News
SpaceX is in no rush for a Starlink IPO and that should terrify competitors
SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell says that the Starlink satellite internet business is in no rush to become a separate company and pursue an IPO, and that relaxed demeanor should terrify competitor constellations and ISPs like OneWeb and Comcast.
Announced in January 2015, SpaceX has been developing a massive constellation of satellites capable of delivering high-quality broadband internet anywhere on Earth for half a decade. Known as Starlink, SpaceX launched its first dedicated satellite prototypes – known as Tintin A and B – in February 2018, serving as a very successful alpha test for the myriad technologies the company would need to master to realize the constellation’s goals. 15 months later, SpaceX launched its first batch of 60 radically-redesigned Starlink satellites – packed flat to fit in an unmodified Falcon 9 payload fairing.
Less than nine months after that first ‘v0.9’ mission, SpaceX has completed another three dedicated launches and made Starlink – now some 235 operational satellites strong – the world’s largest private satellite constellation by a huge margin. Now just two days away from its fifth Starlink launch, SpaceX’s second-in-command has revealed that the company will likely split Starlink off into its own separate company, enabling an IPO without sacrificing SpaceX’s broader freedom. However, Shotwell also made it clear that SpaceX is in no rush to do so, and that fact should strike fear into the hearts of Starlink’s many potential competitors.
Bloomberg first broke the news with a snippet revealing that SpaceX COO and President Gwynne Shotwell had told a private investor event that Starlink could eventually IPO as an independent company. While undeniably important, a SpaceX source – after confirming the news – also told Reuters reporter Joey Roulette that it would be “several years” before the company might kick off the process of a Starlink IPO.
While a seemingly small piece of information at face value, the fact that SpaceX is years away from a potential Starlink IPO implies that the company is incredibly confident in where it stands today. Given that SpaceX only started ramping up its Starlink production rates and launch cadence a handful of months ago, that apparent confidence – assuming SpaceX’s respected President and COO isn’t lying to the faces of prospective investors – is no small feat.
Thanks to that production and launch cadence ramp, SpaceX is likely in the midst of one of the most capital-straining periods its Starlink program will ever experience. As a private company, SpaceX’s balance sheets are a black box to the public, but it’s safe to say that the it’s going through – or has already gone through – a phase of “production hell” similar to what Tesla experienced when it began building Roadsters, Model S/Xs, and Model 3s.
Building satellites like cars
In less than 12 months, SpaceX has effectively gone from manufacturing zero satellites to mass-producing something like 2-4 Starlink spacecraft every single day, almost without a doubt smashing any records previously held in the industry. It’s possible that companies like Planet (now the owner of the second-largest private constellation) or Spire have built more spacecraft in a given period, but SpaceX’s satellites are at least an order of magnitude larger, on average.
Around 260 kg (570 lb) apiece, SpaceX has built and launched a total of 240 spacecraft – together weighing more than 60 metric tons (135,000 lb) – in less than nine months. Furthermore, the company not only intends to crush that average but wants (if not needs) to do so for several years without interruption.
Back in May 2019, CEO Elon Musk confidently stated that he believes SpaceX already has all the capital it needs “to build an operational [Starlink] constellation”, likely referring to at least ~1500 operational communications satellites – launches included. This is why competitors should be moderately terrified that SpaceX isn’t even privately pushing for an IPO sooner than later. Perhaps the single biggest reason modern companies pursue IPOs is to raise substantial capital – usually far more than can be practically (or quickly) raised while private when executed successfully.
A step further, “several years” should mean titanic changes for SpaceX’s Starlink constellation if everything goes as planned. In 2020, SpaceX has publicly stated that it will attempt as many as 20-24 dedicated Starlink launches, an achievement that would translate to a constellation more than 1600 satellites strong by the end of the year. SpaceX says that 24 launches (20 if the first four missions are subtracted) is enough to offer global coverage and plans to begin serving customers in the northern US and Canada as early as this summer.
