, SpaceX’s first foray into dedicated communications satellites and specialized hardware design and manufacturing has been a major success.
Even if the orbits of Tintin A and B do suggest that some difficulties were had with at least one satellite’s electric propulsion thrusters, it’s obvious that the experience and data derived from testing the vast majority of each satellite’s non-propulsion-related systems were invaluable and well worth the effort. Another group of prototypes will likely be launched according to Elon Musk, but that’s simply how SpaceX develops complex systems – build, launch, learn, and repeat.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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 once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
