News
SpaceX reveals new Starlink satellite details 24 hours from launch
Less than 24 hours before SpaceX’s first dedicated Starlink mission is scheduled to lift off, the company revealed a handful of new details about the design of the 60 satellites cocooned inside Falcon 9’s fairing.
The Falcon 9 booster assigned to launch the Starlink v0.9 mission – B1049 – has already flown twice before in September 2018 and January 2019 and will likely take part in many additional launches prior to retirement. In support of B1049’s hopeful future, drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) arrived at its recovery location on May 13th, an impressive 620 km (385 mi) downrange relative to the launch’s low target orbit (440 km, 270 mi).
(Extra) smallsats
The combination of a distant booster recovery and a low target orbit can only mean one thing: the Starlink v0.9’s satellite payload is extremely heavy. As it just so happens, that is exactly the case per details included in SpaceX’s official press kit (PDF).
“With a flat-panel design featuring multiple high-throughput antennas and a single solar array, each Starlink satellite weighs approximately 227kg, allowing SpaceX to maximize mass production and take full advantage of Falcon 9’s launch capabilities. To adjust position on orbit, maintain intended altitude, and deorbit, Starlink satellites feature Hall thrusters powered by krypton. Designed and built upon the heritage of Dragon, each spacecraft is equipped with a Startracker navigation system that allows SpaceX to point the satellites with precision. Importantly, Starlink satellites are capable of tracking on-orbit debris and autonomously avoiding collisions. Additionally, 95 percent of all components of this design will quickly burn [up] in Earth’s atmosphere at the end of each satellite’s lifecycle—exceeding all current safety standards—with future iterative designs moving to complete disintegration.”
First and foremost, an individual satellite mass of around 227 kg (500 lb) is an impressive achievement, nearly halving the mass of the Tintin A/B prototypes SpaceX launched back in February 2018. For context, OneWeb’s essentially finalized satellite design weighs ~150 kg (330 lb) each and relies on a ~1050 kg (2310 lb) adapter capable of carrying ~30 satellites. Accounting for the adapter, that translates to ~180 kg (400 lb) per OneWeb satellite, around 25% lighter than Starlink v0.9 spacecraft.
However, assuming SpaceX has effectively achieved its desired per-satellite throughput of ~20 gigabits per second (Gbps), Starlink v0.9 could provide more than twice the performance of OneWeb’s satellites (PDF). These are still development satellites, however, and don’t carry the laser interlinks that will be standard on the all future spacecraft, likely increasing their mass an additional ~10%.
Despite the technical unknowns, it can be definitively concluded that SpaceX’s Starlink satellite form factor and packing efficiency are far ahead of anything comparable. Relative to the rockets it competes with, Falcon 9’s fairing is actually on the smaller side, but SpaceX has still managed to fit an incredible 60 fairly high-performance spacecraft inside it with plenty of room to spare. Additionally, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says that these “flat-panel” Starlink satellites have no real adapter or dispenser, relying instead on their own structure to support the full stack. How each satellite will deploy on orbit is to be determined but it will likely be no less unorthodox than their integrated Borg cube-esque appearance.
That efficiency also means that the Starlink v0.9 is massive. At ~227 kg per satellite, the minimum mass is about 13,800 kg (30,400 lb), easily making it the heaviest payload SpaceX has ever attempted to launch. It’s difficult to exaggerate how ambitious a start this is for the company’s internal satellite development program – Starlink has gone from two rough prototypes to 60 satellites and one of the heaviest communications satellite payloads ever in less than a year and a half.
[Insert Kryptonite joke here]
Beyond their lightweight and space-efficient flat-panel design, the next most notable feature of SpaceX’s Starlink v0.9 satellites is their propulsion system of choice. Not only has SpaceX designed, built, tested, and qualified its own Hall Effect thrusters (HETs) for Starlink, but it has based those thrusters on krypton instead of industry-standard xenon gas propellant.
