SpaceX
SpaceX’s Starlink satellite lawyers refute latest “flawed” OneWeb critique
After years of relentless legal badgering from internet satellite constellation competitor OneWeb, SpaceX’s regulatory and legal affairs team appears to have begun to (in a professional manner) lose patience with the constant barrage.
On February 21st, SpaceX published a withering refutation of 
SpaceX’s Starlink modification request
In late 2018, SpaceX filed a request with the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) that would allow the company to significantly modify parts of its Starlink satellite constellation license, cutting 16 spacecraft from the original total of 4425 and moving Phase 1’s now-1584 satellites from an operating altitude of ~1100-1300 km (680-810 mi) to just 550 km (340 mi). Aside from further reducing the latency of communications, SpaceX also argues that “the principal reason” behind lowering the operational altitude of the first ~37% of Starlink satellites was “to [further] enhance the already considerable space safety attributes of [the] constellation.”
The safety benefits of a significantly lower orbit come into play when the potential dangers of space debris come into play. Put simply, satellites in lower orbits – particularly orbits below ~1000 km – end up experiencing far more drag from the upper vestiges of the Earth’s atmosphere, drag that acts like an automatic switch in the event that a given LEO satellite loses control. At 500 km and below, even small spacecraft with enough surface area will automatically reenter Earth’s atmosphere within just a few years (~5), while orbits around 1000-1500 km can stretch the time to reentry by a factor of 5-10, often taking decades. In other words, SpaceX’s desire to lower the initial operating orbit of ~1600 Starlink satellites would end up dramatically reducing the consequences the failure of one or several satellites would have on other spacecraft operating in the same orbital regions
“Rather than base its critiques on facts in SpaceX’s application or evidence in the record, OneWeb relies entirely on a collection of flawed assumptions cobbled together into an equally-flawed fictional scenario.
Overall, OneWeb rested its interference analysis entirely on incorrect assumptions and overlooked basic operational distinctions in the actual effect of the proposed SpaceX modification.”
A step further, there is a great deal more irony to be found in
SpaceX never explicitly says as much but it becomes eminently clear that the authors behind this latest response are rapidly losing patience with OneWeb’s years of shoddy attempts at legally suppressing competition. Given that lowering the orbits of almost 40% of SpaceX’s first round of Starlink satellites would end up working in
“OneWeb is now challenging SpaceX’s plan to reduce altitude to further enhance the space safety attributes of its system. Considering OneWeb’s frequent request that SpaceX take this exact step of moving farther away from OneWeb’s proposed constellation, one is left to wonder whether OneWeb would be satisfied with SpaceX operating at any altitude whatsoever.“
SpaceX, 02/21/2019
SpaceX takes a different approach
Aside from seemingly hollow concerns about the “safety” of SpaceX’s request to lower Starlink satellite orbits, OneWeb further criticized SpaceX for what it perceived to be “operational setbacks” after launching a duo of prototype Starlink spacecraft, known as Tintin A and B. In essence, it appears that OneWeb made the bizarre decision to cite officially-unconfirmed and often-disputed reports that SpaceX’s prototypes were unable to reach their originally planned operational orbits of ~1125 km, effectively trapped at the ~515 km orbit they were dropped off in as a result of their shared launch.
“SpaceX originally expected to operate these satellites at approximately 515 km and then raise them to an altitude of 1,125 km for further testing, but chose not to do so. From this, OneWeb leaps to an unsupported conclusion that SpaceX’s experimental satellites faced “operational setbacks.” To the contrary, SpaceX made a conscious decision to remain at this optimal altitude for further experimentation.
Far from facing setbacks, the experimental program has validated SpaceX technology – including the Hall-effect thruster propulsion system and the capabilities of the communications payload. Thus, unlike OneWeb, SpaceX has successfully tested its spacecraft design in advance of initiating deployment of its commercial constellation.”
