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.
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 once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
