Connect with us
starlink-1-4-billion-revenue-spacex starlink-1-4-billion-revenue-spacex

News

SpaceX Starlink Gen2 constellation weakened by “partial” FCC grant

Published

4 years ago

on

More than two and a half years after SpaceX began the process of securing regulatory approval for its next-generation Starlink constellation, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has finally granted the company a license – but only after drastically decreasing its scope.

In May 2020, SpaceX filed its first FCC license application for Starlink Gen2, an upgraded constellation of 30,000 satellites. In the second half of 2021, SpaceX amended its Starlink Gen2 application to take full advantage of the company’s more powerful Starship rocket and further improve the constellation’s potential utility. Only in December 2021 did the FCC finally accept SpaceX’s Gen2 application for filing, kicking off the final review process.

On November 29th, 2022, the FCC completed that review and granted SpaceX permission to launch just 7,500 of the ~30,000 Starlink Gen2 satellites it had requested permission for more than 30 months prior. The FCC offered no explanation of how it arrived at its arbitrary 75% reduction, nor why the resulting number is slightly lower than a different 7,518-satellite Starlink Gen1 constellation SpaceX had already received a license to deploy in late 2018. Adding insult to injury, the FCC repeatedly acknowledges that “the total number of satellites SpaceX is authorized to deploy is not increased by our action today, and in fact is slightly reduced.”

That claimed reduction is thanks to the fact that shortly before this decision, SpaceX told the FCC in good faith that it would voluntarily avoid launching the dedicated V-band Starlink constellation it already received a license for in order “to significantly reduce the total number of satellites ultimately on orbit.” Instead, once Starlink Gen2 was approved, it would request permission to add V-band payloads to a subset of the 29,988 planned Gen2 satellites, achieving a similar result without the need for another 7,518 satellites.

In response, the FCC slashed the total number of Starlink Gen2 satellites permitted to less than the number of satellites approved by the FCC’s November 2018 Starlink V-band authorization; limited those satellites to middle-ground orbits, entirely precluding Gen2 launches to higher or lower orbits; and didn’t even structure its compromise in a way that would at least allow SpaceX to fully complete three Starlink Gen2 ‘shells.’ Worse, the FCC’s partial grant barely mentioned SpaceX’s detailed plans to use new E-band antennas on Starlink Gen2 satellites and next-generation ground stations, simply stating that it will “defer acting on” the request until “further review and coordination with Federal users.”

The FCC’s “partial grant” only allows SpaceX to launch 7,500 of 10,080 Starlink Gen2 satellites meant to operate at altitudes between 525 and 535 kilometers.

Throughout the partial grant, the FCC couches its decision to drastically downscale SpaceX’s Starlink Gen2 constellation in terms of needing more time “to evaluate the complex and novel issues on the record before [the Commission],” raising the question of what exactly the Commission was doing instead in the 30 months since SpaceX’s first Gen2 application and 15 months since its Gen2 modification. In comparison, SpaceX received a full license for its 7,518-satellite V-band constellation less than five months after applying. SpaceX’s 4,408-satellite Starlink Gen1 constellation – the first megaconstellation ever reviewed by the modern FCC – was licensed 16 months after its first application and eight months after a modified application was submitted.

Adding to the oddity of the unusual and inconsistent decision-making in this FCC ruling, the Commission openly acknowledges that the idea to grant SpaceX permission to launch a fraction of its Starlink Gen2 constellation came from Amazon’s Project Kuiper [PDF], a major prospective Starlink competitor. The FCC says it agreed with Amazon’s argument, stating that “the public interest would be served by taking this approach in order to permit monitoring of developments involving this large-scale deployment and permit additional consideration of issues unique to the other orbits SpaceX requests.”

