News
SpaceX Starlink satellite constellation aims to become world’s largest after next launch
In a sign of things to come next year, SpaceX’s next – and third – 60-satellite Starlink launch is officially on the books, and – if all goes as planned – could make the company the proud owner of the world’s largest operational satellite constellation.
On May 24th, Falcon 9 lifted off for the first time ever on a dedicated Starlink launch, placing 60 ‘v0.9’ prototype satellites in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), where they deployed solar arrays and fired up their own electric krypton thrusters to reach their operational ~550 km (340 mi) orbits. Of those 60 prototypes, several were intentionally deorbited while another handful suffered unintended failures, while 51 (85%) ultimately reached that final orbit and began operations.
Previously expected in mid-October, unspecified delays pushed SpaceX’s next Starlink launch – deemed Starlink-1, the first launch of ‘v1.0’ satellites – into November. On November 11th, Falcon 9 B1048 and a flight-proven payload fairing lifted off with 60 more Starlink satellites, also marking the first time a Falcon 9 booster completed four orbital launches and the first operational reuse of a recovered fairing. Upgraded with four times the overall bandwidth, improved structures, new Ka-band antennas, and more steerable ‘beams’ on each of those antennas, those 60 Starlink v1.0 satellites rapidly came online and began raising their orbits.
This time around, SpaceX received FCC approval to test satellites at a substantially lower altitude of ~350 km (220 mi) and launched to a parking orbit of just 280 km (175 mi), ensuring that any debris or failed spacecraft will reenter Earth’s atmosphere in just a matter of months while also completely avoiding added risk to the International Space Station (ISS) (~400 km). After a brisk ten or so days of active propulsion, 55 of those 60 satellites have raised their orbits to ~350 km, while ~20 of those 55 appear to be aiming for a final altitude somewhat higher, likely the start of a separate orbital plane.
The moment that Starlink-1 satellites began to arrive and stabilize at their 350-km operational orbits, nearly all of SpaceX’s 50 operational v0.9 satellites began lowering their orbits, potentially signaling a move down to Starlink-1’s operational altitude, or even an intentional deorbit of the entire prototype tranche (far less likely).
From nothing to #1
The same day that several dozen Starlink-1 satellites finished the climb up to their operational orbits, SpaceX announced media accreditation for its next Starlink launch, presumed to be Starlink-2. According to SpaceX, the mission is targeted for the last two weeks of December 2019, a schedule that will tighten as it gets closer. Previously expected to launch in early November, as few as two weeks after Starlink-1, Starlink-2 has suffered similar delays but still appears to be on track for 2019.
It’s assumed that Starlink-2 – like both dedicated missions preceding it – will launch 60 Starlink satellites. If that is, in fact, the case, the mission could mark a surprising but fully-expected milestone: with >170 functional satellites in orbit, SpaceX might become the proud owner of the world’s largest operational satellite constellation. Excluding two Tintin prototypes launched in February 2018 and 8 failed Starlink v0.9 spacecraft, a perfect Starlink-2 launch would raise SpaceX’s operational constellation to 172 satellites.
The only satellite operator anywhere close to those numbers is Planet Labs, an Earth observation analytics and satellite production company that has launched >400 satellites in its lifetime. Of those ~400 spacecraft, it’s believed that ~150 were operational as of October 2019 and Planet has another 12 Dove observation satellites scheduled to launch on November 27th. In simple terms, this means that SpaceX may become the world’s largest satellite operator after Starlink-2 and it all but guarantees that that will be the case after Starlink-3, a mission that will likely follow just weeks later.
Once SpaceX passes that milestone, it’s all but guaranteed that Starlink will retain the title of world’s largest satellite constellation for the indefinite future. According to SpaceX COO and President Gwynne Shotwell, as many as 24 Starlink launches are planned for 2020, and SpaceX’s burgeoning Washington-state satellite factory may soon be capable of supporting the unprecedented volume of production such a cadence will require. Even assuming rocky development, it’s hard to picture SpaceX’s next-generation Starship rocket taking more than two additional years to be ready for routine orbital missions to LEO, each of which should be able to place 400 Starlink satellites in orbit.
OneWeb is by far the closest thing SpaceX has to a serious Starlink competitor and its first operational launch of ~30 satellites has recently suffered delays, moving from December to late-January or February 2020. Roughly monthly launches (each with ~30 satellites) will nominally follow that first launch. After Starlink-2 or Starlink-3, the only conceivable ways that SpaceX could ever lose the title of world’s largest satellite operator would require catastrophic failure(s) grounding Falcon 9 and/or Starship for >1 year or outright bankruptcy and liquidation, neither of which seem particularly likely.
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
