News
SpaceX planning four more Falcon 9-launched Starlink missions this year, permits show
According to a suite of eight FCC Special Temporary Authority licenses SpaceX filed for on August 30th, the company has plans for as many as four additional Starlink satellite launches in 2019, on top of Starlink’s May 23rd launch debut.
Additionally, SpaceX simultaneously requested that the FCC modify its current Starlink application to permit a slight change in orbital characteristics that would drastically improve the broadband satellite constellation’s coverage in its early stages. Combined, SpaceX appears to be extremely confident about the status and near-future progress to be made by its prospective Starlink constellation, confidence presumably inspired by the performance of the first 60 “v0.9” satellites launched three months ago.
Beta-test hiccups
Over the last three months, 50 of the 60 Starlink satellites launched on May 23rd have made their way to their final ~550 km (340 mi) circular orbits. As observed by astronomer Jonathan McDowell and partially confirmed by SpaceX’s own official statements, the company remains in contact with and – more or less – in control of all but three of the 60 Starlink prototypes. SpaceX did confirm in late June that two functioning satellites were being intentionally deorbited to test procedures and performance, while another three satellites had partially failed and were to “passively deorbit”.
And for completeness here is an updated version of the plot showing Starlink satellite height ((p+a)/2) versus time, no recent changes pic.twitter.com/E3a38afRse— Jonathan McDowell (@planet4589) August 28, 2019
Based on the phrasing of SpaceX’s June 28th update, it’s ambiguous if communication and/or control has been completely lost with those three satellites. Additionally, five more satellites have remained paused partway between their ~440 km insertion orbits and ~550 km operational orbits, described two months ago as “going through checkouts prior to completing their orbit raise.” For unknown reasons, that orbit raise never happened. This leaves SpaceX with 57 of 60 satellites that have effectively ‘survived’ and are still under some form of control, while 50 (83%) of the satellites have successfully reached their nominal operational orbits and are performing as intended.
SpaceX continues to waffle between describing these first 60 satellites – internally known as “Starlink v0.9” – as a development test and the first operational Starlink launch. A ~17% failure rate for satellite orbit raising would be unacceptable for a finished product but, on a positive note, is actually quite impressive if one assumes that the 60 spacecraft are high-fidelity prototypes, not operational satellites.
In short, there is a lot of room for improvement – particularly in the realm of short and long-term reliability – but the likely fact that “v0.9” signifies a sort of Starlink beta test means that SpaceX’s next Starlink launches will feature updated and bug-fixed hardware. In the realm of satellites, the practice of flying prototypes as early as possible and risking failures to learn from experience is exceedingly rare, but this behavior is entirely consistent with SpaceX’s preferred approach to rocket and spacecraft development.
300 satellites, 7 months
As mentioned above, SpaceX applied for four FCC STA licenses – effectively communications-related launch permits – on August 30th, all for Starlink missions with nominal No Earlier Than (NET) launch dates in 2019. It must be noted that it’s exceptionally rare for the starting dates of STAs to actually correlate with launch dates, but a best-case scenario typically sees a given launch occur within a handful of weeks of that date. STAs last six months, providing plenty of buffer for all but the most extreme launch delays.
| Mission | Date (NET) |
| Starlink-1 | October 10th |
| Starlink-2 | October 25th |
| Starlink-3 | November 13th |
| Starlink-4 | December 8th |
Of note, NASASpaceflight.com recently published Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) and Kennedy Space Center (KSC) planning dates for SpaceX’s next two Starlink missions, confirming that the company is planning for launches roughly one week after the dates on its newly-requested FCC STAs. Those official planning dates show two back-to-back Starlink launches no earlier than (NET) October 17th and November 4th.
In a best-case scenario where SpaceX successfully manufactures, delivers, and prepares the satellites and readies the Falcon 9 rockets assigned to launch them, the company could complete four more Starlink launches between now and the New Year. Sticking to a three-week cadence hopefully set by Starlink-1 and Starlink-2, two more launches could follow around late-November and mid-December. Of course, as just the first few truly operational launches of more or less finalized “v1.0” Starlink satellites, delays from manufacturing through launch flows are probable and should be expected.
Even completing just one more 60-satellite launch of an updated Starlink design would be an impressive achievement, making SpaceX the first and only entity – country or company – to place more than 100 satellites in orbit in the first year of a satellite system’s launch activities. In a best-case scenario, four additional Starlink launches in 2019 would abruptly take SpaceX from two satellite prototypes to operating almost 300 satellites – unequivocally the largest constellation in the world – in no more than seven months.
Serving customers sooner
According to SpaceX’s Starlink.com website, Starlink will be able to start serving customers at Northern US and southern Canadian latitudes after just six launches (360 satellites), with limited “global coverage of the populated world” available after 24 launches (1440 satellites). However, per an FCC license modification request published on August 30th, the same day as 8 launch STAs, the company believes it can dramatically expedite Starlink coverage (regardless of launch rate) with one relatively simple modification.
This modification would leave inclination (orbit angle relative to Earth’s rotational axis), orbital altitude, and the number of satellites and launches completely unchanged, modifying Starlink’s orbital planes instead. It’s an extreme simplification of the reality of orbital mechanics, but one can imagine orbital planes as roughly akin to lanes on a road. To increase their reach, SpaceX wants to deploy Starlink satellites to three separate planes each launch, ultimately tripling the number of ‘lanes’ (from 24 to 72) while cutting the number of satellites in each ‘lane’ by two-thirds (from 66 to 22). In this analogy, it is logically easier to build fewer ‘lanes’, referring – in this case – to the challenge it poses to the launch vehicle, satellites, or both. SpaceX would only be able to triple Starlink’s orbital ‘lanes’ by requiring the satellites to do the bulk of their own orbit raising, leaning heavily on the performance and reliability of their SpaceX-built electric (ion) propulsion.
According to SpaceX, this could as much as halve the number of launches needed to achieve a given level of Starlink coverage, meaning that SpaceX’s early constellation could reach its initial operational status up to twice as quickly. SpaceX believes that this updated orbital layout of Starlink’s 1584 low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites would also significantly improve coverage and capabilities for areas with high population density (i.e. big cities).
Whether or not the FCC sees fit to rapidly grant SpaceX’s modification request in the next ~8 weeks, SpaceX’s next Starlink launches will be a major step forward for the company’s nascent communications constellation.
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
