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.
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
