News
SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet gains 750,000 subscribers in nine months
SpaceX says its Starlink satellite internet service has surpassed one million active subscribers just two years after its first limited beta release.
SpaceX began launching operational Starlink satellites in November 2019. A little over three years later, the company has successfully launched more than 3600 Starlink satellites, of which some 3000 are operational and ready to serve customers. That network expansion – unprecedented in the history of spaceflight and producing a satellite constellation a magnitude larger than the next largest – has also allowed SpaceX to significantly increase the number of active users it can serve.
In June 2022, CEO Elon Musk reported in an all-hands meeting that SpaceX’s Starlink internet had “nearly” 500,000 users. Just six months later, SpaceX says that figure has doubled to “more than 1,000,000 active subscribers,” indicating an average of roughly 2600 new subscribers per day throughout the second half of 2022. In the relatively tiny world of satellite broadband internet service, a million subscribers makes SpaceX directly comparable to companies that have been serving satellite internet for decades just two years after its first offering entered beta.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
In the US, Hughes Network is SpaceX’s largest competitor and currently has a bit less than 1.3 million subscribers in the Americas. Cloudflare data suggests that only half of Starlink’s far more international customer base is located in the United States, indicating that SpaceX has secured almost 40% as many subscribers after offering its competing service for just two years. That growth – roughly 250,000 new subscribers per quarter since March 2022 – is the exact opposite of what virtually every other satellite internet provider has been experiencing for the last several years, most of which are slowly losing subscribers instead of gaining them.
Comments from CEO Elon Musk and actions made by SpaceX indicate that the company is unlikely to drastically slow that growth anytime soon. In 2021, Musk noted that SpaceX would only truly struggle with congestion once Starlink had “several million” subscribers. In late 2020, SpaceX also applied for FCC permission to operate up to five million user terminals (dishes that connect to Starlink) just in the United States.
Starlink’s design makes prioritizing a country or region essentially impossible. Instead of the large geostationary satellites most competitors operate tens of thousands of kilometers above Earth’s surface, where they more or less hover above a region of choice, Starlink satellites operate just 550 kilometers (~340 mi) up. At that altitude, each satellite orbits the Earth every 95 minutes and only spends a few minutes (or even seconds) over any given country. That strongly encourages SpaceX to serve customers in as many countries as possible, each of which has its own painful market entrance process for a new communications provider.
After years of work, SpaceX’s government relations team has secured permission to operate Starlink in roughly a quarter of all countries on Earth. Combined, those countries represent more than 1.5 billion people, 19% of the global population.
But Starlink likely only needs to convert a minuscule fraction of those people into customers to be a worthwhile and financially sustainable pursuit for SpaceX. The total capacity of the first 4405-satellite Starlink constellation can only be guessed at, but roughly estimating SpaceX’s total Starlink revenue is much easier. The cost of a subscription varies widely from country to country but Cloudflare indicates that the vast majority of subscribers live in countries where it costs around $100-110 per month and around $600 for a subsidized dish. Even accounting for SpaceX footing some of the bill for Starlink service in Ukraine, the network is almost certainly already generating more than a billion dollars of revenue per year
While the FCC is making it far from easy, SpaceX is already preparing to begin building a second-generation Starlink Gen2 constellation with nearly 30,000 satellites, each of which could launch with almost a magnitude more usable bandwidth than Gen 1 satellites. If SpaceX can continue to find new customers around the world, a million subscribers using Starlink Gen1 while the network is less than 70% complete imply that the most capable version of Starlink Gen2 could serve roughly 10-12 million subscribers at minimum. Assuming SpaceX does not substantially lower its revenue, the recurring revenue from 12 million Gen2 subscribers could be $14.5 billion per year.
Reaching Starlink profitability will be an even bigger challenge – and one that CEO Elon Musk has (perhaps overzealously) indicated could bankrupt SpaceX if the company attempts to do so with its Gen1 design. But securing a million active subscribers in two years and some 750,000 in the last nine months arguably indicates that SpaceX is on a good path and should allow the company to either decrease its fundraising burden or increase the reach of future spending on R&D and expansion.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
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.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