SpaceX, 02/21/2019
While there was, in fact, some plausible evidence in mid-2018 that at least tentatively suggested that the spacecraft may have had issues with their first-generation ion thruster prototypes, it soon became clear that SpaceX and several major investors were sticking to the narrative that the Tintin twins were operating in fine health in orbit. It’s possible that SpaceX’s legal team and government relations executives are trying to aggressively spin on-orbit difficulties with the prototypes into good news, and the fact that SpaceX is requesting a modification to 550 km instead of Tintin A and B’s ~520 km orbits remains more than a little odd. However, including such brazen and open-faced lies in official legal/regulatory documents would be a deathwish SpaceX’s Starlink license in its entirety, while also begging for major SpaceX-aimed lawsuits and a general black cloud forming over the company.
If the FCC ultimately chooses to permit SpaceX’s Starlink license modification, the company’s first more or less operational Starlink launch – likely carrying anywhere from 10 to 30 satellites – could occur as early as late April or early May.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk
Celebrating SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Tesla Roadster launch, seven years later (Op-Ed)
Seven years later, the question is no longer “What if this works?” It’s “How far does this go?”
When Falcon Heavy lifted off in February 2018 with Elon Musk’s personal Tesla Roadster as its payload, SpaceX was at a much different place. So was Tesla. It was unclear whether Falcon Heavy was feasible at all, and Tesla was in the depths of Model 3 production hell.
At the time, Tesla’s market capitalization hovered around $55–60 billion, an amount critics argued was already grossly overvalued. SpaceX, on the other hand, was an aggressive private launch provider known for taking risks that traditional aerospace companies avoided.
The Roadster launch was bold by design. Falcon Heavy’s maiden mission carried no paying payload, no government satellite, just a car drifting past Earth with David Bowie playing in the background. To many, it looked like a stunt. For Elon Musk and the SpaceX team, it was a bold statement: there should be some things in the world that simply inspire people.
Inspire it did, and seven years later, SpaceX and Tesla’s results speak for themselves.
Today, Tesla is the world’s most valuable automaker, with a market capitalization of roughly $1.54 trillion. The Model Y has become the best-selling car in the world by volume for three consecutive years, a scenario that would have sounded insane in 2018. Tesla has also pushed autonomy to a point where its vehicles can navigate complex real-world environments using vision alone.
And then there is Optimus. What began as a literal man in a suit has evolved into a humanoid robot program that Musk now describes as potential Von Neumann machines: systems capable of building civilizations beyond Earth. Whether that vision takes decades or less, one thing is evident: Tesla is no longer just a car company. It is positioning itself at the intersection of AI, robotics, and manufacturing.
SpaceX’s trajectory has been just as dramatic.
The Falcon 9 has become the undisputed workhorse of the global launch industry, having completed more than 600 missions to date. Of those, SpaceX has successfully landed a Falcon booster more than 560 times. The Falcon 9 flies more often than all other active launch vehicles combined, routinely lifting off multiple times per week.
Falcon 9 has ferried astronauts to and from the International Space Station via Crew Dragon, restored U.S. human spaceflight capability, and even stepped in to safely return NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams when circumstances demanded it.
Starlink, once a controversial idea, now dominates the satellite communications industry, providing broadband connectivity across the globe and reshaping how space-based networks are deployed. SpaceX itself, following its merger with xAI, is now valued at roughly $1.25 trillion and is widely expected to pursue what could become the largest IPO in history.
And then there is Starship, Elon Musk’s fully reusable launch system designed not just to reach orbit, but to make humans multiplanetary. In 2018, the idea was still aspirational. Today, it is under active development, flight-tested in public view, and central to NASA’s future lunar plans.
In hindsight, Falcon Heavy’s maiden flight with Elon Musk’s personal Tesla Roadster was never really about a car in space. It was a signal that SpaceX and Tesla were willing to think bigger, move faster, and accept risks others wouldn’t.
