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.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