Advertisement
-

The V-band Starlink constellation already approved by the FCC was for 7,518 satellites in very low Earth orbits (~340 km). In the first 4,425-satellite Starlink constellation licensed by the FCC, the Commission gave SpaceX permission to operate 2,814 satellites at orbits between 1100 and 1300 kilometers. Increasingly conscious of the consequences of space debris, which would last hundreds of years at 1000+ kilometers, SpaceX later requested permission in 2019 and 2020 to launch those 2,814 satellites to around 550 kilometers, where failed satellites would reenter in just five years. For unknown reasons, the FCC only fully approved the change two years later, in April 2021.

The “other orbits [requested by SpaceX]” that the FCC says create unique issues that demand “additional consideration” of Starlink Gen2 are for 19,400 satellites between 340 and 360 kilometers and 468 satellites between 604 and 614 kilometers. Starlink satellites are expected to be around four times heavier and feature a magnitude more surface area, but the fact remains that the FCC has already granted SpaceX permission to launch almost 3000 smaller satellites to orbits much higher than 604 kilometers and more than 7500 satellites to orbits lower than 360 kilometers. It’s thus hard not to conclude that the Commission’s claims that a partial license denial was warranted by “concerns about orbital debris and space safety,” and “issues unique to…other orbits” are incoherent at best.

SpaceX has already built a significant number of Starlink Gen2 prototypes.

Perhaps the strangest inclusion in the partial grant is a decision by the FCC to subject SpaceX to an arbitrary metric devised by another third-party, for-profit company LeoLabs. In a March 2022 letter, LeoLabs reportedly proposed that “SpaceX’s authorization to continue deploying satellites” be directly linked to an arbitrary metric measuring “the number of years each failed satellite remains in orbit, summed across all failed satellites.” The FCC apparently loved the suggestion and made it an explicit condition of its already harsh Starlink Gen2 authorization, even adopting the arbitrary limit of “100 object years” proposed by LeoLabs.

In other words, once the sum of the time required for all failed Starlink Gen2 satellites to naturally deorbit reaches 100 years, the FCC will force SpaceX to “cease satellite deployment” while it “[reviews] sources of satellite failure” and “determine[s] whether there are any adequate and reliable mitigation measures going forward.” The FCC acknowledges that the arbitrary 100-year limit means that the failure of just 20 Starlink satellites at operational orbits would force the company to halt launches. The Commission does not explain how it will decide when SpaceX can restart Starlink launches after a launch halt. SpaceX must simultaneously follow the FCC’s deployment schedule, which could see the company’s license revoked if it doesn’t deploy 3,750 Starlink Gen2 satellites by November 2028 and all 7,500 satellites by November 2031.

Based on the unofficial observations of astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell, SpaceX currently has more 30 failed Starlink Gen1 satellites at or close to their operational altitudes of 500+ kilometers, meaning that SpaceX would almost certainly be forced to stop launching Gen1 satellites if this arbitrary new rule were applied to other constellations. The same is true for competitor OneWeb, which had a single satellite fail at around 1200 kilometers in 2021. At that altitude, it will likely take hundreds of “object years” to naturally deorbit, easily surpassing LeoLabs’ draconian 100-year limit.

In theory, the FCC does make it clear that it will consider changing those restrictions and allowing SpaceX to launch more of its proposed Starlink Gen2 constellation in the future. But the Commission has also repeatedly demonstrated to SpaceX that it will happily take years to modify existing licenses or approve new ones – not a particularly reassuring foundation for investments as large and precarious as megaconstellations.

Advertisement
-

Ultimately, short of shady handshake deals in back rooms, the FCC’s partial grant leaves SpaceX’s Starlink Gen2 constellation in an undesirable position. For the company to proceed under the current license, it could be forced to redesign its satellites and ground stations to avoid the E-band, or gamble by continuing to build and deploy satellites and ground stations with E-band antennas without a guarantee that it’ll ever be able to use that hardware. There is also no guarantee that the FCC will permit SpaceX to launch any of the ~22,500 satellites left on the table by the partial grant, which will drastically change the financial calculus that determines whether the constellation is economically viable and how expansive associated infrastructure needs to be.

