News
SpaceX’s first “next-gen” Starlink satellites are suspiciously familiar
In a strange twist, SpaceX says that its next Starlink mission will launch 54 satellites into low Earth orbit (LEO), implying that they’re roughly the same size as the V1.5 satellites it’s already launching – not the larger V2 or V2 Mini satellites discussed in recent FCC filings.
However, the data SpaceX provided also shows that those 54 satellites are headed to an orbit that only matches the company’s next-generation Starlink Gen2 (V2) constellation. While SpaceX quietly indicated that a V1.5-sized satellite was an option for early Gen2 launches in a supplemental October 2022 filing [PDF] with the FCC, it’s still unclear why SpaceX would prioritize launching V1.5-sized V2 satellites while its V1 constellation remains unfinished.
Adding to the confusion, in November 2021, CEO Elon Musk strongly implied that the inefficiencies of smaller Starlink V1.x satellites were so significant that they could risk bankrupting SpaceX if the company couldn’t start launching larger V2 satellites on its next-generation Starship rocket by the end of 2022. What, then, is the purpose of SpaceX’s imminent “Starlink G5-1” launch?
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
The name alone is confusing. Using the same shorthand as past Starlink V1 launches, “G5-1” refers to the first launch of “Group 5” of a constellation. “Group” here is synonymous with “shell,” which describes a set of satellites that share the same orbital inclination (the angle at which the orbit crosses the equator) and a similar orbital altitude. Of SpaceX’s three approved constellations, only one has five shells, and that shell can only exist at 97.6 degrees, not 43 degrees. SpaceX’s Gen2 constellation technically has nine planned shells, but the FCC has only partially approved three of those shells, one of which is at 43 degrees.
Ignoring the obtuse name, one possibility is that aspects of Starlink V2 satellite upgrades are not explicitly tied to the much larger size of those satellites and can be applied to SpaceX’s first-generation Starlink constellation without requiring a modified FCC license. If SpaceX wanted to add larger satellites to its V1 constellation or change the frequency bands they use, it would almost certainly have to seek a modified license from the FCC, which could take months.
There is no evidence SpaceX has done so, and any attempt would produce public documentation. The 43-degree inclination SpaceX’s mysterious “Starlink G5-1” launch is targeting also rules out any involvement in its V1 constellation, which only has approval for satellites between 53 and 97.6 degrees.
Aside from the unlikely possibility that details about the Starlink 5-1 mission are somehow incorrect or an artifact of a messy launch licensing process, there is at least one other unlikely explanation. In October 2018, the FCC granted SpaceX permission to launch a very low earth orbit (VLEO) constellation of 7518 Starlink satellites with dimensions similar to satellites that make up the 4408-satellite constellation the company is currently launching. More than four years later, SpaceX has yet to begin launching its approved VLEO constellation.
In November 2022, SpaceX told the FCC it intended to combine its Starlink VLEO and Starlink Gen2 constellations by adding V-band antennas to some of the almost 33,000 Gen2 satellites it hoped to launch – a move that would reduce the total number of Starlink satellites SpaceX needs to launch. Around the turn of the month, the FCC partially granted SpaceX’s Starlink Gen2 license, adding unprecedentedly strict requirements and only permitting the launch of 7500 of 33,000 planned Gen2 satellites to a limited set of inclinations (33, 43, and 53 degrees).
Perhaps, then, the uncertainty created by the FCC’s strange partial Gen2 grant made SpaceX change its mind about a dedicated Starlink VLEO constellation. However, without a license modification, SpaceX’s VLEO constellation is stuck with the same smaller (and potentially bankruptcy-inducing) satellites that its CEO believes make the first Starlink V1 constellation unsustainable. SpaceX also has less than two years until its VLEO constellation crosses its first deployment milestone, at which point the company will need to have launched half of it (3759 satellites) to avoid penalties from the FCC – up to and including the revocation of its license.
Despite the numerous reasons it wouldn’t make sense for Starlink 5-1 to be SpaceX’s first Starlink VLEO launch, almost 2500 of SpaceX’s approved VLEO satellites were intended to operate in a 336-kilometer (~209 mi) orbit inclined by 42 degrees – oddly similar to the 338-kilometer (~210 mi), 43-degree orbit SpaceX appears to be targeting with Starlink 5-1.
A surprise VLEO launch is a very unlikely explanation, but it’s only marginally stranger than the alternatives: that Starlink 5-1 is a V1-sized V2 launch with no prior mention or warning, a V1 launch to an orbit that would explicitly violate SpaceX’s Starlink V1 FCC license, or a paperwork error that has propagated so far that SpaceX distributed incorrect orbit information (which could threaten other satellites and rockets) less than two days before liftoff.
Thankfully, there is one last explanation – raised after this article was published – that appears to be much more likely. In response to a tweet summarizing these claims, astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell noted that SpaceX had, in fact, mentioned a third smaller Starlink V2 satellite variant in an October 2022 FCC filing that fell mostly under the radar. In that filing, SpaceX told that FCC it was developing three variants, not two. The smallest variant was said to weigh 303 kilograms and featured dimensions seemingly identical to SpaceX’s existing V1.5 satellites, which are estimated to weigh around 307 kilograms. SpaceX also stated that initial Falcon 9 launches will carry “approximately twenty to sixty satellites,” again confirming that V2 satellites could be about the same size and shape as V1.5 satellites.
SpaceX’s decision to develop a V1.5-sized version of V2 satellites makes little sense in the context of Musk’s implicit claims that problems inherent to its smaller V1 satellites threaten the company’s solvency. It’s clearer than ever that the SpaceX CEO may have been stretching the truth of the matter to craft an existential threat that might encourage employees to work longer hours. Still, developing and launching a V1.5-sized V2 satellite variant and beginning to launch those satellites while SpaceX’s Starlink Gen1 is more than 25% incomplete is confusing at best.
Regardless of what it’s carrying or why, a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket is scheduled to launch Starlink 5-1 out of Florida’s Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS) no earlier than 4:40 am EST (09:40 UTC) on Wednesday, December 28th.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
