News
SpaceX’s Starlink launch debut to orbit dozens of satellites later this month
SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell has revealed that the company’s first dedicated Starlink launch is scheduled for May 15th and will involve “dozens” of satellites.
Corroborated by several sources, the actual number of Starlink satellites that will be aboard Falcon 9 is hard to believe given that it is a satellite constellation’s first quasi-operational launch. Suffice it to say, if all spacecraft reach orbit in good health, SpaceX will easily become the operator and owner of one of the top five largest commercial satellite constellations in the world with a single launch. Such an unprecedentedly ambitious first step suggests that the perceived practicality of SpaceX’s Starlink ambitions may need to be entirely reframed going forward.
From 0 to 100
In short, it’s hard to exaggerate just how much of a surprise it is to hear that SpaceX’s very first Starlink launch – aside from two prototypes launched in Feb. 2018 – will attempt to place “dozens” of satellites in orbit. Competitor OneWeb, for example, conducted its first launch in February 2019, placing just six satellites in orbit relative to planned future launches with 20-30. To go from 2(ish) to “dozens” in a single step will break all sorts of industry standards/traditions.
Despite the ~15 months that have passed since that first launch, SpaceX’s Starlink team has really only spent the last 6-9 months in a phase of serious mass-production buildup. As of now, the company has no dedicated satellite factory – space in Hawthorne, CA is far too constrained. Instead, the design, production, and assembly of Starlink satellites is being done in 3-4 separate buildings located throughout the Seattle/Redmond area.
SpaceX’s Starlink team has managed to transition almost silently from research and development to serious mass-production (i.e. dozens of satellites) in the space of about half a year. The dozens of spacecraft scheduled to launch on SpaceX’s first dedicated mission – likely weighing 200-300 kg (440-660 lb) each – have also managed to travel from Seattle to Cape Canaveral in the last few months and may now be just a few days away from fairing encapsulation.
To some extent, the first flight-ready batch of “dozens” of satellites are still partial prototypes, likely equivalent to the second round of flight testing mentioned by CEO Elon Musk last year. This group of spacecraft will have no inter-satellite laser (optical) links, a feature that would transform an orbiting Starlink constellation into a vast mesh network. According to FCC filings, the first 75 satellites will be of the partial-prototype variety, followed soon after by the first spacecraft with a more or less finalized design and a full complement of hardware.
If this is just step one…
Meanwhile, Shotwell – speaking at the Satellite 2019 conference – suggested that SpaceX could launch anywhere from two to six dedicated Starlink missions this year, depending on the performance of the first batch. Put a slightly different way, take the “dozens” of satellites she hinted at, multiply that number by 6, and you’ve arrived at the number of spacecraft she believes SpaceX is theoretically capable of producing and delivering in the next 7.5 months.
“Dozens” implies no less than two dozen or a bare minimum of 144 satellites potentially built and launched before the year is out. However, combined with a target orbit of 450 km (280 mi) and a planned drone ship booster recovery more than 620 km (385 mi) downrange, 36, 48, or 60 satellites seem far more likely. Tintin A/B – extremely rough, testbed-like prototypes – were about 400 kg (~900 lb) each.
As an example, SpaceX’s eight Iridium NEXT satellite launches had payloads of more than 10,000 kg (22,000 lb), were launched to an orbit around 630 km (390 mi), and required a upper stage coast and second burn on-orbit. Further, Iridium missions didn’t get the efficiency benefit that Starlink will by launching east along the Earth’s rotational axis. Despite all that, Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters were still able to land less than 250 km (155 mi) downrange after Iridium launches. Crew Dragon’s recent launch debut saw Falcon 9 place the >13,000 kg (28,700 lb) payload into a 200 km (125 mi) orbit with a drone ship landing less than 500 km (310 mi) downrange, much of which was margin to satisfy safety requirements.
Starlink-1’s target orbit is thus a third lower than Iridium NEXT, while its drone ship will be stationed more than 2.5 times further downrange. Combined, SpaceX’s first Starlink payload will likely weigh significantly more than ~13,000 kg and may end up being the heaviest payload the company has yet to launch.
Assuming a payload mass of ~14,000 kg (~31,000 lb) at launch, a worst-case scenario with ~400 kg spacecraft and a 2000 kg dispenser would translate to 30 Starlink satellites. Cut their mass to 300 kg and the dispenser to 1000 kg and that rises to ~45 satellites. Drop even further to 200 kg apiece and a single recoverable Falcon 9 launch could place >60 satellites in orbit.
Of course, this entirely ignores the elephant in the room: the usable volume of SpaceX’s standard Falcon payload fairing. It’s unclear how SpaceX would fit 24 – let alone 60 – high-performance satellites into said fairing without severely constraining their design and capabilities. SpaceX’s solution to this problem will effectively remain unanswered until launch, assuming the company is willing to provide some sort of press release and/or offer a live view of spacecraft deployment on their webcast. Given the cutthroat nature of competition with the likes of OneWeb, Telesat, LeoSat, and others, this is not guaranteed.
At the end of the day, such a major leap into action bodes extremely well for SpaceX’s ability to realize its ambitious Starlink constellation, and do so fast. For those on Earth without reliable internet access or any access at all, the faster Starlink – and competing constellations, for that matter – can be realized, the sooner all of humanity can enjoy the many benefits connectivity can bring. For those that sit under the thumb of monopolistic conglomerates like Comcast and Time Warner Cable, relief will be no less welcome.
Stay tuned as we get closer to Starlink-1’s May 15th launch date. Up next is a static fire of the mission’s Falcon 9 rocket, perhaps just two or three days from now.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
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 to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
