

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.
News
These automakers are pushing to overturn California’s gas car ban
This lobbying group represents Detroit’s Big Three automakers, as well as several others selling vehicles in the U.S.

A lobbying group made up of several automakers is pushing Congress to ban California’s plan to phase out and ban new gas car sales altogether by 2035, ahead of a vote that could also affect the 11 other states that have followed with similar plans.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (AAI), an organization representing the interests of Ford, General Motors (GM), Stellantis, Toyota, Volkswagen, Hyundai, and several others, recently sent a letter to Congress requesting that it overturn a waiver granted to California letting it set its own emissions rules.
Later this week, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on overturning the waiver granted to California under the 1968 Clean Air Act to impose the tightened standards, according to Reuters. In the previous letter, the AAI argued to Congress that automakers would be “forced to substantially reduce the number of overall vehicles for sale to inflate their proportion of electric vehicle sales,” adding that it would also boost prices and reduce competition in the market.
The waiver, enacted under the Biden administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), allows California to mandate at least 80 percent electric vehicle sales by 2035 under the Clean Air Act. The passage of disapproval of the waiver is being ushered under the Congressional Review Act, and an initial vote in the House of Representatives is set to take place on Wednesday.
READ MORE ON STATE EMISSIONS RULES: Tesla could face emissions credit tax in Washington
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia backed the EPA’s decision to grant the waiver last April, following a challenge from 17 Republican-run states. The group claimed that California was being given unconstitutional regulatory power in the decision, adding that other states didn’t have those same powers.
In December, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear out bids from Valero, the AAI, and other groups to oppose the 2035 California gas car sales ban, which would begin phasing them out in 2026 if the waiver remains in place.
You can see the full list of members of the AAI below, including automakers and a handful of other tech companies.
Companies represented by the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (AAI)
Here’s the full list of AAI members, according to the lobbying group’s website:
- AESC
- AISIN
- Aptiv
- Autoliv
- BMW Group
- Bosch
- Denso
- Emergency Safety Solutions
- Ferrari
- Ford
- GM
- Harman
- Honda
- Hyundai
- InEos Automotive
- Infineon
- Isuzu
- Jaguar-Land Rover
- Kia
- LG
- Luminar
- Magna
- Mazda
- McLaren
- Mercedes-Benz
- Mitsubishi Motors
- Nissan
- Nuro
- Panasonic
- Porsche
- Qualcomm
- RV Industry Association
- Samsung
- SiriusXM
- SK On
- Stellantis
- Subaru
- Texas Instruments
- Toyota
- Uber
- VinFast
- Volkswagen
- Volvo
- Zoox
California proposal to allow self-driving tests for heavy-duty trucks
News
Neuralink’s third brain chip patient shares first video edited with BCI
The third Neuralink brain chip patient is the trial’s first patient with ALS and its first non-verbal patient, and he has detailed his experience regaining speech and more.

