News
SpaceX Starlink satellite internet tested in the field in Antarctica
SpaceX’s Starlink internet continues to find success in Antarctica, Earth’s icy southernmost continent and has spread beyond McMurdo Station.
The company first reported that Starlink reached Antarctica as part of a National Science Foundation experiment in September 2022. The milestone also marked the satellite internet network’s arrival on all seven continents.
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
A series of lasers
Just ~5% of the almost 3400 working Starlink satellites currently in orbit make coverage of Antarctica (and the Arctic) possible. SpaceX currently has 181 polar-orbiting satellites in operational orbits, likely providing a decent amount of coverage in polar regions. But that’s only a third of the 520 polar satellites SpaceX’s Starlink Gen1 constellation will have once complete, meaning that coverage is likely intermittent for the time being.
Those polar satellites must also use optical interlinks (lasers) to connect Antarctic users to ground stations hundreds or thousands of miles away, as the vast and sparsely populated continent has no Starlink ground stations. Instead, users are connected to the internet via space lasers that route their communications to and from ground stations in South America, Australia, New Zealand, and other nearby locales.
Studying the oldest ice on Earth
The general purpose of the Center for Oldest Ice Exploration (COLDEX) field experiment Starlink is aiding is to find the oldest ice on Earth. That old ice allows scientists to peer back tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years back into Earth’s past. Most importantly for the modern era, that ice can contain shockingly detailed information about the history of Earth’s climate.
Researchers like Dr. Neff collect ice cores by drilling miles into Antarctic ice sheets. Once removed, packaged, and carefully shipped by plane to labs around the world, the data extracted from those ice cores can tell researchers how the Earth has responded in the past to major and minor changes in climate. Knowing how it has responded and behaved before has helped scientists around the world determine with near certainty that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing average global temperatures to increase at a relatively rapid pace. Further studies, like those being done now, may help specify what kind of changes we can expect as climates warm; allowing cities, countries, and humanity as a whole to prepare for the worst while (hopefully) trying to prevent those outcomes.
COLDEX began testing Starlink in the field in early December 2022. It’s not entirely clear if that testing is still ongoing, but Dr. Peter Neff appears to be optimistic either way. In a January 21st tweet, the assistant professor and field research director said that he was excited “to see how [Starlink] & other modes of high-speed connectivity can advance [science] communication [and]…alter how we do science on the ice.”
Finding a balance
The National Science Foundation has been a part of both Antarctic Starlink experiments, thus far, and finds itself in a unique position. Through funding and other means, the government agency is aiding efforts to test the limits of the SpaceX network and discover how it can benefit science (and improve life) in some of the harshest environments on Earth. Simultaneously, NSF holds a sort of supervisory role over other aspects of SpaceX’s Starlink constellation.
For the most part, that relationship is on an even keel and SpaceX has been highly forthcoming and happy to cooperate. Even without any explicit legal requirement, SpaceX has made wide-reaching changes to its satellites and continues to experiment with ways to reduce their brightness to ground observers and limit their impact on astronomy. Nonetheless, the FCC’s decision to tie SpaceX’s next-generation Starlink Gen2 constellation license with its cooperation with the NSF has given the latter agency a bit more regulatory power than it had before.
That arguably makes the involvement of the NSF (or NSF-funded researchers) in testing Starlink’s ability to benefit science even more important. Knowing firsthand how impactful the ability to access high-bandwidth internet can be in the field and at remote camps, the NSF should be better suited to make the kind of cost-benefit analyses required to determine how much of an impact (on the night sky and astronomy) is acceptable relative to the benefits Starlink can provide.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
