News
Here’s what SpaceX’s first Starlink satellite rideshare mission looks like [photo]
By way of customer Planet, SpaceX has published the first view of its inaugural Starlink satellite rideshare mission, revealing three mini fridge-sized Earth imaging satellites perched on a stack of dozens of Starlink spacecraft.
Scheduled to launch no earlier than (NET) 5:21 am (09:21 UTC) on June 13th, SpaceX’s eighth launch of Starlink v1.0 satellites (Starlink V1 L8) could usher in a revolutionary new way for smallsat operators to get their spacecraft in orbit. The company’s first Starlink rideshare customer has become a vocal supporter in the days before the first launch, praising unprecedentedly low launch costs SpaceX is able to offer. In fact, executives of Planet – now the world’s second most prolific satellite launcher after SpaceX – were so surprised at the prices the launch company was charging that they “could not believe what [they] were looking at”.
To account for the mass added by three Planet SkySats (~350 kg or 770 lb), SpaceX revealed earlier today that it had removed two Starlink satellites – each weighing ~260 kg (570 lb) – from the original stack of 60 spacecraft. Aside from confirming that Falcon 9 is balancing at the very edge of its performance envelope to launch ~16 metric tons (~35,000 lb) of satellites while still enabling booster recovery, the removal of two Starlink satellites to make way for rideshare payloads hints at an incredible level of flexibility available to SpaceX.
For customers of the fledgling small satellite rideshare program interested in procuring launch services directly, Planet’s SkySats are almost perfectly sized to extract the most bang for the buck from SpaceX’s current pricing system. Planet likely spent a bit more to have SpaceX build it a custom adapter and deployment mechanism for two launches, but the company’s launch costs for six SkySats – split between two June 2020 Starlink missions – could be as low as $6 million based on SpaceX’s own calculator. Due to the general secrecy of launch prices, it’s hard to accurately compare, but Planet would have had to pay upwards of $40 million – almost seven times as much – to launch six SkySats on dedicated Rocket Lab Electron rockets.
In return for $5-30+ million dollars in savings, Planet’s six new SkySats will have to work to raise their orbits from around 300 to 450 kilometers (190-280 mi) after deploying from SpaceX’s Starlink satellite stack. That work will expend a significant portion of their propellant reserves, likely cutting several months (up to several years) off of their operational lifespans. Believed to cost around $3-5 million each, however, the money Planet has saved by launching SkySats with SpaceX could potentially pay for an entirely new batch of six more satellites (or more).
With cost savings like that at hand, it’s no wonder that Planet’s Mike Safyan – Vice President of Launch – described SpaceX’s Starlink rideshare program as “incredibly competitive” and “one of the more significant programs for the smallsat industry”. Having overseen the launch of hundreds of Planet’s Dove and SkySat satellites over the last nine years, it would be hard to find a more qualified industry voice on the subject. Indeed, the rest of the smallsat industry is also responding positively to SpaceX’s new offering, with dozens of commercial spacecraft already assigned to future rideshare launches.
At this point, SpaceX plans to offer rideshare opportunities on Starlink missions every month for the indefinite future, all while charging as little as a $1 million per slot. Thanks to third-party launch services companies like Spaceflight and Exolaunch, much smaller cubesats and nanosats will also have ways to get into orbit on SpaceX rockets for much less than the company’s base price. Meanwhile, scheduled to launch no earlier than June 22nd, SpaceX’s very next Starlink launch – V1 L9 – is expected to include three more Planet SkySats and two similar BlackSky imaging satellites.
If SpaceX can maintain the impressive inertia of its Starlink launch and rideshare efforts, it’s safe to say that the company is going to be a towering presence in the smallsat launch industry for the foreseeable future.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
