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.
SpaceX has officially acquired xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise in what is the first move to bring Elon Musk’s companies under one umbrella.
On February 2, SpaceX officially announced the acquisition of xAI, uniting two powerhouse companies under a single entity, creating what the space exploration company called in a blog post “one of the most ambitious, vertically integrated innovation engines on (and off) Earth.”
🚨 BREAKING: Elon Musk has posted a new blog on SpaceX’s website confirming the acquisition of xAI pic.twitter.com/TFgeHGMpXc
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 2, 2026
The deal will integrate xAI’s advanced AI capabilities, including the Grok chatbot and massive training infrastructure, with SpaceX’s rocket technology, Starlink satellite network, and ambitious space exploration goals.
The acquisition comes at a pivotal moment: xAI is valued at around $230 billion as of late 2025, and has been racing to scale AI compute amid global competition from companies like OpenAI, Google, and Meta. Meanwhile, SpaceX, which was recently valued at $800 billion, is facing escalating costs for its multiplanetary ambitions.
By combining forces, the merged entity gains a unified approach to tackle one of AI’s biggest bottlenecks: the enormous energy and infrastructure demands of next-gen models.
Musk wrote in a blog post on SpaceX’s website that:
“In the long term, space-based AI is obviously the only way to scale. To harness even a millionth of our Sun’s energy would require over a million times more energy than our civilization currently uses! The only logical solution therefore is to transport these resource-intensive efforts to a location with vast power and space. I mean, space is called “space” for a reason.”
Musk details the need for orbital data centers, stating that his estimate is that “within 2 to 3 years, the lowest cost way to generate AI compute will be in space.
This cost-efficiency alone will enable innovative companies to forge ahead in training their AI models and processing data at unprecedented speeds and scales, accelerating breakthroughs in our understanding of physics and invention of technologies to benefit humanity.”
SpaceX recently filed for approval from the FCC to launch up to one million solar-powered satellites configured as high-bandwidth, optically linked compute platforms.
These facilities would harness near-constant sunlight with minimal maintenance, delivering what the company projects as transformative efficiency.
Musk has long argued that space offers the ultimate solution for power-hungry AI projects. But that’s not all the merger will take care of.
Additionally, it positions the company to fund broader goals. Revenue from the Starlink expansion, potential SpaceX IPO, and AI-driven applications could accelerate the development of lunar bases, as Musk believes multiplanetary life will be crucial to saving civilization.
Critics question the feasibility of massive constellations amid orbital debris concerns and regulatory hurdles. Yet, proponents see it as a bold step toward a multiplanetary computing infrastructure that extends human civilization beyond Earth.
The Tesla Model Y Performance was in my hands for seven days after the company reached out and got me a brand new unit. As a Premium All-Wheel-Drive owner, I was really interested to see if the Performance trim was worth the $11,000 difference, and what I learned might be a surprise.
The only “performance” version of any Tesla vehicle I’ve had the opportunity to have several days with was the Cyberbeast back in June, and a few days with that made me want a Cybertruck more than I already did. It had white-knuckle speed, and as someone who truly loves to drive a larger vehicle, it fit the bill for everything I wanted out of an electric pickup.
We picked up the Tesla Model Y Performance yesterday!
We have a whole SEVEN days with it and we want to do anything you’d like us to (within reason) with it!Let us know below 👇 what you’re interested in knowing pic.twitter.com/BRG9nOSwGW
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 20, 2026
With that past experience, I was truly excited to try the new Model Y Performance, especially considering I own a Model Y already, and after six months of ownership, it has truly won me over as the best car I’ve ever owned. Although my 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid is a close second, mostly due to nostalgia and it being my “dream car” as a kid in high school at the time, the Model Y is unequivocally better, obviously. It’s hard to shake the feelings of your first “nice” car; I think we could all relate to that in a way.
First charge in the Tesla Model Y Performance!