As of now, SpaceX has performed three 60-satellite Starlink launches total in the last three months – two in January 2020 alone – and Starlink V1 L4 (the fourth v1.0 launch and fifth launch overall) is scheduled to lift off just two days from now on February 15th. If Musk and Shotwell are correct and SpaceX can launch at least one or two thousand satellites without raising any additional capital, the constellation – potentially reaching those numbers by early to mid-2021 – may already have hundreds of thousands of customers by the time more funding is needed. 2000 Starlink v1.0 satellites, for reference, would theoretically offer enough collective bandwidth for more than 500,000 users to simultaneously stream Netflix content in 1080p.
As of early 2019, SpaceX had raised a total of $2B in venture capital, investments, and debt. Thus, even in the unlikely event that 100% of that funding goes to Starlink, the company would ultimately have to spend $500-700M annually from 2018 to the end of 2021 to run that large pool of capital dry by the time 1000-2000 satellites are in orbit.
500,000 customers paying $50-100 per month by the end of 2021 would conservatively allow Starlink to generate $300-600M in annual revenue, excluding the likely possibility of even more lucrative government or commercial contracts. In other words, if SpaceX can accumulate an average of 20,000 paying subscribers per month between now and the end of 2021, Starlink could very well become self-sustaining at its current rate of growth – or close to it – by the time SpaceX is hurting for more funding. In a worst-case scenario, it thus appears all but certain that “several years” from now, SpaceX’s Starlink program will have at least a few thousand high-performance satellites in orbit, an extensive network of ground stations, and a large swath of alpha or beta customers by the time IPO proceedings begin.
Given that all that potential infrastructure would easily be worth at least $1-2B purely from a capital investment standpoint, Starlink’s ultimate IPO valuation – under Shotwell’s patient “maybe one day” approach – could be stratospheric.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
News
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 began rolling out to some owners earlier this week, and there are some notable improvements that came with this update.
There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.
Overall operation saw a handful of slight improvements, especially with parking performance, which has been the most notable difference with the arrival of FSD v14.3. However, there are still some very notable shortcomings, most notably with region-specific signage and navigation.
Tesla Assisted Smart Summon (ASS) improvements
There are noticeable improvements to ASS operation, which has definitely been inconsistent in terms of performance. Tesla wrote in the release notes for v14.3.2:
“Unified the model between Actually Smart Summon, FSD, and Robotaxi for more capable and reliable behavior.”
As recently as this month, I used Summon with no success. It had pulled around the parking lot I was in incorrectly, leaving the range at which Summon can be operated and losing a signal while moving in the middle of the lot.
This caused me to sprint across the lot to retrieve the vehicle:
It was pouring when I left the gym so I tried to Summon my Model Y
It turned the opposite way and drove out of range, stopping here and forcing me to walk even further across the lot in the rain for it 🤣One day pic.twitter.com/iD10c8sriB
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 5, 2026
Unfortunately, Summon was not dependable or accurate enough to use regularly. It appears Tesla might have bridged the gap needed to make it an effective feature, as two tests in parking lots proved that Summon was more responsive and faster to navigate to the location chosen.
It also did so without hesitation, confidently, and at a comfortable speed. I was able to test it twice at different distances:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 ASS testing part 1
This was a significant improvement than recent tries using ASS. The parking lot was pretty empty but getting it to come to my location in one singular motion and maneuver was encouraging. https://t.co/vF7TS48GGV pic.twitter.com/sYt8tyHgNn— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 ASS testing part 2 https://t.co/lxfWfnLUxf pic.twitter.com/2R0r3ohI3M
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
I plan to test this more thoroughly and regularly through the next few weeks, and I avoided using it in a congested parking lot initially because I have not had overwhelming success with Summon in the past. I wanted to set a low baseline for it to see if it could simply pull up to the place I pinned in the Tesla app.
It was two for two, which is a big improvement because I don’t think I ever had successful Summon attempts back-to-back. It just seems more confident than ever before.
New Disengagement Categories
This is a really good idea from Tesla, but there are some issues with it. The categories you can select are Critical, Comfort, Preference, and Other.
I think the reasons why people choose to take over would be a better way to prompt drivers, like, “Traveling Too Fast,” “Incorrect Maneuver,” “Navigation Error,” would be more beneficial.