Based on a cursory review of academic and industry research into the technology, krypton-based Hall effect thrusters can beat xenon’s ISP (chemical efficiency) by 10-15% but produce 15-25% less thrust per a given power input. Additionally, krypton thrusters are also 15-25% less efficient than xenon thrusters, meaning that krypton generally requires significantly more power to match xenon’s thrust. However, the likeliest explanation for SpaceX’s choice of krypton over less exotic options is simple: firm prices are hard to come by for such rare noble gases, but krypton costs at least 5-10 times less than xenon for a given mass.
At the costs SpaceX is targeting ($500k-$1M per satellite), the price of propellant alone (say 25-50 kg) could be a major barrier to satellite affordability – 50 kg of xenon costs at least $100,000, while 50 kg of krypton is more like $10,000-25,000. The more propellant each Starlink satellite can carry, the longer each spacecraft can safely operate, another way to lower the lifetime cost of a satellite megaconstellation.
SpaceX’s dedicated Starlink launch debut is set to lift off no earlier than 10:30pm EDT (02:30 UTC), May 15th. This is not a webcast you want to miss!
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk has publicly questioned Moody’s credit assessments following the rating agency’s decision to assign SpaceX a Baa1 investment-grade rating, two notches above Tesla’s Baa3. The comments came amid discussions comparing the two companies’ financial profiles.
SpaceX earned its first-time Baa1 rating with a stable outlook from Moody’s. The agency highlighted the company’s leadership in orbital launches, the growing recurring revenue from its Starlink satellite network, strong vertical integration, U.S. government contracts, and emerging opportunities in AI infrastructure.
These factors were cited as supporting robust cash flows, margin expansion, and financial flexibility.
Musk responded directly: “Tesla’s credit rating is ridiculously low tbh,” and added, “Yeah, makes no sense. Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt, and is consistently profitable!” His remarks underscored Tesla’s balance sheet strength and profitability at a time when many traditional automakers continue to report losses in the shift to electric vehicles.
Yeah, makes no sense.
Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt and is consistently profitable!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 19, 2026
Tesla maintains a leading position in the global EV market, with diversification into energy and storage, battery technology, and robotics through projects like Optimus. Recent financial updates show the company generated positive free cash flow of $1.4 billion in Q1 2026, supported by operating cash flow of $3.9 billion. Cash and short-term investments stood at approximately $44.7 billion.
Moody’s has affirmed Tesla’s Baa3 issuer rating with a stable outlook in periodic reviews, acknowledging the company’s EV leadership, technology strengths, including AI for autonomous vehicles, solid profitability, and strong liquidity.
Tesla (TSLA) scores Baa3 Moody’s rating for ‘stable’ outlook
However, the agency has also noted challenges in the automotive segment and expectations for margin pressures.
Musk’s critique highlights a common debate about how traditional rating methodologies apply to high-growth, capital-intensive technology companies. SpaceX benefits from long-term government-backed contracts and diversified, recurring revenue streams, while Tesla’s valuation reflects heavy investment in future technologies such as autonomy and robotics.
Both ratings remain investment-grade, yet the one-notch difference has fueled online discussion about potential inconsistencies in evaluating innovative firms.
The exchange comes as SpaceX explores financing options following its recent valuation milestones, while Tesla continues executing on its multi-year roadmap. Musk’s pointed response serves as a reminder that credit ratings, though influential for borrowing costs, represent one lens through which markets assess corporate strength—and that company leaders often view their financial positions through the lens of long-term innovation and cash generation rather than short-term risk metrics alone.
A new report from Reuters claims that a transport authority in Sweden is pushing back against the approval of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite because it will travel over speed limits.
The report says the Swedish Transport Administration (TRV) recommends the European Union votes against FSD’s approval. TRV believes it should not be approved until Tesla disables FSD’s ability to speed.
TRV sent a letter to the European Union’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV), which is set to meet on June 30 to discuss the potential approval of the Tesla FSD suite in the country. Tesla, which has received various approvals in Europe over the past two months, has not provided a comment.