This is a v2 Supercharger, so not quite as fast as what we’d like, but it will do for now. pic.twitter.com/Akyb2BLMcS— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 21, 2026
Before I even picked up the Model Y Performance, I was expecting a handful of things: better performance, better handling, more comfortable seats, and a thirst for spirited driving on the windy backroads of Southern Pennsylvania. Admittedly, a snowstorm disrupted a lot of my testing, but I was still able to have some fun in the car.
With that being said, my thoughts are sure to potentially ruffle some feathers.
First Impressions of the Tesla Model Y Performance
I picked up the Model Y Performance on January 19 and had it for one week. The Ultra Red paint with the White interior option was a great look, and it was fun to have a car with that look, considering my Model Y is Black on Black.
One thing that is really interesting and somewhat surprising is that Tesla hasn’t adjusted the fact that the Ultra Red is a different shade than the Performance brake calipers. Additionally, the rear light bar, which signals braking, is a different shade of red than the car and the brake calipers.
This was something that the Tesla Showroom employees pointed out to me, and, just like they said, I’ll never be able to not see it.
Interior Quality
The first thing I noticed was the Performance seats, which are geared to hug you a tad more and keep you intact during spirited drives. They were, without a doubt, more comfortable than the seats in my Premium AWD.
Interestingly, when I gave this opinion on X, some Performance owners said that the seats were less comfortable and, on longer drives, I’d feel it. My Fiancè and I drove about 120 miles in the car that weekend, and we had no complaints. They were supremely comfortable, and we both really enjoyed them, almost to the point that we’d rather have those seats than the ones in the Premium AWD.
🚨 Tesla Model Y Performance White Interior is 🔥
This seriously might be the best Tesla out there pic.twitter.com/BnSe1GJqqi— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 22, 2026
Additionally, the center screen is slightly larger, but not to the extent that I had really noticed any true difference. In the new Model Y for 2026, the screen is the same size as the one in the Performance trim at 16 inches.
It was previously 15.4 inches.
Some other changes include Performance pedals that are made of what appears to be a stainless steel alloy and Carbon Fiber accents on the doors and dash. Other than that, there are no significant differences; it’s very similar to the other Premium trims of the Model Y. The big difference from an interior standpoint is simply the front seats.
Exterior Differences
Tesla used a lot of different techniques to help improve performance and aerodynamics, including a carbon fiber spoiler and rear diffuser, both of which help with air displacement and improve handling, range, and overall performance.
These additions are clean and give the car a sporty look, perfectly catered to the aesthetic Tesla was obviously going for with the car. I’ve already mentioned the brake calipers, which are an awesome touch, but the offsetting tones of red between them and the paint are a bit displeasing to the eye. I hope this is something that is resolved, but it isn’t completely necessary, nor a priority.
The Nitty Gritty – Ride Quality and Performance
With all the changes from an aesthetic standpoint, including the ones that are geared toward improving performance, the real indicator of whether this trim is worth the extra $11,000 is simple: Is it faster and more fun to drive than the Premium All-Wheel-Drive?
I’m going to break that down here:
Speed and Acceleration
There is a slightly noticeable difference in acceleration, as the 4.6-second 0-60 MPH on the AWD is 1.3 seconds slower than the 3.3-second rate on the Performance. Although that sounds like a decent difference, the big change I noticed was the sound. In the Performance, you can really hear those motors hum, which was a nice touch and really interesting and fun to experience.
It was definitely quicker than my AWD, but I think I really expected to be thrown back into my seat like I was with the Cyberbeast, which features a 2.6-second 0-60 MPH acceleration rate. That was truly a massive difference that anyone can really feel. The 1.3-second difference between the AWD and Performance was, in a way, underwhelming.
I was not disappointed with it, but I really hoped to feel that same rush of adrenaline I had with the Cyberbeast. I think I’m just so used to the acceleration at this point that it does not “wow” me any longer. At the time of the Cyberbeast Demo Drive, I was still driving a gas car.
The Performance, like the AWD, is very capable. It’s great for merging on the highway and getting into a tight window when traffic is heavier. It’s great for taking some quicker drives, and it’s a lot of fun to take out on the road. By no means am I disappointed with it, but I will say maybe my expectations were a tad too high.
