News
SpaceX reportedly refused to move Starlink satellite, provoking odd space agency tweets [updated]
The European Space Agency (ESA) has published an unusual press release – in the form of a Twitter thread – specifically blaming SpaceX’s nascent Starlink constellation for a collision avoidance maneuver recently performed by Aeolus, a scientific spacecraft in low Earth orbit (LEO). SpaceX reportedly refused to move its Starlink satellite, triggering the maneuver.
SpaceX launched an extensive Starlink beta test on May 23rd, 2019, placing an unprecedented 60 satellites in LEO. Discussed earlier today on Teslarati, 50 of those 60 satellite prototypes have reached their final 550 km (340 mi) orbits and are functioning as intended, while 5 have paused their orbit-raising, 3 have been declared dead, and 2 are intentionally lowering their orbits as an end-of-life simulation.
Update: SpaceX has released an official statement on the matter.
“Our Starlink team last exchanged an email with the Aeolus operations team on August 28, when the probability of collision was only in the 2.2e-5 range (or 1 in 50k), well below the 1e-4 (or 1 in 10k) industry standard threshold and 75 times lower than the final estimate. At that point, both SpaceX and ESA determined a maneuver was not necessary. Then, the U.S. Air Force’s updates showed the probability increased to 1.69e-3 (or more than 1 in 10k) but a bug in our on-call paging system prevented the Starlink operator from seeing the follow on correspondence on this probability increase – SpaceX is still investigating the issue and will implement corrective actions. However, had the Starlink operator seen the correspondence, we would have coordinated with ESA to determine best approach with their continuing with their maneuver or our performing a maneuver.”
–SpaceX, 09/03/2019
Additionally, Starlink satellites have already reportedly performed 16 autonomous collision avoidance maneuvers (sans human operator interference) and SpaceX confirmed that the satellite ESA was worried about is fully operational while it continues its deorbit maneuver.
On one hand, ESA’s description of events is bizarre and dubious, at points. ESA Operations tweeted that “it is very rare to perform collision avoidance maneuvers with active satellites”, while the very next tweet stated that “ESA performed 28 collision avoidance maneuvers [in 2018]”, meaning that the procedure is roughly biweekly for ESA alone.
Meanwhile, Matt Desch – CEO of Iridium, the owner and operator of one of the largest LEO constellations ever flown – stated that its Iridium NEXT satellites perform similar maneuvers weekly, without the need to “put out a press release to say who [Iridium] maneuvered around”. In simple terms, collision avoidance maneuvers are extremely common and extremely routine and are a fundamental part of operating satellites on orbit – be it one, ten, or ten thousand.
However, spaceflight journalist Jonathan O’Callaghan was told by sources in ESA that the space agency had directly contacted SpaceX with concerns about a possible Starlink-Aeolus collision and the company refused to move their spacecraft in cooperation. This left ESA’s Aeolus to perform the maneuver.
From the perspective of O’Callaghan’s sourced information, SpaceX certainly appears to be in the wrong in this case. However, the current story is extremely patchy, and more information is needed to paint a true-to-life picture of events. Was SpaceX’s refusal to move based on an inability to move one of the two satellites it is intentionally deorbiting? Is the company simply confident in what it has described as a suite of autonomous collision avoidance hardware and software installed on each Starlink satellite?
Either way, if SpaceX actually is/was as terse and uncommunicative as O’Callaghan’s sources have painted the company, it is an extremely bad look. For SpaceX to successfully operate hundreds of Starlink satellites, let alone its constellation’s full ~11,800, good spaceflight stewardship and hand-in-hand cooperation with other major (and minor) operators is an absolute necessity. If SpaceX acts like the bully in the room and simply ignores or avoids cooperation and fails to take responsibility and help maintain current standards of collision avoidance, the company will very quickly find itself surrounded by newly made enemies like ESA.
Teslarati has reached out to SpaceX for comment and will update this article with all relevant information.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk takes latest barb at Bill Gates over Tesla short position
Bill Gates placed a massive short bet against Tesla of ~1% of our total shares, which might have cost him over $10B by now
Elon Musk took his latest barb at former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates over his short position against the company, which the two have had some tensions over for a number of years.
Gates admitted to Musk several years ago through a text message that he still held a short position against his sustainable car and energy company. Ironically, Gates had contacted Musk to explore philanthropic opportunities.
Elon Musk explains Bill Gates beef: He ‘placed a massive bet on Tesla dying’
Musk said he could not take the request seriously, especially as Gates was hoping to make money on the downfall of the one company taking EVs seriously.
