News
SpaceX has all the Starlink funding needed for an “operational constellation”
Upper-level wind shear has unfortunately scrubbed SpaceX’s first dedicated Starlink launch attempt, pushing Falcon 9 B1049’s third liftoff to no earlier than 10:30 pm EDT (02:30 UTC), May 16th.
A few hours prior to the launch attempt, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk hosted a conference call with members of the press and answered a number of questions about Starlink, providing the best look yet into the company’s newest endeavor. Topics included the advanced technologies on each Starlink satellite, their extremely unorthodox deployment method, SpaceX’s ultimate goals for the constellation, and even a few brief comments on funding.
Funding, secured
Perhaps the single most important thing Musk noted in the hour-long media briefing was his belief that SpaceX already has “sufficient capital to build an operational constellation.” It’s possible that that statement is heavily qualified, as Musk did not delve into greater detail, but it is still an incredible claim that could mean Starlink is far ahead of competing constellations and far more capital-efficient than OneWeb.
As previously discussed on Teslarati, in the last four years, OneWeb has raised $3.4B of funding, while SpaceX – a company primarily focused on building and launching rockets – has raised $2B, half of which is known to be dedicated to Starlink. OneWeb’s constellation (either 650 or 2650 satellites) cost estimate has grown quite a bit recently and stands at ~$5B. Assuming all $2B of the funding SpaceX has raised is dedicated to Starlink, that would translate to a per-satellite cost – including all infrastructure and launch – of $450,000 for the first phase (~4400 satellites).
Musk’s contextual definition of an “operational constellation” is probably more in line with the twelve 60-satellite launches he described as necessary to provide “significant [broadband] coverage”. It could also refer to the entire tranche of ~1600 Starlink satellites planned for the lower 550 km (340 mi) orbit this first batch of 60 is headed for, a number that Musk stated would offer “decent global coverage”. Either way, Starlink is almost certainly far more capital-efficient than OneWeb, LeoSat, Telesat, or any other satellite constellation with serious intentions.
The most obvious explanation for this – regardless of the satellites themselves – is simple: SpaceX owns its own closed-loop launch capability, including pads, integration facilities, an established cross-country transport network, and the rockets (Falcon) themselves. For any of the proposed satellite constellations to succeed, the manufacturers will almost invariably need to find build satellites so affordably that the cost of launch outweighs the cost of its payload. This ultimately means that launches alone could account for something like 50% of the cost of an entire satellite constellation.
Assuming Block 5 boosters can be reused at least 5-10 times each, the only real cost of an internal SpaceX launch is the hours worked, recovery fleet operations, and the expended upper stage and fairing – likely less than $30M altogether. As such, SpaceX may already be achieving its satellite cost targets on its first launch.
Deploying satellites “like spreading a deck of cards”
Meanwhile, Musk also offered some detail on the deeply unorthodox method SpaceX has chosen for spacecraft deployment once in orbit. Apparently, Starlink satellites will be deployed from Falcon 9’s upper stage by rotating the stage (presumably along its vertical axis) and simply letting go of the spacecraft. Musk used the analogy of spreading a deck of cards on a table, seemingly suggesting that they will either be released simultaneously (perhaps by stack) or with a stagger measured in milliseconds. This could create a fairly spectacular visual, forming an evenly-spaced spiral of satellites spreading out from the Falcon upper stage.
Above all else, Musk mainly seemed to be excited about Starlink, whether discussing the constellation’s long-term goals or the technology utilized on each individual satellite. Some miscellaneous facts and tidbits taken from the Q&A can be found below:
- Aside from Ka-band antennas and inter-satellite laser links, these 60 Starlink spacecraft are very close to the final spacecraft design.
- “It’s one of the hardest engineering projects that I’ve ever seen done.” – Elon Musk
- Starlink v0.9 is SpaceX’s heaviest payload ever by a huge margin, weighing in around 18,500 kg (40,800 lb). Crew Dragon is most likely in second-place, with a launch mass estimated to be around 13,500 kg.
- Combined, the solar arrays on the 60 Starlink spacecraft will produce up to 50% more power than the International Space Station’s football field-sized panels. This translates to ~180 kW, with each spacecraft thus producing around 3 kW total with an unusual single-panel array.
- Two solar array deployment mechanisms will be tested on this mission.
- “We see this as a way to generate revenue to develop more advanced rockets and spaceships. Starlink is a key component for establishing a presence on the moon and Mars.” – Elon Musk
- SpaceX sided with krypton-fueled Hall effect thrusters due to krypton costing 5-10x less than more traditional xenon propellant. SpaceX’s internally-designed and built thrusters will have an ISP of ~1500s.
- “[SpaceX has built] the most advanced phased array antenna[s] that I am aware of.” – Elon Musk
- These first 60 satellites alone will have a combined bandwidth of 1 terabit per second (125 GB/s), averaging around 17 Gbps per satellite.
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
