Connect with us

News

SpaceX COO says Starlink had cash-flow-positive quarter in 2022

Published

on

President and COO Gwynne Shotwell says that SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet program had a “cash flow positive quarter” in 2022 and “will make money” in 2023.

The update is major news for a program that SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has stated should be considered a success if it merely avoids bankruptcy. Several companies have attempted to build businesses around the concept of a low Earth orbit (LEO) internet satellite constellation. All have failed or gone bankrupt. Motorola pursued a concept called Celestris in the 1990s but eventually gave up and invested in Teledesic. Teledesic eventually went bankrupt and shut down in 2003 after spending the equivalent of $1.85 billion in 2022 dollars. In 2020, OneWeb – the closest to a true Starlink competitor – filed for bankruptcy despite having raised $3.4 billion and begun launching satellites. It was only saved by a $1 billion bailout led by the British government.

Despite pursuing the largest and most ambitious LEO constellations ever proposed, only SpaceX’s Starlink program has managed to avoid bankruptcy. SpaceX began developing Starlink in earnest in the mid-2010s and launched its first satellite prototypes in March 2018 and May 2019. Operational launches followed in November 2019, and SpaceX has since launched an unprecedented ~3540 working satellites on 70 Falcon 9 rockets. More importantly, just two years after opening orders, SpaceX has secured more than a million Starlink internet subscribers.

Adding to its impressive list of achievements, Gwynne Shotwell – a SpaceX executive known for being an excellent manager and voice of reason – says that Starlink has already had its first cash-flow-positive quarter.

Advertisement

According to Shotwell, that milestone happened sometime in 2022. Thanks to a productive 2021 and the accelerated launch of new Starlink satellites in 2022, continuously expanding network capacity, SpaceX’s subscriber count more than quadrupled between March and December. If Starlink truly did have a cash-flow-positive quarter last year, it likely happened in Q4. However, the nature of cash flow and the ambiguity in Shotwell’s statement are worth some amount of skepticism.

Crucially, cash flow should account for fundraising, which SpaceX does a lot of. In 2022, it closed a $1.7B venture round in May and a $250M private equity round in July, offering opportunities to negate otherwise negative cash flow in Q2 and Q3. If Shotwell means that Starlink had a positive cash flow quarter without accounting for fundraising, the achievement would be highly impressive and indicate that Starlink’s financial health is surprisingly good.

It’s also ambiguous if Shotwell meant that Starlink had a cash-flow-positive quarter in 2022 or if she was referring to the company as a whole. Earlier in her panel at the FAA’s annual Commercial Space Transportation Conference, Shotwell noted that SpaceX’s main product – Falcon rocket and Dragon spacecraft operations – “makes money.” She also said that “the cash flow from those operations basically pay for [Starlink and Starship] development.” External funds are then raised to supplement SpaceX’s profits from Falcon and Dragon.

SpaceX completed 27 commercial launches in 2022, potentially generating $2-3 billion in revenue. (Richard Angle)

The ambiguity leaves room for Shotwell’s statement to be interpreted a bit less positively. If SpaceX or Starlink’s cash-flow-positive quarter was contingent upon raising almost $2 billion in one calendar year, Starlink would arguably still be in a financially precarious position. A positive quarter in that context would be more indicative of decent accounting than good financial health.

However, Shotwell’s confident statement that “Starlink will make money” in 2023 was much less ambiguous and suggests that a positive interpretation of her “positive cash flow” comment could be more accurate. For Starlink to “make money” in 2023, the implication is that SpaceX expects annual revenue to exceed expenses – and possibly exceed expenses and external funding inputs.

Advertisement

Either outcome would be excellent. As long as Starlink’s revenue matches or exceeds expenses, the constellation could likely survive even if SpaceX’s access to external capital was partially or fully disrupted. It also bodes well for Starlink’s profit potential. If the Starlink Gen1 constellation is almost sustainable or profitable, the pending introduction of SpaceX’s next-gen Starship rocket and upgraded Gen2/V2.0 satellites could turn Starlink into a money printer.

In November 2021, CEO Elon Musk outright stated that SpaceX faced a “genuine risk of bankruptcy” if it couldn’t start launching Starship and Starlink V2.0 satellites “once every two weeks” by the end of 2022. Fifteen months later, Starship’s first launch is tracking towards March 2023, and there’s a nonzero chance the rocket won’t launch a single Starlink V2.0 satellite this year. Despite falling miles short of Musk’s target, Starlink is instead on the verge of becoming a sustainable business in the mind of SpaceX’s less hyperbolic leader.

