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.
Tesla has expanded Grok from an in-car chatbot into a hands-free work assistant. On September 22, Tesla officially launched Grok Bot capability, confirming that drivers can now manage email, calendars, files, chats, and tasks by voice and then hand more ambitious errands to the AI-fueled productivity cheat code.
Grok itself is built by xAI. The new car features split into two layers: Connectors link Grok to outside accounts. Grok Bot, currently limited to SuperGrok Heavy subscribers, can complete multi-step tasks such as placing a usual coffee order, booking a reservation, or scheduling an appointment. It truly puts the driver in a nearly complete hands-free driving and productivity setting, with ironically the only task truly requiring your hands being to touch the “Start Self-Driving” button.
We were granted access to Grok Bot’s Tesla integration a few weeks back, and we’ve been able to do a handful of things with it. On a handful of occasions, we’ve used it to order food and have it ready for pickup slightly later into the evening; we’ve managed to pick up groceries after a day of errands with Grok Bot, and outside of the car, it’s helped with budgeting and even my fantasy football draft.
We’ve been using @Grok Bot in Tesla for a few weeks after gaining Early Access, which we thank the awesome engineers for
Grok Bot makes things much easier across your entire life. From the Tesla, I’ve used it to place pickup orders for my Fiancée and I, we’ve ordered groceries… https://t.co/ZJSLieG1s5
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) September 22, 2026
Tesla shows another way to utilize it: in their demo, a driver says “Hey Grok,” asks the assistant to check an inbox, and hears that a message concerns a weekend reservation. Grok then scans the calendar, reports no conflicts, and confirms the Tahoe trip is clear. It can also add check-in details to a road-trip itinerary. The point is not novelty chat. It is keeping eyes on the road, or on Full Self-Driving, while the car handles the paperwork of a trip:
.@Grok in your Tesla can now do meaningful work for you
With Connectors, you can manage your inbox, clean up your calendar, or talk through existing files/chat/tasks – all hands-free pic.twitter.com/W1LuybQh0P
— Tesla (@Tesla) September 22, 2026
This Grok rollout is not a gadget add-on as much as it is Tesla’s thesis in software form: the car should stop being a machine you operate and start being a room you occupy.
Connectors and Grok Bot treat the cabin as an office that happens to move, and that has truly been Tesla’s intention for years now. The car has slowly become an extension of a home more than a vehicle. Inbox, calendar, groceries, takeout, and reservations become voice work, not dashboard chores that you need to do before you get in your car.
Responsibility shifts from the driver to the stack, and as many Tesla owners rely on FSD for travel, Grok Bot now handles the monotony of dinner reservations or appointments.
Elon Musk
X changed how everyone gets paid, and this lawsuit shows why
X sued a Bitcoin account network over fake payouts as its creator pay model shifts
Elon Musk’s X has taken a Bitcoin-focused engagement ring to court, and the case doubles as a receipt for how differently the platform pays creators today. The company filed suit in the High Court of England and Wales against Vivek Kumar Sen and Zamyang Sherpa, alleging the pair ran six accounts, including @Vivek4real_, @Bitcoin_Teddy and @TrendingBitcoin, as one coordinated operation to fake the kind of engagement that used to translate directly into money.
According to the filing, first reported by Gizmodo, the accounts posted near identical “BREAKING” crypto headlines seconds apart, in one case 11 seconds, then had three more handles like, reply to and repost the material to manufacture what X called “a false appearance of genuine, human communication and interaction.” X says the scheme pulled in at least £207,384, about $278,000, and pegs its own investigation and remediation costs at another £75,000. The accounts were suspended August 18. X general counsel James Burnham announced the case on X last weekend, writing that the company “will act forcefully to protect our platform and the earnings of genuine creators.” Musk’s own reaction, posted shortly after, was three words: “Don’t mess with 𝕏.”