The Tesla frontman has continued to take shots at Gates over the years from time to time, but the latest comment came as Musk’s net worth swelled to over $600 billion. He became the first person ever to reach that threshold earlier this week, when Tesla shares increased due to Robotaxi testing without any occupants.
Musk refreshed everyone’s memory with the recent post, stating that if Gates still has his short position against Tesla, he would have lost over $10 billion by now:
Bill Gates placed a massive short bet against Tesla of ~1% of our total shares, which might have cost him over $10B by now
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 17, 2025
Just a month ago, in mid-November, Musk issued his final warning to Gates over the short position, speculating whether the former Microsoft frontman had still held the bet against Tesla.
“If Gates hasn’t fully closed out the crazy short position he has held against Tesla for ~8 years, he had better do so soon,” Musk said. This came in response to The Gates Foundation dumping 65 percent of its Microsoft position.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk sends final warning to Bill Gates over short position
Musk’s involvement in the U.S. government also drew criticism from Gates, as he said that the reductions proposed by DOGE against U.S.A.I.D. were “stunning” and could cause “millions of additional deaths of kids.”
“Gates is a huge liar,” Musk responded.
It is not known whether Gates still holds his Tesla short position.
Tesla made a change to the Cybertruck, and nobody noticed. But to be fair, nobody could have, but it was revealed by the program’s lead engineer that it was aimed toward simplifying manufacturing through a minor change in casting.
After the Cybertruck was given a Top Safety Pick+ award by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), for its reputation as the safest pickup on the market, some wondered what had changed about the vehicle.
Tesla makes changes to its vehicles routinely through Over-the-Air software updates, but aesthetic changes are relatively rare. Vehicles go through refreshes every few years, as the Model 3 and Model Y did earlier this year. However, the Cybertruck is one of the vehicles that has not changed much since its launch in late 2023, but it has gone through some minor changes.
Most recently, Wes Morrill, the Cybertruck program’s Lead Engineer, stated that the company had made a minor change to the casting of the all-electric pickup for manufacturing purposes. This change took place in April:
We made a minor change on the casting for manufacturability in April. Our Internal testing shows no difference in crash result but IIHS only officially tested the latest version
— Wes (@wmorrill3) December 17, 2025
The change is among the most subtle that can be made, but it makes a massive difference in manufacturing efficiency, build quality, and scalability.
Morrill revealed Tesla’s internal testing showed no difference in crash testing results performed by the IIHS.
The 2025 Cybertruck received stellar ratings in each of the required testing scenarios and categories. The Top Safety Pick+ award is only given if it excels in rigorous crash tests. This requires ‘Good’ ratings in updated small and moderate overlap front, side, roof, and head restraints.
Additionally, it must have advanced front crash prevention in both day and night. Most importantly, the vehicle must have a ‘Good’ or ‘Acceptable’ headlights standard on all trims, with the “+ ” specifically demanding the toughest new updated moderate overlap test that checks rear-seat passenger protection alongside driver safety.
Tesla has entered an interesting situation with its Full Self-Driving suite in California, as the State’s Department of Motor Vehicles had adopted an order for a suspension of the company’s sales license, but it immediately put it on hold.
The company has been granted a reprieve as the DMV is giving Tesla an opportunity to “remedy the situation.” After the suspension was recommended for 30 days as a penalty, the DMV said it would give Tesla 90 days to allow the company to come into compliance.
The DMV is accusing Tesla of misleading consumers by using words like Autopilot and Full Self-Driving on its advanced driver assistance (ADAS) features.
The State’s DMV Director, Steve Gordon, said that he hoped “Tesla will find a way to get these misleading statements corrected.” However, Tesla responded to the story on Tuesday, stating that this was a “consumer protection” order for the company using the term Autopilot.
It said “not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.” It added that “sales in California will continue uninterrupted.”
This was a “consumer protection” order about the use of the term “Autopilot” in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.
Sales in California will continue uninterrupted.
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) December 17, 2025
Tesla has used the terms Autopilot and Full Self-Driving for years, but has added the term “(Supervised)” to the end of the FSD suite, hoping to remedy some of the potential issues that regulators in various areas might have with the labeling of the program.
It might not be too long before Tesla stops catching flak for using the Full Self-Driving name to describe its platform.
Tesla Robotaxi goes driverless as Musk confirms Safety Monitor removal testing
The Robotaxi suite has continued to improve, and this week, vehicles were spotted in Austin without any occupants. CEO Elon Musk would later confirm that Tesla had started testing driverless rides in Austin, hoping to launch rides without any supervision by the end of the year.
Elon Musk takes latest barb at Bill Gates over Tesla short position
Tesla Cybertruck gets small change that makes a big difference
