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.
News
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.2.5 might be the most confusing release ever
With each Full Self-Driving release, I am realistic. I know some things are going to get better, and I know some things will regress slightly. However, these instances of improvements are relatively mild, as are the regressions. Yet, this version has shown me that it contains extremes of both.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.2.5 hit my car back on Valentine’s Day, February 14, and since I’ve had it, it has become, in my opinion, the most confusing release I’ve ever had.
With each Full Self-Driving release, I am realistic. I know some things are going to get better, and I know some things will regress slightly. However, these instances of improvements are relatively mild, as are the regressions. Yet, this version has shown me that it contains extremes of both.
It has been about three weeks of driving on v14.2.2.5; I’ve used it for nearly every mile traveled since it hit my car. I’ve taken short trips of 10 minutes or less, I’ve taken medium trips of an hour or less, and I’ve taken longer trips that are over 100 miles per leg and are over two hours of driving time one way.
These are my thoughts on it thus far:
Speed Profiles Are a Mixed Bag
Speed Profiles are something Tesla seems to tinker with quite frequently, and each version tends to show a drastic difference in how each one behaves compared to the previous version.
I do a vast majority of my FSD travel using Standard and Hurry modes, although in bad weather, I will scale it back to Chill, and when it’s a congested city on a weekend or during rush hour, I’ll throw it into Mad Max so it takes what it needs.
Early on, Speed Profiles really felt great. This is one of those really subjective parts of the FSD where someone might think one mode travels too quickly, whereas another person might see the identical performance as too slow or just right.
To me, I would like to see more consistency from release to release on them, but overall, things are pretty good. There are no real complaints on my end, as I had with previous releases.
In a past release, Mad Max traveled under the speed limit quite frequently, and I only had that experience because Hurry was acting the same way. I’ve had no instances of that with v14.2.2.5.
Strange Turn Signal Behavior
This is the first Full Self-Driving version where I’ve had so many weird things happen with the turn signals.
Two things come to mind: Using a turn signal on a sharp turn, and ignoring the navigation while putting the wrong turn signal on. I’ve encountered both things on v14.2.2.5.
On my way to the Supercharger, I take a road that has one semi-sharp right-hand turn with a driveway entrance right at the beginning of the turn.
Only recently, with the introduction of v14.2.2.5, have I had FSD put on the right turn signal when going around this turn. It’s obviously a minor issue, but it still happens, and it’s not standard practice:
How can we get Full Self-Driving to stop these turn signals?
There’s no need to use one here; the straight path is a driveway, not a public road. The right turn signal here is unnecessary pic.twitter.com/7uLDHnqCfv
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 28, 2026
When sharing this on X, I had Tesla fans (the ones who refuse to acknowledge that the company can make mistakes) tell me that it’s a “valid” behavior that would be taught to anyone who has been “professionally trained” to drive.
Apparently, if you complain about this turn signal, you are also claiming you know more than Tesla engineers…okay.
Nobody in their right mind has ever gone around a sharp turn when driving their car and put on a signal when continuing on the same road. You would put a left turn signal on to indicate you were turning into that driveway if that’s what your intention was.
Like I said, it’s a totally minor issue. However, it’s not really needed, and nor is it normal. If I were in the car with someone who was taking a simple turn on a road they were traveling, and they signaled because the turn was sharp, I’d be scratching my head.
I’ve also had three separate instances of the car completely ignoring the navigation and putting on a signal that is opposite to what the routing says. Really quite strange.
Parking Performance is Still Underwhelming
Parking has been a complaint of mine with FSD for a long time, so much so that it is pretty rare that I allow the vehicle to park itself. More often than not, it is because I want to pick a spot that is relatively isolated.
However, in the times I allow it to pull into a spot, it still does some pretty head-scratching things.
Recently, it tried to back into a spot that was ~60% covered in plowed snow. The snow was piled about six feet high in a Target parking lot.
A few days later, it tried backing into a spot where someone failed the universal litmus test of returning their shopping cart. Both choices were baffling and required me to manually move the car to a different portion of the lot.
I used Autopark on both occasions, and it did a great job of getting into the spot. I notice that the parking performance when I manually choose the spot is much better than when the car does the entire parking process, meaning choosing the spot and parking in it.
It’s Doing Things (For Me) It’s Never Done Before
Two things that FSD has never done before, at least for me, are slow down in School Zones and avoid deer. The first is something I usually take over manually, and the second I surprisingly have not had to deal with yet.
I had my Tesla slow down at a school zone yesterday for the first time, traveling at 20 MPH and not 15 MPH as the sign suggested, but at the speed of other cars in the School Zone. This was impressive and the first time I experienced it.
I would like to see this more consistently, and I think School Zones should be one of those areas where, no matter what, FSD will only travel the speed limit.
Last night, FSD v14.2.2.5 recognized a deer in a roadside field and slowed down for it:
🚨 Cruising home on a rainy, foggy evening and my Tesla on Full Self-Driving begins to slow down suddenly
FSD just wanted Mr. Deer to make it home to his deer family ❤️ pic.twitter.com/cAeqVDgXo5
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 4, 2026
Navigation Still SUCKS
Navigation will be a complaint until Tesla proves it can fix it. For now, it’s just terrible.
