News
SpaceX preps second $500M fundraiser as Starlink & Starship make progress
According to regulatory documents seen by Prime Unicorn Index, SpaceX finished a $500M funding round begun in December 2018 and kicked off a second campaign seeking an additional $500M earlier this month.
Altogether, SpaceX appears to be on track to secure $1 billion in fresh capital in the last six months alone, a trend that that may well continue as the company pushes forth into new and capital-intensive phases of Starlink and Starship development. In Boca Chica, a flood of SpaceX engineers and technicians have descended on the area to build the first full-scale steel prototypes of Starship and the major facilities needed to support the vehicles, all from scratch. Across the West Coast of the US, a separate SpaceX team has simultaneously transitioned from prototyping and developing satellites to building a factory to mass-produce them and may be less than six weeks away from launching the first operational batch of Starlink spacecraft.
Giant rockets, giant funding
Both massive, perilous, and largely unprecedented ventures in their own right, Starship (formerly BFR) and Starlink also happen to be extremely capital-intensive, a more or less fundamental consequence of the stages of their development and expansion. Both spent many years in pure research and development phases, tinkering and experimenting with different ideas and technologies on the ground in an effort to conceptualize what exactly their final forms ought to be. This aspect of the BFR program has been extremely visible over the last three years as SpaceX and CEO Elon Musk’s goals underwent continuous semi-annual changes, often intentionally broadcasted to the public in
After appearing to finally settle on the quasi-final form of BFR (renamed to Starship/Super Heavy), SpaceX has actually begun to build and test the first full-scale, integrated prototype of the spacecraft (Starhopper) and is simultaneously building what aims to be the first orbital Starship prototype. At the same time, its propulsion system of choice – known as Raptor – has entered into serial production back at SpaceX’s Hawthorne factory, while also supporting the first Starhopper hop test in early April and preparing to continue separate ground testing.
Thousands of satellites, billions of dollars
In February 2018, SpaceX successfully launched its first Starlink satellites, two prototypes meant to test a bevy of technologies the company was attempting to build (or at least utilize) for the first time. Despite hints and reports of some problems on orbit, SpaceX firmly holds that both satellites were extremely successful in their task of proving out new technologies like electric thrusters and phased-array antennas and are still safely operating today. Just four months after those prototypes launched, CEO Elon Musk took the extraordinary step of flying to Redmond, Washington to personally challenge a number of executives he believed were operating far too sluggishly. According to secondhand reports, many of them refused to expedite the program as Musk wanted them to, resulting in their immediate firings. The challenge that triggered the organizational upheaval: launch the first operational batch of Starlink satellites before the end of June 2019, twelve months away at the time.
Five months after Musk’s challenge, SpaceX submitted a request to the FCC to modify its original Starlink constellation license, halving the orbit of the first thousand or so satellites to 550 km (340 mi) and significantly simplifying the technology on the first several dozen to be launched. As a result of the strategic changes made, SpaceX is already planning to launch its first group of Starlink satellites as early as mid-May, with perhaps one or several additional launches on the books for 2019. To an extent, the first 75 Starlink satellites and their six ground stations will be a nearly full-fidelity second prototype. Instead of a minimalist development platform like Tintin A and B, the first 75 satellites should offer opportunities to actually test the operations of a large constellation of spacecraft while also demonstrating something close to the internet connectivity the full constellation is meant to offer.
Development to production
That SpaceX is attempting to raise huge amounts of capital should come as no surprise. For almost any commercial venture on Earth that is attempting to introduce a real product from nothing, the process of going from concept, design, and testing to building a final product at scale is both extraordinarily difficult and extremely expensive. Tesla famously went through “manufacturing hell” to go from Model 3 prototypes to a mass-producible finished product, while countless other ventures don’t even make it that far (i.e. vaporware). By far the most challenging aspect of this transition is moving from a phase focused predominately on development to one focused predominately on production.
Due to an extremely unorthodox approach to building the first steel Starship and Super Heavy prototypes, quite literally choosing to do so outside and without shelter, the BFR program is probably less extreme for the time being. However, the transformation needed for Starlink to progress is intense, requiring the satellite team to essentially build a factory from scratch and begin mass-producing high-performance satellites as quickly as possible. The 75-satellite buffer should ease the pain a bit and offer a sort of trial run as SpaceX makes that major transition, but the fact remains that an unprecedented number (thousands) of satellites will need to be built and launched at an equally unprecedented pace and cost-per-unit.
The $500M raised since December 2018 will likely be a major help for SpaceX’s often-
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