Don’t mess with 𝕏 https://t.co/HSmd5hL6aQ
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 21, 2026
The timing lines up with a a recent update to how X pays its creators. The program these accounts allegedly gamed, Creator Revenue Sharing, launched in mid 2023 and paid out based on how much a post got engaged with. Originality was never part of the formula, which is exactly how the platform ended up flooded with recycled clips, copy pasted “BREAKING” posts and replies engineered purely to farm reactions from paying subscribers.
X tried patching the model more than once, including an April cut to aggregator payouts and a March regional weighting change that Musk personally paused hours after it was announced. X retired Creator Revenue Sharing for good on September 7 and opened its replacement, Original Content Rewards, the next day.
Today, we’re launching Original Content Rewards.
The reality is that Revenue Sharing had reached a point where its incentives were misaligned. Creators should be focused on bringing net new content to the platform instead of maximizing payouts. We could have kept adding more… pic.twitter.com/VJIxqlPrjm
— Allegra Jacchia (@allegrajacchia) August 7, 2026
The new math is stricter. Payouts now come only from qualified impressions, meaning unique Home Timeline views from Premium subscribers where at least half the post is visible, and replies no longer count toward eligibility at all. Copied posts, reuploaded media and reposts without meaningful changes are explicitly excluded. Allegra Jacchia, senior product manager for Creators at SpaceXAI, which now runs X’s product and AI work following xAI’s acquisition of the platform, put it bluntly, saying the goal is to reward creators who bring original ideas and perspective, “not those who have become best at gaming the system.”
Read that way, the lawsuit isn’t really about six crypto accounts. It’s X putting a dollar figure on what the old incentive structure cost, then suing to collect it right as the new one goes live. For live updates on how the case and the new rewards program shake out, follow @Teslarati on X.
Last week, Tesla sent me the Model Y L for five days to test, assess, and enjoy for journalistic purposes. It’s always a treat when I get any media vehicle, and I’ve had the pleasure of working with Tesla and Ford for hands-on reviews of their products.
This one was exceptionally exciting for a few reasons: first, because it is the car I own, but bigger, so I was really excited to see if that extra space was worth it; and second, because my Fiancée (we’re down to just 18 days ’til she’s officially my wife!!!) and I plan to fill a car up with kids in the near future, so it was really nice to have a trial with a car that would potentially be in our driveway in a few years.
I did a full 10-minute video review of the Model Y L, which I will post at the bottom of this more condensed written version. If you prefer to watch a review, go ahead and skip to the bottom for that.
For those who prefer the writing, I’ll break down the big things about the Model Y L that I noticed, focusing on the big addition/difference that this car has from the Model Y: the third row. Tesla also added small-but-mighty changes to the Y L that I really wish were on my Model Y Premium, so I’ll be sure to mention those as well.
What Makes It Different from the Model Y?
Credit: TESLARATI
The first thing to note is that the interior of this vehicle, from the front row, is generally the same. It truly does feel like you’re in the same exact car with a slightly different seating layout. Of course, Tesla interiors do feel this way, at least with the Model 3 and Model Y, but there are no drastic differences between the Model Y L and the Model Y from the front row.
This should be expected, so definitely do not go into it thinking you’ll know you’re in a different car. It is a very similar experience to the Model Y.
Tesla Model Y L: new features that make it better than the standard Model Y
The true differences come from the back two rows. The only true difference from the front is the addition of a new Dynamics Feature that falls under the “Ride & Handling Priority” menu, which now allows you to adjust the suspension damping to prioritize a comfortable ride for everyone or one that is noticeably better from the rear two rows. In terms of ride comfort, the front rows definitely feel the impact of this; it is a noticeable difference and much stiffer in the driver’s seat with this setting turned to prioritize the rear occupants.
What changes from an engineering standpoint between these two settings @elonmusk @larsmoravy?
There is a very noticeable difference in comfort from the driver’s seat between these two settings https://t.co/62bdZJOr26 pic.twitter.com/KFP12jleHj
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) September 14, 2026
There are also a series of small improvements, like the rear taillight is now up toward the spoiler, which must be a strategy for making the rear glass actually useful in the Y L compared to the regular Y.