I say this because it seems that how we each categorize things might be different. For example, I shared a video of an intervention because the car had navigated to an exit to a parking lot and put its left blinker on, despite left turns not being allowed there.
I disengaged and chose Critical as the reason; it’s not a comfort issue, it’s not a preference, it’s quite literally an illegal turn, and it’s also dangerous because it cuts across several lanes of traffic and is 180 degrees.
I chose to label this Navigation error as “Critical” while testing FSD v14.3.2
Here’s why:
✅ This intervention wasn’t “preference,” as the maneuver FSD routed was illegal
✅ If a police officer saw this maneuver, it would result in a ticket https://t.co/znhHb4haAo pic.twitter.com/bZOiLwWmQa— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Some said I should not have labeled this as Critical, but that’s the description I best characterized the disengagement as.
Categorizing interventions is a good thing, but it’s kind of hard to determine how to label them correctly.
Inconsistency with Regional Traffic Patterns
Tesla Full Self-Driving is pretty inconsistent with how it handles regional or local traffic patterns and road rules. The most frequent example I like to use is that of the “Except Right Turn” stop sign, which has become a notorious sighting on our social media platforms.
In the initial rollout of v14.3, my Model Y successfully navigated through one of these stop signs with no issues. However, testing at two of these stop signs yesterday proved it is still not sure how to read signs and navigate through them properly.
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 attempts the “Except Right Turn” stop sign: https://t.co/W5MjAybaNK pic.twitter.com/P6oeUsk4PN
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Off camera, I approached another one of these signs and felt the car coming to a stop, so I nudged it forward with the accelerator pedal pressed.
This helped the car go through the sign without stopping, but I could feel the bucking of the vehicle as the car really wanted to stop.
Musk said on the earnings call earlier this week that unsupervised FSD would probably be available in some regions before others, including a state-to-state basis in the U.S.
“It’s difficult to release this like to everyone everywhere all at once because we do want to make sure that they’re not unique situations in a city that particularly complex intersection or — actually, they tend to be places where people get into accidents a lot because they’re just — perhaps there’s — and like I said, an unsafe intersection or bad road markings or a lot of weather challenges. So I think we would release unsupervised gradually to the customer fleet as we feel like a particular geography is confirmed to be safe.”
This could be one of those examples that Tesla just has to figure out.
Highway Operation
Full Self-Driving is already pretty good at routine roadway navigation, so I don’t have too much to report here.
However, I was happy with FSD’s decision-making at several points, including its choice not to pass a slightly slower car and remain in the right lane as we approached the off-ramp:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 highway operation: generally happy with the performance here, especially behavior near the exit
Love that the car got over in the right lane after its final pass, and stayed there as the off ramp was approaching https://t.co/qVRVhg6XGR pic.twitter.com/1ELwHf2XKS— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Better Maneuvering at Stop Signs
Many FSD users report some strange operations at stop signs, especially four-way intersections where there is a stop sign and a line on the road, and they’re not even with one another.
I experienced this quite frequently and found that FSD would actually double stop: once at the stop sign and again at the line.
This created some interesting scenarios for me and I had many cars honk at me when the second stop would happen. Other vehicles that had waved me on to proceed through the intersection would become frustrated at the second stop.
FSD seems to have worked through this particular maneuver:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 with a singular stop at the correct spot
No double stopping anymore in my experience https://t.co/Wd0TaNjc1R pic.twitter.com/CdQPvJHaAM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
FSD should know to go to the more appropriate location (whichever provides better visibility), and proceed when it is the car’s turn to move. The double stop really ruined the flow of traffic at times and generally caused some frustration from other drivers.
News
Tesla plans to resolve its angriest bunch of owners: here’s how
Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.
Tesla has a plan to make Hardware 3 owners whole after CEO Elon Musk admitted that those with that self-driving chip in their cars will not have access to unsupervised Full Self-Driving.
The company’s strategy is so crazy that it is sort of hard to believe.
Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.