Additionally, if SpaceX accepts the gambit and launches all 7,500 approved Gen2 satellites only for the FCC to fail to approve expansions, Starlink Gen2 would be stuck with zero polar coverage, significantly reducing the constellation’s overall utility. Starlink Gen2 likely represents an investment of at least $30-60 billion (assuming an unprecedentedly low $1-2M to build and launch each 50-150 Gbps satellite). With its partial license denial and the addition of several new and arbitrary conditions, the FCC is effectively forcing SpaceX to take an even riskier gamble with the billions of dollars of brand new infrastructure it will need to build to manufacture, launch, operate, and utilize its Starlink Gen2 constellation.

Related Topics:

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

Tesla ruined other cars for me: one year Model Y ownership review

Published

5 hours ago

on

September 10, 2026

By

Credit: Joey Klender

I picked up my Tesla Model Y one year ago, on August 30, and for roughly a year, I have had this vehicle prove to me that any other carmaker’s product is ruined for me forever.

One year and over 16,000 miles later, the Tesla Model Y is easily the best car I’ve ever had. Of course, everyone always says that about the car they currently drive, but for the longest time, I truly believed some of the other cars I drove — my 1998 Volkswagen Jetta K2, or my 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid — would never be topped.

Most of this was due to nostalgia, but dependability also played a role.

My Tesla has taken over the number one spot. Everyone I talk to about my car always has a lot of questions, and they’re usually the same ones that someone else asked me: “Is it really so cheap to drive?” “How much does it cost to charge?” “Does it really drive itself?” “How long is the warranty on your battery?”

I never mind answering those questions because it is an opportunity to educate someone on EVs. There are a lot of things about EVs that I hear from people, and I can’t help but chuckle at times. However, I hope this review clears some of those things up, because I truly want everyone to know how great this vehicle really is.

How my Tesla has changed my life

I was in two car accidents in high school, and I was a passenger in both. I am very happy I went through those as a teenager, because if I didn’t, I think I’d probably be much less aware of the road, how other drivers are so unbelievably unaware of others, and how inconsiderate most drivers are.

I’ve always considered myself a good driver because I was always taught to be defensive. Because of those two accidents, I am a tad jumpy in passenger seats, even with people like my parents, who drove me around for 16 years before I got my Learner’s Permit. On a drive home from Florida to Pennsylvania with my Dad two years ago, he actually told me at one point to “stop being so jumpy.”

Truth is, I trust my Dad behind the wheel more than anyone. But the older I’ve gotten, the more I just prefer to drive myself.

That is, until I met my Tesla and Full Self-Driving. I still remember the first drive I took after taking delivery: I immediately typed in my Fiancèe’s (my wife in 30 days!!!) favorite lunch spot, picked up her favorite meal, and pulled into the hospital where she delivers babies. I can remember thinking after 15 minutes, “Okay, that’s enough for me; I’ll drive manually now.”

Over the next 2-3 weeks, that length of time slowly but steadily increased. Every passing week, I got a tad more comfortable with the car driving me. Now, I have had FSD log 75% of my 13,000 miles since v14. I barely drive my car manually, and that’s exactly how I like it.

My Tesla has changed the way I drive and how I choose to travel.

In the past, I was always one of those anxious drivers, overly concerned about the parking situation, never wanting to drive in cities, and avoiding anything that made me a little uncomfortable when on the road. FSD has changed that completely.

It has made traveling fun, driving less stressful, and parking a non-issue. I truly love this car and what it has done for me and my driving anxiety.

Maintenance and Cost Savings

A buddy of mine who took delivery of a Model Y right after me, also his first EV, texted me yesterday and said, “When do I take this thing for service? I don’t even know what it needs.”

This year I have spent $67.41 on service for my car:

  • Free Front Camera Housing Cleaning
  • $65 for a Tire Rotation at home from Tesla (easily avoidable if I just would have gone to a tire place or did it myself, but it was less than 20 degrees outside and the Service Tech did it at 7 am while I was asleep)
  • $2.41 on a jug of Windshield Washer Fluid at Sheetz with my reward points

No spark plugs, no oil changes, no anything. Combine it with what you save on charging at home, and my ownership experience overall has been relatively cheap. I pay no more than I did for my Bronco for the car payment (around $400 per month), and my insurance went up about $60, but within the first four months I was given a safe driving discount by my agent. This brought it to about a $40 increase.