Pretty crazy how much different the rear windshield is compared to the Model Y
Not even close in size https://t.co/62bdZJOr26 pic.twitter.com/IjNbWwMBcS
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) September 14, 2026
Some other small changes are the addition of small magnets for the sub-trunk lid, which is a great addition and something I’d like to do in my Model Y; it sounds to me as if the Model Y L liftgate motor is less whiny than the one in my Model Y; and all three rows of climate are controllable from the front touchscreen.
I talk about them in a short video here:
🚨 Five things you might not know about the new Tesla Model Y L! pic.twitter.com/I42VTQoS5R
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) September 14, 2026
Second and Third-Row Legroom
The major feature of the Model Y L is the third row, and Tesla did a great job of making it spacious enough for more than just your nine-year-old nephew. It actually does have a suitable amount of legroom for adults, but it is dependent on how tall the people are in the first- and second-row seats in front of you.
This is where I caught some slack from those who have also sat in the Model Y L and believe there is enough room for anyone of any height. I certainly believe that those who are not complainers could sit back there for a multiple-hour drive and not complain. I would enjoy sitting in the back row because I think it is comfortable; the vents for air are perfectly positioned on the C pillars for maximum comfort, and I found that there was enough room back there for me. I’m 5′ 8″, so I’m definitely not tall. However, I found that I had more than enough legroom:
Credit: TESLARATI
The picture above is where my Fiancèe could sit comfortably in the second row in front of me, and she is 5′ 1″. There is a lot of give and take with these seats, and I believe most groups could make it work. She was comfortable in the second-row seat in front in this position, and as you can see, I have plenty of room. She could easily come back a few inches, and I’d still be comfortable.
This is where I think people would truly benefit from seeing what the space in this car looks like for themselves. To me, I found it more than suitable for a group of friends to go out in and for everyone to be comfortable. There might be some strategy to it if you have some taller friends, but it’s definitely doable.
Overall, the space in the Y L in the back two rows is great: the second-row Captain’s Chairs have mechanical armrests that go down automatically when you exit the car, and come back up on their own when you return. The second row also has ventilated seats; you’ll only have the heat option in the third row.
Credit: TESLARATI
Overall Thoughts
It was really a great five days with the Model Y L, and I do believe that this is a great car for families. I do not believe it is the perfect one. It is really an excellent option for those who can make do with what is truly a compact crossover stretched out to make way for a third row. However, I think that more families simply want something large, like Tahoe or Expedition large, and the Model Y L does not necessarily answer that call.
I think it is more than reasonable for a family of six to have this car and make it work. It is safe, it has Full Self-Driving, which I believe will be a non-negotiable for me moving forward in car buying; and it is relatively affordable, with the Launch Edition coming in at a price of $61,990 before options. Not going to a gas station for the past year has really been a lifesaver for me, especially with home charging saving us so much money.
Tesla will need to have an answer for the families that want something like a Cyber SUV or simply something that qualifies as a full-size SUV. I just truly do not think that every family will see this as enough space, and I think that’s understandable. If someone were to want to take an overnight trip with their four kids, I don’t know if it would be the easiest cargo situation because without that third row folded down, that trunk space is confined to just 14.8 cubic feet. I couldn’t take four kids and a wife to Ocean City for a week with using only the trunk space. We’d likely have to get creative, and I think that’s what many families want to avoid.
For comparison’s sake, a Tahoe offers 25.5 cubic feet of trunk space, which is still tight, but much more manageable and forgiving.
With all that being said, the Model Y L is still a great option and I’d be willing to see past the cargo issues because of FSD and the safety of Tesla vehicles overall. For our full review, check out the video below:
Tesla integrates Grok Bot into its vehicles for the ultimate personal assistant
X changed how everyone gets paid, and this lawsuit shows why
