

News
SpaceX Starlink Gen2 constellation weakened by “partial” FCC grant
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.”
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
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.”

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.”
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.
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.
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.
Elon Musk
Tesla called ‘biggest meme stock we’ve ever seen’ by Yale associate dean

Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) is being called “the biggest meme stock we’ve ever seen” by Yale School of Management Senior Associate Dean Jeff Sonnenfeld, who made the comments in a recent interview with CNBC.
Sonnenfeld’s comments echo those of many of the company’s skeptics, who argue that its price-to-earnings ratio is far too high when compared to other companies also in the tech industry. Tesla is often compared to companies like Apple, Nvidia, and Microsoft when these types of discussions come up.
Fundamentally, yes, Tesla does trade at a P/E level that is significantly above that of any comparable company.
However, it is worth mentioning that Tesla is not traded like a typical company, either.
Here’s what Sonnenfeld said regarding Tesla:
“This is the biggest meme stock we’ve ever seen. Even at its peak, Amazon was nowhere near this level. The PE on this, well above 200, is just crazy. When you’ve got stocks like Nvidia, the price-earnings ratio is around 25 or 30, and Apple is maybe 35 or 36, Microsoft around the same. I mean, this is way out of line to be at a 220 PE. It’s crazy, and they’ve, I think, put a little too much emphasis on the magic wand of Musk.”
Many analysts have admitted in the past that they believe Tesla is an untraditional stock in the sense that many analysts trade it based on narrative and not fundamentals. Ryan Brinkman of J.P. Morgan once said:
“Tesla shares continue to strike us as having become completely divorced from the fundamentals.”
Dan Nathan, another notorious skeptic of Tesla shares, recently turned bullish on the stock because of “technicals and sentiment.” He said just last week:
“I think from a trading perspective, it looks very interesting.”
Nathan said Tesla shares show signs of strength moving forward, including holding its 200-day moving average and holding against current resistance levels.
Sonnenfeld’s synopsis of Tesla shares points out that there might be “a little too much emphasis on the magic wand of Musk.”
Elon Musk just bought $1 billion in Tesla stock, his biggest purchase ever
This could refer to different things: perhaps his recent $1 billion stock buy, which sent the stock skyrocketing, or the fact that many Tesla investors are fans and owners who do not buy and sell on numbers, but rather on news that Musk might report himself.
Tesla is trading around $423.76 at the time of publication, as of 3:25 p.m. on the East Coast.
News
Tesla makes big change to Full Self-Driving doghouse that drivers will like
Now, it is changing the timeframe of which strikes will be removed, cutting it in half. The strikes will be removed every 3.5 days, as long as no strikes are received during the time period.

Tesla is making a big change to its Full Self-Driving doghouse that drivers will like.
The doghouse is a hypothetical term used to describe the penalty period that Tesla applies to drivers who receive too many infractions related to distracted driving.
Previously, Tesla implemented a seven-day ban on the use of Full Self-Driving for those who received five strikes in a vehicle equipped with a cabin camera and three strikes for those without a cabin camera.
It also forgave one strike per week of Full Self-Driving use, provided the driver did not receive any additional strikes during the seven-day period.
Now, it is changing the timeframe of which strikes will be removed, cutting it in half. The strikes will be removed every 3.5 days, as long as no strikes are received during the time period.
The change was found by Not a Tesla App, which noticed the adjustment in the Owner’s Manual for the 2025.32 Software Update.
The system undoubtedly helps improve safety as it helps keep drivers honest. However, there are definitely workarounds, which people are using and promoting for monetary gain, and you can find them on basically any online marketplace, including TikTok shop and Amazon:
🚨 Seeing more and more devices like this land on various online marketplaces including TikTok shop and Amazon
These devices are NOT to be used when operating Tesla Full Self-Driving and I’d love to see Tesla take action here.
These “creators” looking to make a quick buck are… pic.twitter.com/VnY25k2mPL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) September 17, 2025
People are marketing the product as an FSD cheat device, which the cabin-facing camera will not be able to detect, allowing you to watch something on a phone or look through the windshield at the road.
The safeguards implemented by Tesla are designed to protect drivers from distractions and also protect the company itself from liability. People are still using Full Self-Driving as if it were a fully autonomous product, and it is not.
Tesla even says that the driver must pay attention and be ready to take over in any scenario:
“Yes. Autopilot is a driver assistance system that is intended to be used only with a fully attentive driver. It does not turn a Tesla into a fully autonomous vehicle.
Before enabling Autopilot, you must agree to “keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times” and to always “maintain control and responsibility for your vehicle.” Once engaged, Autopilot will also deliver an escalating series of visual and audio warnings, reminding you to place your hands on the wheel if insufficient torque is applied or your vehicle otherwise detects you may not be attentive enough to the road ahead. If you repeatedly ignore these warnings, you will be locked out from using Autopilot during that trip.
You can override any of Autopilot’s features at any time by steering or applying the accelerator at any time.”
It is good that Tesla is rewarding those who learn from their mistakes with this shorter timeframe to lose the strikes. It won’t be needed forever, though, as eventually, the company will solve autonomy. The question is: when?
Elon Musk
Elon Musk teases the capabilities of the Tesla Roadster once again

Elon Musk has once again teased the capabilities of the Tesla Roadster, fueling the anticipation that many have for the vehicle, despite it still having no public production or delivery date.
The Roadster is among the most anticipated vehicles in the automotive sector currently, and as Tesla has teased its capabilities, from a lightning-fast 1.1-second 0-60 MPH acceleration to potential hovering with cold-gas thrusters, people are eager to see it.
Although the design seemed to be finalized, there was still more work to be done. Earlier this year, as Tesla was showcasing some of the Roadster’s capabilities to Musk, he stated that it was capable of even more.
This pushed back its production date even further, much to the chagrin of those who have been waiting years for it.
Musk continues to tease us all, and as we sit here waiting hopelessly for it to be revealed, he said today that it is “something special beyond a car.”
The new Roadster is something special beyond a car
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 17, 2025
Musk’s words were in response to a video posted by Tesla China, showing the Roadster in a new promotional video created by a fan.
The Roadster was planned to be released in 2020, but here we are in 2025, and there is still no sign of the vehicle entering production. However, Tesla did say earlier this year that it would host a demo event for the Roadster, where the company would showcase its capabilities.
Lars Moravy said earlier this year:
“Roadster is definitely in development. We did talk about it last Sunday night. We are gearing up for a super cool demo. It’s going to be mind-blowing; We showed Elon some cool demos last week of the tech we’ve been working on, and he got a little excited.”
Tesla exec gives big update on Roadster, confirming recent rumor
The delays have been attributed to “radically increased design goals” for the vehicle, which have, without a doubt, improved its capabilities, but at the same time, we just want to know if it’s ever going to come.
Tesla can always make it “better,” but at what point do you say, “Okay, it’s time to show this thing off.” They could always build another, even more capable supercar in the next ten years.
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Tesla’s next-gen Optimus prototype with Grok revealed
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla launches new Supercharger program that business owners will love
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Tesla Board takes firm stance on Elon Musk’s political involvement in pay package proxy
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla deploys Unsupervised FSD in Europe for the first time—with a twist
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla explains why Robotaxis now have safety monitors in the driver’s seat
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla is already giving Robotaxi privileges hours after opening public app
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Elon Musk says Tesla will take Safety Drivers out of Robotaxi: here’s when
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Elon Musk is setting high expectations for Tesla AI5 and AI6 chips