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Ron DeSantis calls out media bias in Tesla crash coverage

Published

on

Credit: ABC News

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.

A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.

Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.

However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.

Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.

DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”

The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.

This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.

High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:

Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.

DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.

As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla enters two new markets on two different continents in one week

Published

on

Tesla entered two new markets this week by advancing its presence in Latvia (Europe) and officially launching operations in Uruguay (South America), marking a rapid dual-continent expansion.

These moves underscore the company’s strategy to tap into emerging EV markets with supportive policies, renewable energy grids, and growing demand for sustainable transport.

Latvia: Strengthening the Baltic Footprint

In Latvia, Tesla has built on its earlier registration of Tesla Latvia SIA in late 2025 with recent steps toward full operations, including job postings for a service center and representation in Riga. This aligns with broader Baltic expansion following Lithuania’s model of pop-up stores and service centers.

EV penetration in Latvia stands at around 7 percent for BEVs in new passenger car registrations. 2025 data showed 1,602 BEVs out of about 22,500 total, or 7.1 percent, with combined plug-ins nearing 19 percent. Growth has been steady but below the European average, supported by government subsidies and infrastructure development. Tesla models like the Model 3 lead local EV registrations.

Vehicles for the Latvian market will likely be sourced from Gigafactory Berlin or Gigafactory Shanghai. Charging infrastructure is robust for the region as well, with over 400- 2,000 public points, with Tesla Superchargers in Riga, Jūrmala, and along Via Baltica routes offering up to 250 kW.

Uruguay: Third South American Country

Tesla teased its Uruguay arrival with “Estamos llegando,” or, “We are arriving,” on social media, followed by an official presentation scheduled for mid-July.

The company established Tesla Uruguay SAS, homologated Model 3 and Model Y (three versions each), and appointed local leadership. This makes Uruguay Tesla’s third official South American market after Chile and Colombia.

Uruguay boasts one of Latin America’s highest EV penetrations, with battery-electric vehicles exceeding 20 percent market share recently, driven by tax incentives, high fuel prices, and a nearly 95-100 percent renewable electricity grid. Hundreds of Teslas already operate via grey imports, but official sales bring warranties, service, and support.

Vehicles will be imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, enabling competitive pricing for Model 3 and Model Y. Charging plans include Supercharger development alongside existing infrastructure, leveraging the country’s green energy advantage for affordable operation.

Tesla Superchargers follow Model 3 and Model Y to South American country

Tesla’s Dual Continent Expansion

Tesla’s simultaneous push into Latvia and Uruguay demonstrates efficient scaling: prioritizing service and infrastructure first, then direct sales in high-potential niches. In Europe, it fills Baltic gaps; in Latin America, it counters Chinese dominance while leveraging renewables.

This dual move signals Tesla’s ambition to accelerate global EV adoption amid varying regional paces. By addressing local needs, like subsidies in Latvia or incentives and green grids in Uruguay, Tesla not only boosts volumes but advances its mission of sustainable energy.

For investors and consumers, it highlights resilience and opportunity in diverse markets, potentially paving the way for further growth in underserved regions. With strong fundamentals in both, these entries could yield long-term gains as EV transitions mature worldwide.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX announces new Starship 13 test flight target date

Published

on

SpaceX Starship V3 flight 12
SpaceX Starship V3 flight 12 (Credit: SpaceX)

SpaceX has announced a new target date for the thirteenth test flight of Starship: Monday, July 20, with the launch window opening at 6:45 p.m ET/5:45 p.m. CT.

This is the first rescheduling attempt of Starship’s 13th test flight. It was set to launch last night, but SpaceX scrubbed the launch attempt.

CEO Elon Musk revealed that some of the engines on Starship did not start, which automatically triggers a launch abort. Two of the Raptor engines will be removed and replaced.

SpaceX officially announced the new launch window this morning.

Starship’s 13th test launch comes with a few new objectives, but SpaceX does not plan to attempt a catch of the booster, which it has done several times in the past.

For Starship’s Upper Stage, there are some adjustments to ensure engine reusability that will be assessed during the ascent, and 20 operational Starlink V3 satellites are also set to make their way into space. SpaceX also plans to attempt an in-space relight of a single Raptor engine, which is a critical demonstration for future orbital deorbit, refueling, and deep space maneuvers.

Ultimately, it will splash down in the Indian Ocean.

The continuous tests help SpaceX advance the Starship program toward eventual full reusability, operational Starlink V3 deployment, and future missions, which include NASA’s Artemis program.

Continue Reading