Tesla owners with HW3 finally get their answer: https://t.co/CSZTKKkWXx
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 22, 2026
During the Tesla Q1 earnings call on Wednesday, Musk finally clarified what the company’s plans are for Hardware 3 owners, what they will be offered, and what Tesla will have to do internally to prepare for it.
The answer was somewhat mind-boggling.
Musk said:
“Unfortunately, Hardware 3 — I wish it were otherwise, but Hardware 3 simply does not have the capability to achieve unsupervised FSD. We did think at one point it would have that, but relative to Hardware 4, it has only 1/8 of the memory bandwidth of Hardware 4. And memory bandwidth is one of the key elements needed for unsupervised FSD.”
He continued, stating that HW3 owners would have the opportunity to trade their cars in at a discounted rate in order to get the AI4 chip:
“So for customers that have bought FSD, what we’re offering is essentially a trade-in — like a discounted trade-in for cars that have AI4 hardware, and we’ll also be offering the ability to upgrade the car, to replace the computer. And you also need to replace the cameras, unfortunately, to go to Hardware 4.”
Obviously, Tesla has a lot of people to work with and make this whole thing right. Musk was adamant that HW3 would be capable of FSD, and now that the company has finally admitted that it is not, there are some things that could come of this.
There has been open talk about some sort of class action lawsuit against Tesla. The promises that Tesla made previously could be considered a breach of contract or even false advertising, and that’s according to Grok, Musk’s own AI program.
Musk went on to say that Tesla would likely have to establish new microfactories to effectively and efficiently replace HW3 computers and cameras:
…So to do this efficiently, we’re going to have to set up, like kind of micro factories or small factories in major metropolitan areas in order to do it efficiently. Because if it’s done just at the service center, it is extremely slow to do so and inefficient. So we basically need like many production lines to make the change.”
This is going to be an extremely costly process, especially if Tesla has to buy real estate, properties, and equipment to complete this work. Additionally, there was no wording on pricing, but Musk never said it would be free. It will likely come with some kind of price tag, and HW3 owners, after being left hanging for so long, will have something to say about that.
Elon Musk
SpaceX just got pulled into the biggest Weapons Program in U.S. history
SpaceX joins the Golden Dome software group, deepening its role in America’s most expensive defense program.
SpaceX has joined a nine-company group developing the core operating software for the Golden Dome, America’s next-generation missile defense system. According to a Bloomberg report, SpaceX is focused on integrating satellite communications for military operations and is working alongside eight other defense and artificial intelligence companies, including Anduril Industries, Palantir Technologies, and Aalyria Technologies, to build software connecting missile defense capabilities.
The Golden Dome concept dates back to President Trump’s 2024 campaign, and on January 27, 2025, he signed an executive order directing the U.S. Armed Forces to construct the system before the end of his term. The system is planned to employ a constellation of thousands of satellites equipped with interceptors, with data centers in space providing automated control through an AI network.
FCC accepts SpaceX filing for 1 million orbital data center plan
Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, director of the Golden Dome initiative, has described the software layer as a “glue layer” that would enable officers to manage and control radars, sensors, and missile batteries across services. The consortium is aiming to test the platform this summer.
Trump selected a design in May 2025 with a $175 billion price tag, expected to be operational by the end of his term in 2029, though the Congressional Budget Office projected the cost could reach $831 billion over two decades.
The Golden Dome role is only the latest in a string of military wins for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported, the U.S. Space Force awarded SpaceX a $178.5 million task order on April 1, 2026 to launch missile tracking satellites for the Space Development Agency, covering two Falcon 9 launches beginning in Q3 2027. That came on top of more than $22 billion in government contracts held by SpaceX as of 2024, per CEO Gwynne Shotwell, spanning NASA resupply missions, classified intelligence satellites through its Starshield program, and military broadband.
The accumulation of defense contracts, now including a seat at the table on the most expensive weapons program in U.S. history, positions SpaceX as the dominant infrastructure provider for American national security in space. With a SpaceX IPO still on the horizon, each new contract adds weight to what is already one of the most consequential companies in aerospace history, raising real questions about how much of America’s defense architecture will depend on a single private operator before it ever trades publicly.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla plans to resolve its angriest bunch of owners: here’s how
