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
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