Now let’s factor in what I’ve saved in gas for the year:

According to my Charge Stats in the Tesla App, I’ve saved $836 over the course of the year by driving a Tesla over an ICE vehicle. If you look at the graph, you’ll notice my Supercharger utilization dropped significantly in April, which makes sense.

This is when I started charging at home. Those savings would likely be closer to $1,500 if I had been charging at home all along.

Real-World Range

I never reset any Trip on my Tesla when I bought it, so all of these efficiency stats are for the life of the vehicle thus far through 16,063 miles.

My Tesla has a lifetime average of 260.1 Wh/mi (watt-hours per mile), which equates to 3.84 mi/kWh (miles per kilowatt-hour). This is pretty average, and I know I could be more efficient, but I use climate control liberally (it’s always on, even if the windows are down), and I love to let FSD drive me around in Hurry Mode.

Even when I’m driving manually, it’s because I’m on a dry, windy road and I want to take advantage of the awesome suspension and damping that the Model offers. Driving that car on a back road with some twists is one of the most fun things to do.

To achieve really excellent range and efficiency ratings, you really have to be more conservative with some things, and those are sacrifices I’m personally not willing to make. I want the A/C or Heat on, and I occasionally will increase drag by driving with the windows down.

I prefer Hurry mode on FSD, and I’m willing to sacrifice a few miles of range for that certain style of driving.

Interior, Visibility, Accessories, and More

My Favorite Interior Ever

The Model Y interior, like every Tesla interior, is not for everyone. Personally, I was never a fan of the minimalistic approach prior to ownership. As ridiculous as it is, I liked a simple knob for adjusting the temperature and fan speed. Even so, to this day, it takes me longer to pull up the climate settings to adjust things in my Tesla than it ever did in cars with a million knobs and buttons.

I can’t tell you how many times my finger has missed the On/Off button on the climate screen in the Model Y because of dips, bumps, turns, and just normal movement during operation. Do I like the way things are controlled in my Tesla? Yes, of course. Plus, Grok is so integrated into the car now that I could truly never have to touch the screen again for anything other than starting Self-Driving.

However, I still find that there are valid arguments for people who like knobs and buttons. As ugly as it might be to me now, I think it is a tad more intuitive because it’s much harder to miss and much easier to make a quick adjustment than with a touchscreen.

With that being said, the touchscreen is great. It is so responsive and is as good as using an iPhone. There is no delay like most automotive touchscreens, where it feels sort of clunky for 2026.

I love to watch TV and Movies or YouTube on it when I’m parked anywhere. My Fiancèe and I have made it a date night several times over the past year: we’ll pick a spot to eat, get it to go, and enjoy it in the car while watching something. It’s great in the Fall when the leaves are turning orange.

The interior is, overall, a great part of the car. It’s very easy to keep clean, and when it’s clean, it truly feels like you’re in a spacecraft. It is one of the coolest interiors out there, maybe not as luxurious as some high-end Mercedes-Benz or BMW models, but it has a clean and simple feel that is better than many cars in its weight class.

I will say I do miss the Textile seats of the Model Y Standard, but I do not miss them when I am hot. I would still take the Vegan Leather because of the ventilated seats.

Rear Window Visibility is Pointless

If you like a rear windshield, just be aware of the fact that the Model Y basically does not have one. It almost feels pointless to be there, and the Model Y L has something that is much more “standard” in terms of rear windshields in a crossover/SUV:

It doesn’t mean much to me because the rear camera is great. However, I have found myself just annoyed with the fact that it’s even there to begin with.

Accessories I Bought

I went for 3D MaxPider car mats throughout, some center console storage, trunk storage, and matching window tint on the front windows. I also bought Tesla’s Pet Liner, which is great because it comes with door coverage and a bit of a barrier. My pup, Finn, climbs right over it and prefers the front seat, so I fold it in half, and it still covers the passenger seat very well:

They’re all pretty standard accessories, but the one thing I use the most is actually this phone mount from Amazon.

