News
SpaceX "DARKSAT" results: can Starlink and astronomy happily coexist?
Astronomers have begun to gather and analyze detailed observations of a SpaceX Starlink satellite prototype officially labeled DARKSAT and the initial results hint that the satellite constellation should be able to happily coexist with ground-based astronomy in the future.
Since SpaceX began launching batches of 60 Starlink satellites in May 2019, the company has raised the ire of parts of the astronomy community and simultaneously awed and inspired many less technical observers with clusters of shooting star-like satellites that are easily visible after launches. While the mid-sized spacecraft do become much dimmer as they raise their orbits from ~300 km (185 mi) to 550 km (340 mi), they are far from invisible even at that operational altitude. It’s safe to say that the current impact on ground-based astronomy is still just shy of negligible even with 360 satellites in orbit, but that impact is assuredly greater than zero and the relatively bright spacecraft have already interrupted telescope observations at many sites around the world.
Given that the 360 satellites already in orbit are just a tiny fraction of the ~4400, ~12,000, or even ~40,000 that SpaceX could one day launch, it would be irresponsible to argue that the constellation’s impact – and the impact of others like it – will continue to be minor as the number of satellites grows. Thankfully, while it doesn’t appear that prospective low Earth orbit (LEO) constellation architects anticipated the potential astronomy impact, SpaceX’s Starlink team has rapidly responded and already launched a satellite featuring tweaks designed to dim its appearance from the ground. For several reasons, the initial results from “DARKSAT” are extremely promising – now visible below in some of the first photos offering a useful comparison.
Launched on January 7th, 2020, a set of 20 spacecraft including DARKSAT – representing a single “plane” of the broader Starlink constellation – all arrived at their operational ~550 km (340 mi) orbits by February 23rd. As previously discussed on Teslarati, initial results first published on March 18th revealed that the Starlink DARKSAT prototype – essentially an early alpha test for darkening techniques – was already 55% darker than unmodified spacecraft. While making satellites less reflective makes thermal management a much greater challenge, DARKSAT has managed to raise its orbit and begin operations without issue, although it’s unknown whether the satellite’s antennas and avionics are also functioning nominally.
For darker spacecraft, perhaps the most important test will be long-term reliability, as constantly absorbing more heat than a reflective satellite is likely to put their structure, avionics, and radiators through significantly more thermal stress. As such, SpaceX may launch a limited number of additional darkened prototypes over the coming months but is much less likely to darken all satellites on any given launch until DARKSATs have successfully operated in orbit for months or even years.
On the ground, SpaceX may try to perform sped-up stress testing, but proving that darker satellites are a viable solution will almost invariably take time. Earlier this month, CEO Elon Musk revealed that SpaceX may attempt to design deployable solar shades for Starlink satellites if darkening their bodies is not enough to fully mitigate major impacts to astronomy. Knowing SpaceX, the first in-orbit solar shade test(s) could happen during any of several upcoming Starlink launches.
Adding reliable, deployable solar shades without appreciably raising Starlink’s production costs could be a major challenge, given the fundamental complexity of large, deployable mechanisms in space, but SpaceX – if anyone – is likely up to the challenge. More importantly, the fact that SpaceX’s very first attempt at reducing Starlink albedo (reflectivity) has produced a satellite 55% darker than its peers suggests that much more can probably be done along those lines, given additional time for extra experiments and deeper optimization.
As a result, it may be the case that SpaceX ends up launching 750-1000+ reflective Starlink satellites before an affordable, mass-producible DARKSAT variant is ready to take over. In that event, Starlink could plausibly have a small to moderate negative impact on ground-based astronomy for several years. However, comments made by SpaceX executives over the years suggest that no single Starlink satellite is likely to operate for more than five or so years before being replaced, meaning that the entire constellation would be continuously refreshed (as long as it’s generating revenue). Even if a thousand bright(er) Starlink satellites make life a bit harder for some astronomers, the fact remains that the consequences of any single Starlink satellite variant – assuming SpaceX remains serious about fully mitigating the constellation’s impact – are inherently temporary.
If SpaceX continues to make progress darkening satellites and developing cheap solar shades, it seems all but guaranteed that even a constellation of tens of thousands of Starlink satellites will be able happily coexist with the astronomy community, all the while delivering cheap, fast internet to millions of people – especially those lacking access – around the world.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