It still has not figured out how to leave my neighborhood. I give it the opportunity to prove me wrong each time I leave my house, and it just can’t do it.
It always tries to go out of the primary entrance/exit of the neighborhood when the route needs to take me left, even though that exit is a right turn only. I always leave a voice prompt for Tesla about it.
It still picks incredibly baffling routes for simple navigation. It’s the one thing I still really want Tesla to fix.
Investor's Corner
Tesla gets tip of the hat from major Wall Street firm on self-driving prowess
“Tesla is at the forefront of autonomous driving, supported by a camera-only approach that is technically harder but much cheaper than the multi-sensor systems widely used in the industry. This strategy should allow Tesla to scale more profitably compared to Robotaxi competitors, helped by a growing data engine from its existing fleet,” BoA wrote.
Tesla received a tip of the hat from major Wall Street firm Bank of America on Wednesday, as it reinitiated coverage on Tesla shares with a bullish stance that comes with a ‘Buy’ rating and a $460 price target.
In a new note that marks a sharp reversal from its neutral position earlier in 2025, the bank declared Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology the “leading consumer autonomy solution.”
Analysts highlighted Tesla’s camera-only architecture, known as Tesla Vision, as a strategic masterstroke. While technically more challenging than the multi-sensor setups favored by rivals, the vision-based approach is dramatically cheaper to produce and maintain.
This cost edge, combined with Tesla’s rapidly expanding real-world data engine, positions the company to scale robotaxis far more profitably than competitors, BofA argues in the new note:
“Tesla is at the forefront of autonomous driving, supported by a camera-only approach that is technically harder but much cheaper than the multi-sensor systems widely used in the industry. This strategy should allow Tesla to scale more profitably compared to Robotaxi competitors, helped by a growing data engine from its existing fleet.”
The bank now attributes roughly 52% of Tesla’s total valuation to its Robotaxi ambitions. It also flagged meaningful upside from the Optimus humanoid robot program and the fast-growing energy storage business, suggesting the auto segment’s recent headwinds, including expired incentives, are being eclipsed by these higher-margin opportunities.
Tesla’s own data underscores exactly why Wall Street is waking up to FSD’s potential. According to Tesla’s official safety reporting page, the FSD Supervised fleet has now surpassed 8.4 billion cumulative miles driven.
Tesla FSD (Supervised) fleet passes 8.4 billion cumulative miles
That total ballooned from just 6 million miles in 2021 to 80 million in 2022, 670 million in 2023, 2.25 billion in 2024, and a staggering 4.25 billion in 2025 alone. In the first 50 days of 2026, owners added another 1 billion miles — averaging more than 20 million miles per day.
This avalanche of real-world, camera-captured footage, much of it on complex city streets, gives Tesla an unmatched training dataset. Every mile feeds its neural networks, accelerating improvement cycles that lidar-dependent rivals simply cannot match at scale.
Tesla owners themselves will tell you the suite gets better with every release, bringing new features and improvements to its self-driving project.
The $460 target implies roughly 15 percent upside from recent trading levels around $400. While regulatory and safety hurdles remain, BofA’s endorsement signals growing institutional conviction that Tesla’s data advantage is not hype; it’s a tangible moat already delivering billions of miles of proof.
News
Tesla to discuss expansion of Samsung AI6 production plans: report
Tesla has reportedly requested an additional 24,000 wafers per month, which would bring total production capacity to around 40,000 wafers if finalized.
Tesla is reportedly discussing an expansion of its next-generation AI chip supply deal with Samsung Electronics.
As per a report from Korean industry outlet The Elec, Tesla purchasing executives are reportedly scheduled to meet Samsung officials this week to negotiate additional production volume for the company’s upcoming AI6 chip.
Industry sources cited in the report stated that Tesla is pushing to increase the production volume of its AI6 chip, which will be manufactured using Samsung’s 2-nanometer process.
Tesla previously signed a long-term foundry agreement with Samsung covering AI6 production through December 31, 2033. The deal was reportedly valued at about 22.8 trillion won (roughly $16–17 billion).
Under the existing agreement, Tesla secured approximately 16,000 wafers per month from the facility. The company has reportedly requested an additional 24,000 wafers per month, which would bring total production capacity to around 40,000 wafers if finalized.
Tesla purchasing executives are expected to discuss detailed supply terms during their visit to Samsung this week.
The AI6 chip is expected to support several Tesla technologies. Industry sources stated that the chip could be used for the company’s Full Self-Driving system, the Optimus humanoid robot, and Tesla’s internal AI data centers.
The report also indicated that AI6 clusters could replace the role previously planned for Tesla’s Dojo AI supercomputer. Instead of a single system, multiple AI6 chips would be combined into server-level clusters.
Tesla’s semiconductor collaboration with Samsung dates back several years. Samsung participated in the design of Tesla’s HW3 (AI3) chip and manufactured it using a 14-nanometer process. The HW4 chip currently used in Tesla vehicles was also produced by Samsung using a 5-nanometer node.
Tesla previously planned to split production of its AI5 chip between Samsung and TSMC. However, the company reportedly chose Samsung as the primary partner for the newer AI6 chip.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.2.5 might be the most confusing release ever
Tesla gets tip of the hat from major Wall Street firm on self-driving prowess