It’s great for making FSD content for TikTok or throwing my phone on it just to hold. I never use it to watch anything (I’m wildly against that concept), and I usually use the wireless charging mat that comes standard. It is really great and convenient, and the magnet is super strong.

Cabin Noise, Sound System Quality

The Model Y Premium comes with acoustic-lined glass, which really dampens a lot of the road noise. My car has one of the quieter cabins I’ve ever been in. I can still remember my 2008 Escape Hybrid and how loud it was in there; I thought my Tesla would be that way, but boy was I wrong.

It is such a peaceful ride that even sitting at stoplights behind loud, obnoxious Hondas with shopping cart handles as spoilers does not bother me. A buddy of mine in a 2021 Model Y said upon his first ride in my car that it was a “night and day” difference between the two.

As far as the sound system goes, two of the more outgoing people in my life who love loud music and concerts recently said to me that “the Tesla is quite a time” because of how immersive the listening experience is. The bass is excellent; the ambient lighting truly rounds out the experience.

Even my Dad, who is somewhat of a speaker snob (I can remember going to Tweeter as a boy with him to look at receivers, and he’s always had massive speakers in the house for cranking up some music) has commented on how good the sound quality is. I remember when I bought a Honda Civic a few years ago- his first ride in it- he said, “Damn, the speakers in here suck.”

He wasn’t wrong. They were awful. But in the Tesla, they’re damn good.

Should you buy a Model Y?

Look, I will recommend this car to anyone who asks. I tell my friends constantly that I love my Model Y so much, especially because it just gets better and better over time.

But I also understand the skepticism. I’ll admit one of the most disappointing things about this car is how much range I lose in the winter. In a 40-mile round-trip drive to get wings with some friends in January, I lost 120 miles of range. This is something that would not deter me from buying this car, but at the time, I also didn’t have home charging. Ownership, at that point, was a bit of a pain in the butt.

The thing is, to me, it’s still better than driving a gas car. I just have more fun in a Tesla.

A friend of mine recently bought a new car, and she said she went with a Chevy Equinox because it was a larger vehicle and she has a child. I told her, “I don’t think I’ll ever buy anything other than a Tesla. Once you go Tesla, you never go back.”

“I cannot afford a Tesla,” she said. We all know the ridiculous narrative around Tesla pricing by now, and after she found out how much I pay for my car and the fact that it has the IIHS Top Safety Pick+ rating, she admitted she probably would have done the same if she had known. I wish she would have asked.

The only car I would take over mine is the Cybertruck. And right now, I just can’t afford a Cybertruck, so I’ll stick with the Model Y. I am so satisfied with my pick, and I would buy this car time and time again.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk rips ABC News over fatal NYC Tesla crash report

Musk pushed back on NYC Tesla crash coverage, pointing to a pattern of premature blame.

Published

17 hours ago

on

September 9, 2026

By

Elon Musk pushed back overnight against media framing of a fatal Tesla crash in Midtown Manhattan, telling a user on X that “it wasn’t the car” and that the vehicle’s Autopilot system had nothing to do with the wreck.

The crash happened just before 3 a.m. Wednesday, when a 2024 Tesla Model Y struck a sidewalk shed outside 315 Madison Ave., a bus stop pole and a mailbox on East 42nd Street, according to the NYPD. The car kept moving several more blocks before stopping near Second Avenue. Both women inside, each 27, were taken to Bellevue Hospital, where the passenger was pronounced dead. The driver was charged with vehicular manslaughter, driving while ability impaired and leaving the scene of an accident.

