News
SpaceX Starlink launches to debut rideshare capabilities next month
According to SpaceX and customer Planet, the company will start offering Starlink rideshare launch opportunities as early as next month, opening up space for other companies, space agencies, and individuals to get their payloads into space.
SpaceX’s decision to co-opt its own Starlink missions as a vehicle for rideshare payloads is perhaps one of the most interesting strategic moves in the smallsat launch ecosystem in awhile. Announced in early-August 2019, SpaceX’s Smallsat Rideshare Program effectively marked the company’s entrance into the burgeoning smallsat launch services industry. Rather than the launch industry proper, the services industry focuses on finding ways to put tiny satellites on rockets that would normally be far too large to serve as a practical solution. By finding multiple customers and wrangling with their different schedules, spacecraft, and requirements, dozens of smallsats can be launched in such a way that it’s actually worth a large launch provider’s focus.
In the past, SpaceX famously worked with Spaceflight to launch the SSO-A mission in December 2018, using all of a Falcon 9 rocket’s performance to place 64 small satellites in orbit. After many, many delays and numerous planned customers still missing the launch, both Spaceflight and SpaceX came away with the conclusion that a fully dedicated smallsat launch at the scale of Falcon 9 was simply not a practical approach to the problem. Instead, spreading the ~120 satellites originally manifested on SSO-A over 3-6 smaller missions would be far more sustainable for all parties involved. With SpaceX’s Starlink rideshare strategy, the company may have done exactly that.
Each weighing about 115 kg (~250 lb) each and standing roughly the same size as a large mini-fridge, Planet has broken the news that three of its SkySat imaging satellites will fly on SpaceX’s ninth dedicated Starlink launch. Known as Starlink-8 in reference to it being the eighth launch of finalized v1.0 satellites, the mission is scheduled to launch no earlier than June, likely 3-4 weeks after SpaceX’s 8th Starlink launch (NET May 17).
After Starlink-8, Planet will include another three SkySats on an unspecified Starlink mission, also scheduled to launch sometime in Q3. Once complete, the earth imaging company’s fleet of high-resolution (~0.5m/px) observation satellites will be 21 strong,
Until SpaceX or its rideshare customers choose to release photos or offer up details, it remains unclear how the company’s Starlink rideshares will work from a technical perspective. Thanks to SpaceX’s extremely unique method of stacking and deploying each batch of 60 Starlink satellites, there will be a combination of challenges and benefits to grapple with. Because of Starlink’s flat, rectangular satellite design, a lot of space inside the Falcon payload fairing they occupy is left empty.
There’s a slight possibility that smaller satellites and their deployers could fit in the triangular gaps left at the bottom of Starlink stacks, but it’s unlikely that Planet’s relatively large (on the scale of smallsats) SkySats would fit in the constrained space. That leaves the large conical section left unused at the top of each Starlink-dedicated payload fairing. Given that SpaceX spins up Falcon 9’s upper stage and releases Starlink satellites like a deck of giant ~260 kg (~570 lb) cards, it’s highly unlikely that rideshare passengers could be deployed after the main Starlink deployment event.
That leaves some kind of solution that mounts rideshare payloads on top of the stack of satellites. The most likely solution would involve somehow attaching a satellite deployment mechanism to the tensioning rods that hold the Starlink stack together and are ejected to release all 60 spacecraft at once. If that solution is possible, Falcon 9 could deploy rideshare payloads, spin up, discard the structural rods and deployers in one go, and eject all 60 Starlink satellites with having to tweak any of the spacecraft or change launch operations much at all. Regardless, it will be interesting to see how SpaceX has solved its unique deployment problem.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
