News
SpaceX's Elon Musk says Starlink user antennas will be like "UFOs on a stick"
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has teased the first detailed description of the Starlink antennas (“user terminals”) customers will need to connect to the massive satellite internet constellation, revealing a few new and unexpected details about the critical hardware.
Although nearly all public focus is currently (and understandably) on the production and launch of Starlink satellites themselves, that perspective actually glosses over a second element of the constellation that is at least as important. Starlink, after all, is designed to delivered high-speed, low-latency broadband internet to customers around the world, and that service will not just magically appear in the houses of interested consumers. Similar to satellite TV, customers will gain access to their Starlink internet service with an antenna that will have to be installed somewhere on or around the premises.
The challenge that SpaceX faces with the grounded side of Starlink is that – unlike the geostationary satellites that provide satellite TV – satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO) are visible from a specific point on the ground for just a handful of minutes each. Whereas satellite TV dishes simply need to be pointed at one unmoving spot in the sky, Starlink ground antennas will need to constantly change where they are pointed (or at least track constantly-moving and changing satellites) and do so seamlessly and with incredible reliability.
A step further and even more importantly, while SpaceX unequivocally needs to make its Starlink user terminals extremely capable, simple, and reliable, it will also need to find a way to mass-produce millions (ultimately tens to hundreds of millions) of units and keep the cost to consumers unprecedentedly low. At least before Musk’s January 7th, 2020 comment, it was believed that Starlink user terminals would have to rely almost entirely on high-performance phased-array antennas, referring to antennas that are steered electronically – i.e. without physically moving.
100% phased-array steering would likely result in the best possible user terminal from the standpoint of reliability and performance. However, full phased-array antennas – while making rapid progress – are still extremely expensive to manufacture compared to more basic alternatives, meaning that it could be an immense challenge – possibly much harder than building and launching Starlink satellites themselves – to mass-produce affordable user terminals under that paradigm. It’s possible that SpaceX has actually come to the same conclusion and is choosing to compromise with its first-generation user terminals, prioritizing time to market and cost per unit at the expense of peak performance and optimal reliability.
Competitor OneWeb may actually have a step up on SpaceX on that front, having reportedly already made great progress developing an exceptionally cheap flat-panel phased-array antenna capable of at least decent throughput (10-50 Mbps). On January 7th, Musk revealed that the current iteration of Starlink user terminals look like a “thin, flat, round UFO on a stick” and features “motors to self-adjust [and ensure it’s at the] optimal angle to view [the] sky.”
The latter tidbit came as a bit of a surprise, given that nearly all cutting-edge phased-array antennas in development feature flat-panel designs and mounting hardware and pointedly avoid mechanical steering – one of the great benefits of phased arrays. It’s ultimately unclear what purpose a mechanical pointing motor would serve on a Starlink user terminal. If the terminal is centered around a true phased-array antenna, mechanical steering would be an almost vestigial addition. However, it’s possible that SpaceX has found a way to hybridize electronic (phased-array) and mechanical steering to produce user terminals that are exceptionally cheap and high-performance at the cost of a reliability risk (moving parts).
Ultimately, it looks like we will find out much sooner than later how exactly SpaceX’s Starlink user terminals work, among other details. Musk says that Starlink will be able to start serving customers in Canada and the Northern US with as few as four additional Starlink launches, meaning that some form of beta test could begin after Starlink V1 L6.
As of now, SpaceX has 1-2 more Starlink missions scheduled to launch later this month. If SpaceX averages two launches per month, Starlink could be serving its first customers as early as March or April 2020.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