Police have not attributed the crash to Autopilot or Full Self-Driving in any public statement. The charges point to impairment, not software. Musk’s response followed a since-deleted ABC News post that he said mischaracterized the incident. Replying to a user on X, Musk wrote that if Autopilot had been engaged, “they would not have crashed,” and added that “the legacy media will never forgive Tesla for failing to advertise with them,”

It’s a familiar cycle for Tesla. In June, headlines from several national outlets described a fatal crash in Katy, Texas, as happening while the car was “on autopilot,” based on the driver’s own account to police after his Model 3 struck a home and killed a 76-year-old woman. Tesla’s data told a different story when Ashok Elluswamy, Tesla’s head of AI, said the driver had pressed the accelerator to 100% and reached 73 mph in a residential zone. Harris County prosecutors later confirmed the human override and the driver was charged with manslaughter.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis pointed to that same Katy crash last month to argue that outlets routinely name Tesla in crash headlines while leaving other automakers unnamed, even after a driver’s own actions are shown to be the cause. A similar pattern played out in 2024, when Musk had to clarify that FSD was never even downloaded onto the Model 3 involved in a fatal Colorado DUI crash, despite a passenger’s claim that an “auto drive feature” was in use.

Tesla has not issued a separate statement on the Manhattan crash beyond Musk’s posts on X. The NYPD’s investigation is ongoing, and no cause for the driver losing control has been released.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla’s two defunct flagship models are getting a big upgrade

Published

1 day ago

on

September 9, 2026

By

Tesla’s two recently-defunct flagship models, the Model S and Model X, are getting a big upgrade, according to the company’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy.

Older Hardware 3 Model S and Model X vehicles have been the last major holdouts in Tesla’s Full Self-Driving v14 Lite rollout, and that wait now appears to be ending.

Tesla brings closure to flagship ‘sentimental’ models, Musk confirms

At Tesla’s Cybercab launch, AI chief Ashok Elluswamy told Ryan McCaffrey that he thought the S and X build “was supposed to go out last week.” Evidently, Elluswamy expects the suite to be rolled out to those HW3 Model S and Model X very soon:

Those cars are not the current Model S and Model X, which already ship with Hardware 4. They are the pre-refresh flagships built around Tesla’s older Autopilot computer, often called HW3 or AI3.

Tesla stopped putting that computer in new vehicles years ago, which is why owners treat these S and X cars as a closed generation. Model 3 and Model Y vehicles on the same computer began receiving v14 Lite in late June 2026 and saw a wider North American expansion in July. South Korea followed as an early international market. The S and X versions of the same software never joined that wave.

v14 Lite is Tesla’s way of squeezing the current v14 driving stack onto hardware that cannot run the full AI 4 model. The company describes the process as distillation: behaviors learned on the newer computer, including reinforcement learning and offline models, are compressed so the older chip and cameras can use them as a guide.

Early descriptions put the distilled network at roughly 15 percent of the original size. The result is still supervised Level 2 driving. Tesla has been clear that HW3 cannot support unsupervised Full Self-Driving or robotaxi operation because of memory and bandwidth limits.

The feature list is what made the wait so frustrating for S and X owners, as plenty of new features are to be shipped with it.

Official notes for the first Lite build, firmware 2026.20.5.1, added parking, unparking, and reversing; arrival options for a parking lot, street, driveway, or curbside; speed profiles that stay available at all times; and start-from-park engagement. Tesla also claimed better handling of merges, forks, pedestrians, traffic lights, and cut-ins, plus fewer false slowdowns and smoother lane centering.

A mid-July follow-on build, 2026.20.6.10, added more of the Hardware 4 interface, including a standalone Self-Driving app and the ability to start a trip from Park without a brake-pedal confirmation.

Elluswamy called that version the one “likely going to wide release.”

That wide release already reached most other HW3 cars in the United States and Canada. International timing still depends on regional validation and regulatory approval. For S and X owners, the remaining work appears to be model-specific validation rather than a new software stack.

There is no official Tesla changelog or build number for those two models yet, only Elluswamy’s offhand timeline. Some HW3 drivers who already have Lite report large gains over v12.6; others have described new indecision or phantom braking. The next test will be whether the same software lands cleanly on the older flagships that have waited the longest.

Continue Reading