Teslas operating on FSD do travel over the speed limit, depending on the Speed Profile that is chosen. Drivers have the ability to disengage FSD at any point; Tesla specifically states that those supervising the suite are responsible for its actions.
Let’s cut to the chase: humans operating any vehicle speed almost daily in the United States. Realistically, speed limits in the U.S. are more frequently treated as speed minimums. However, other countries are different, and driving behaviors are less aggressive.
TRV believes that “allowing automated systems to systematically exceed legal speed limits…risks undermining both the legal framework and the expected safety benefits of vehicle automation,” the report stated. It’s surprising that Tesla has not received this claim from other countries previously.
This could be a good argument to bring Max Speed back, the setting that previously allowed the driver to choose the absolute fastest the car would travel.
This would still put the responsibility of supervision in the hands of the driver. It would allow the driver to choose whether the car would travel over the speed limit or not, acknowledging that they set the speed, and if they get pulled over, there would be no ability to argue it.
However, it does not seem as if this is something Tesla will do, especially considering many U.S. drivers have requested the feature in an effort to eliminate speeding or at least tone it down. The company has not shown any interest in bringing it back.
Tesla has approvals for FSD in Europe in Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
Tesla is going to let you guide Full Self-Driving with Grok in 3 months, CEO Elon Musk confirmed on X.
The response from Musk, which revealed Tesla plans to allow drivers to effectively control the car and its navigation more explicitly using Grok, puts the feature for about September.
A Tesla owner said that Full Self-Driving is great, but owners should be able to “converse with Grok like we can with an Uber driver.” She then used examples like, “Grok, turn right here,” and “Drop us off right here, we’ll walk due to traffic,” and finally,” Drop at entrance first, then park far away.”
Coincidentally, the final piece of dialogue would also mean features like Banish are potentially on the way soon.
This functionality will be there in about 3 months or so
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 18, 2026
Banish is also referred to as “Reverse Summon,” and would enable the car to self-park while dropping occupants off at their destination.
This would be a great way to improve the overall experience while supervising FSD. Navigation is already a major painpoint that many owners complain about. Manual overrides when a maneuver is requested or canceled (like using the turn signal stalk to override a navigation route), do not always work.
The feature could be especially useful in street parking scenarios in a city, where spots are sometimes tough to come by. Many of us who grab dinner in a more populated area will park a street or two over from wherever we’re going, because sometimes you know that’s the best you will get. If a driver using FSD could say, “Hey Grok, turn right here on Queen St. and park in that open spot on the right,” it could save a lot of confusion FSD might have on its own.
Musk teased that a similar feature was “coming” back in February:
Tesla Full Self-Driving set to get an awesome new feature, Elon Musk says
It is certainly surprising that Tesla is doing it at this point. The company’s more recent moves have been more evident of taking control and inputs away from humans and putting them in the AI’s hands more frequently. The biggest example of this was taking away Max Speed in AI4 cars, giving us Speed Profiles, and not having any input on the fastest speed the car will travel.
Of course, giving navigation preferences to Grok is availble already in Teslas, but not at the drop of a hat. Instead, you can suggest a certain route at the beginning of your drive.
Here’s an example of that from December:
🚨🏈 I am taking my parents and Fiancee to the @Ravens game next weekend and asked @Grok to help me route my @Tesla through a specific neighborhood to reach the correct Lot we will park in.
This is a great example of the new @grok nav integration with the Tesla Holiday Update: pic.twitter.com/rPp4I7q8Yv
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 13, 2025
Finally, the original post that Musk responded to mentioned a parking preference after dropping off the occupants, which describes the Banish feature that Tesla has teased for years.
We’re not sure if Musk was responding more to the ability to guide the car with Grok, or whether he also was including Banish in the three-month prediction timeframe.
Elon Musk challenges Tesla credit rating from Moody’s after SpaceX gets a higher one
Tesla faces Full Self-Driving pushback in EU over ‘speeding’