Elon Musk’s Neuralink has officially installed its brain-chip interface (BCI) into a third human patient, and the individual shared a video this week detailing his experiences gaining control of external devices and regaining the ability to talk through the use of AI.
On Monday, X user Bradford G Smith shared a video detailing his experience as the third person in the world to receive the Neuralink BCI, and as the first non-verbal patient and the first with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) to receive the implant. In the video, Smith details how the BCI works, how it’s less limiting than his previous eye tracker technology, and how it has literally helped him regain his voice through AI.
“I am typing this with my brain,” Smith wrote. “It is my primary communication.”
The video, which he says is the first edited directly with a BCI, is narrated by an AI-generated version of his old voice. Prior to the BCI, he was also unable to leave the house using his eye tracker, as it made it difficult to communicate unless he was in dark or low-light settings.
The video also shows how he’s able to connect with external devices using the BCI, with a live shots of him controlling his computer using a cursor.
You can see the full update below, which runs a little under 10 minutes.
READ MORE ON NEURALINK: Elon Musk: over 1,000 humans with Neuralink implants in 2026 is feasible
The news follows Neuralink’s initial update with Brad and other initial BCI patients, as was shared in a post on the company’s website in February. In it, Brad also explained how groundbreaking it was to be able to communicate outside and see his son win a robotics award, along with being able to consider leaving the city area for the first time in half a decade:
The most significant thing that happened this week will sound strange to you: I got to use the computer on the porch, and it worked!!
I went to [my child’s] soccer game, and the referee thought I was sleeping. I was actually able to talk outside. I [am] actually thinking about traveling outside the [city] metro [for] the first time in 5 years.
Both of Neuralink’s studies focus on restoring autonomy to people who are paraplegic through the use of external devices. The company gained initial approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to install the first BCI in a human patient in May 2023, with Noland Arbaugh being the first, a patient named Alex being the second, and Brad being the third.
Neuralink opened its Patient Registry worldwide earlier this month, allowing participants to submit to take part in the company’s initial PRIME and CONVOY studies. The firm also announced plans to operate the PRIME study out of a second location in Miami, Florida in January, after an initial location was launched in Phoenix, Arizona.
Last week, it was reported by Bloomberg that Neuralink is currently targeting a $500 million funding round at a valuation of $8.5 billion. Meanwhile, Neuralink has also been constructing office buildings near Austin, Texas, which initially aimed to be completed in May 2025.
Elon Musk
Tesla fends off new attack that will hurt consumers more than anyone else
Consumers stand to be hurt the most by a new bill that aims to take away Tesla’s Direct-to-Consumer licensing

Tesla is likely going to be forced to fend off a new attack that is much different than the petty vandalism, arson, and domestic terrorism it has faced from those who oppose the company and its CEO Elon Musk. It would hurt consumers more than anyone else.
Over the past several months, we have reported numerous instances of vandalism against Tesla. No victim is too big or too small to be a potential target, as everything from keying vehicles to having Molotov cocktails thrown at showrooms is sufficient in the eyes of perpetrators.
However, the latest attack appears to be politically motivated and could hurt Tesla, its consumers, and even other automakers, and it seems to be some form of retaliation against Musk due to his affiliation with President Trump.

President Donald J. Trump purchases a Tesla on the South Lawn, Tuesday, March 11, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)
Lawmakers in New York state are now attempting to shut down Tesla showrooms in a move that would force the company to sell through dealer franchises, complicating the sales process and making the direct-to-consumer platform the company has used for years obsolete.
The New York Times reported that New York State Sen. Patricia Fahy is one of several lawmakers that is looking to hit Tesla where it hurts the most: its accessible and stress-free showrooms.
The problem is that this will hurt consumers more than Tesla.
Sen. Fahy said in March that the ease-of-sales platform Tesla uses has to be taken “from Elon Musk,” because “he’s part of an effort to go backwards.”
The licenses Tesla uses in the state allow it to sell cars directly to consumers instead of going through the traditional dealership model. These licenses, in Sen. Fahy’s perfect world, would be revoked from Tesla and given to other EV manufacturers. At one time, she was a proponent of Tesla and supported the company operating its D2C sales, stating it would cut emissions.
Now, Sen. Fahy believes Musk’s association with the Trump Administration is counterintuitive, as she says it is “killing all the grant funding for electric vehicle infrastructure, killing wind energy, killing anything that might address climate change.”
She continued by stating:
“The bottom line is, Tesla has lost their right to promote these when they’re part of an administration that wants to go backwards. Elon Musk was handed a privilege here.”
The bill is with the Senate and Assembly Finance committees.
-
News1 week ago
Tesla’s Hollywood Diner is finally getting close to opening
-
Elon Musk1 week ago
Tesla doubles down on Robotaxi launch date, putting a big bet on its timeline
-
News3 days ago
Tesla is trying to make a statement with its Q2 delivery numbers
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla’s top investor questions ahead of the Q1 2025 earnings call
-
News2 weeks ago
Underrated Tesla safety feature recognized by China Automotive Research Institute
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla reveals its Q1 Supercharger voting winners, opens next round
-
Investor's Corner6 days ago
LIVE BLOG: Tesla (TSLA) Q1 2025 Company Update and earnings call
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla police fleet saves nearly half a million in upkeep and repair costs