Handling
This is where I will say I was sort of disappointed, because I have heard from many people that the suspension is better in the Model Y Performance compared to the All-Wheel-Drive.
I didn’t really feel like it was “better,” but the same, which is still an absolutely amazing ride experience. My AWD is great for tight turns at increased speeds, where I felt the difference was in the seats, as those Performance ones truly did seem to “hug” me more and keep me more stable.
The Performance trim features adaptive suspension, lower/stiffer springs, and larger wheels, all of which are meant to improve handling. I’m not sure if it is simply because I didn’t get to push it as much as I wanted to due to weather, but I felt like the feel of the ride was really similar to my AWD. I had no complaints.
Overall Thoughts
The Model Y Performance is definitely a sportier look than the AWD and Standard models, and it definitely has its advantages. I think that it’s a really great car, but I did not feel an incredible number of differences from the AWD.
🚨 ONE WEEK with the Tesla Model Y Performance: Review and Initial Thoughts
We didn’t get to have as much fun as we wanted in the MYP due to the snow storm, but we were able to give some initial thoughts on the car with the little bit of reasonable weather we had pic.twitter.com/C75WQMNHKO— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 27, 2026
There was a lot to love: the seats, the look, the acceleration. The latter is something that is definitely great if you plan to take your car to a track, but for public roads, it’s not something that is a substantial “need.” When I pushed it on a road local to me and posted a video of it, the commenters were sure to tell me I was going too fast.
I want to be clear that I have zero complaints about the Model Y Performance, and if it were to have come out ahead of me getting my AWD, I probably would have entertained the idea if I could have made the numbers work.
The Model Y, from Standard to Premium, is a great car in every sense of the word. The ride quality is great, the build quality is excellent, and the interior and exterior features, as a whole, make it the best car in the world (to me).
Elon Musk
Elon Musk explains why Tesla’s 4680 battery breakthrough is a big deal
Tesla confirmed in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter that it is now producing 4680 cells whose anode and cathode were produced during the dry electrode process.
Tesla’s breakthroughs with its 4680 battery cell program mark a significant milestone for the electric vehicle maker. This was, at least, as per Elon Musk in a recent post on social media platform X.
Tesla confirmed in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter that it is now producing 4680 cells whose anode and cathode were produced during the dry electrode process.
Why dry-electrode matters
In a post on X, Elon Musk stated that making the dry-electrode process work at scale was “incredibly difficult,” calling it a major achievement for Tesla’s engineering, production, and supply chain teams, as well as its partner suppliers. He also shared his praise for the Tesla team for overcoming such a difficult task.
“Making the dry electrode process work at scale, which is a major breakthrough in lithium battery production technology, was incredibly difficult. Congratulations to the @Tesla engineering, production and supply chain teams and our strategic partner suppliers for this excellent achievement!” Musk wrote in his post.
Tesla’s official X account expanded on Musk’s remarks, stating that dry-electrode manufacturing “cuts cost, energy use & factory complexity while dramatically increasing scalability.” Bonne Eggleston, Tesla’s Vice President of 4680 batteries, also stated that “Getting dry electrode technology to scale is just the beginning.”
Tesla’s 4680 battery program
Tesla first introduced the dry-electrode concept at Battery Day in 2020, positioning it as a way to eliminate solvent-based electrode drying, shrink factory footprints, and lower capital expenditures. While Tesla has produced 4680 cells for some time, the dry cathode portion of the process proved far more difficult to industrialize than expected.
Together with its confirmation that it is producing 4680 cells in Austin with both electrodes manufactured using the dry process, Tesla has also stated that it has begun producing Model Y vehicles with 4680 battery packs. As per Tesla, this strategy was adopted as a safety layer against trade barriers and tariff risks.
“We have begun to produce battery packs for certain Model Ys with our 4680 cells, unlocking an additional vector of supply to help navigate increasingly complex supply chain challenges caused by trade barriers and tariff risks,” Tesla wrote in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
Tesla Model Y Performance Review: The Best Trim of the Best Vehicle?
