News
SpaceX Starlink antennas spied at Starship factory for the first time ever
SpaceX’s mysterious Starlink ‘user terminals’ have been spotted in public for the first time ever at the company’s South Texas Starship factory.
Offering a first-ever glimpse of the hardware that individual customers will use to connect to SpaceX’s growing satellite internet network, the lone photo provides a bit more detail than it might initially seem. Effectively invisible up to now, the user terminal – a small antenna system – has been described by both SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and COO/President Gwynne Shotwell as a the single biggest challenge standing in the way of Starlink’s success.
For SpaceX, building a mass-market consumer electronics product more or less in-house was already guaranteed to be a major (and expensive) challenge. The complex requirements and limitations facing an antenna meant for a low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite internet constellation thus magnify a task that is already hard and turn it into a truly unprecedented feat of mass production. Regardless, SpaceX continues to persevere and the first public appearance of user terminals – as well as the consistent company position that service could begin rolling out just a few months from now – are encouraging signs.
The single biggest reason the user terminal component of Starlink is so daunting is relatively simple. Situated in low Earth orbit (LEO) to ensure that Starlink internet service offers latency (ping, response time, etc.) as good or better than fiber, the SpaceX satellites are moving quite rapidly, spending just a handful of minutes over any given spot on the Earth’s surface. Whereas existing satellite internet solutions are located in much higher orbits, including geostationary orbits where the spacecraft actually appear to hover above a fixed point on the ground, ground antennas for LEO internet constellations are much more challenging.
Instead of a literal dish tracking satellites as they streak across the sky, the only truly viable solution is an electronically-steered (phased array) antenna. The problem is that while phased array antennas have plummeted in price over the last five or so years, the going price for existing solutions puts them somewhere between one and two magnitudes too expensive mass-market consumer product. Even if customers loathe Comcast with all their hearts, the vast majority simply can’t rationalize spending thousands of dollars up front for comparable satellite service.
In other words, for Starlink to be viable regardless of the quality or affordability of the satellites themselves, SpaceX must somehow find a way to build millions of user terminals that are simultaneously far more capable than anything in their price range and as good or better than antennas that cost $5,000, $10,000, or even more. The challenge is amplified further by the fact that competing ground-based internet service providers (ISP) like Comcast incur nearly no material cost to add a customer to their network, while customers will typically already have the router and modem needed to gain access.
On top of being at least 5-10 times cheaper than comparable alternatives, Starlink user terminals must also be impressively reliable, bug-free, and easy to set up. Beyond that, though, the amount of room for improvement available to SpaceX is almost comical. Even mediocre customer service and vaguely transparent bills and pricing would likely paint Starlink in a favorable and highly preferable light when compared with the United States’ infamous ecosystem of monopolistic ISPs. Many consumers may happily spend several times more money than they’ve ever spent on internet-related technology just to gain access to Starlink and escape the yoke of their existing ISP.
According to Shotwell, SpaceX could begin rolling out Starlink internet to customers in the northern US and southern Canada once 14 batches – ~840 operational spacecraft – have been launched. SpaceX’s next Starlink v1.0 launch is scheduled as soon as June 23rd, meaning that an initial rollout could come as early as August or September.
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