The Roadster is still out there, orbiting the Sun. Seven years later, the question is no longer “What if this works?” It’s “How far does this go?”
Elon Musk
SpaceX’s xAI merger keeps legal liability and debt at arm’s length: report
The update was initially reported by Reuters.
SpaceX’s acquisition of xAI was structured to shield the rocket maker from xAI’s legal liabilities while eliminating any obligation to repay the AI startup’s billions in debt, as per people reportedly familiar with the transaction.
The update was initially reported by Reuters.
SpaceX merger structure
SpaceX completed its acquisition of xAI using a merger structure designed to keep the AI firm’s debt and legal exposure separate from SpaceX, Reuters noted, citing people reportedly familiar with the deal.
Rather than fully combining the two companies, SpaceX retained xAI as a wholly owned subsidiary. The structure, commonly referred to as a triangular merger, allows xAI’s liabilities, contracts, and outstanding debt to remain isolated from SpaceX’s balance sheet.
As a result, SpaceX is not required to repay xAI’s existing debt, which includes at least $12 billion inherited from X and several billion dollars more raised since then. The structure also prevents the transaction from triggering a change-of-control clause that could have forced immediate repayment to bondholders.
“In an acquisition where the target ends up as a subsidiary of the buyer, no prior liabilities of the target necessarily become liabilities of the parent,” Gary Simon, a corporate attorney at Hughes Hubbard & Reed, stated.
Debt obligations avoided
The SpaceX xAI merger was also structured to ensure it did not qualify as a change of control under xAI’s debt agreements. Matt Woodruff, senior analyst at CreditSights, noted that even if SpaceX might have qualified as a “permitted holder,” the merger’s structure removes any ambiguity.
“The permitted holder definition includes the principal investor and its affiliates, which of course is Musk. That would presumably mean SpaceX is treated as an affiliate, so a change of control is not required,” Woodruff stated. “There’s really no realistic possibility that this would trigger a default given the way it is structured.”
Despite the scale of the transaction, which values xAI at $250 billion and SpaceX at $1 trillion, the deal is not expected to delay SpaceX’s planned initial public offering (IPO) later this year.
SpaceX has not issued a comment about the matter as of writing.
Despite many recent rumors and various reports, Elon Musk confirmed today that SpaceX is not developing a phone based on Starlink, not once, but twice.
Today’s report from Reuters cited people familiar with the matter and stated internal discussions have seen SpaceX executives mulling the idea of building a mobile device that would connect directly to the Starlink satellite constellation.
Musk did state in late January that SpaceX developing a phone was “not out of the question at some point.” However, He also said it would have to be a major difference from current phones, and would be optimized “purely for running max performance/watt neural nets.”
Not out of the question at some point. It would be a very different device than current phones. Optimized purely for running max performance/watt neural nets.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 30, 2026
While Musk said it was not out of the question “at some point,” that does not mean it is currently a project SpaceX is working on. The CEO reaffirmed this point twice on X this afternoon.
Musk said, “Reuters lies relentlessly,” in one post. In the next, he explicitly stated, “We are not developing a phone.”
Reuters lies relentlessly
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 5, 2026
We are not developing a phone
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 5, 2026
Musk has basically always maintained that SpaceX has too many things going on, denying that a phone would be in the realm of upcoming projects. There are too many things in the works for Musk’s space exploration company, most notably the recent merger with xAI.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
A Starlink phone would be an excellent idea, especially considering that SpaceX operates 9,500 satellites, serving over 9 million users worldwide. 650 of those satellites are dedicated to the company’s direct-to-device initiative, which provides cellular coverage on a global scale.
Nevertheless, there is the potential that the Starlink phone eventually become a project SpaceX works on. However, it is not currently in the scope of what the company needs to develop, so things are more focused on that as of right now.
Celebrating SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Tesla Roadster launch, seven years later (Op-Ed)
SpaceX’s xAI merger keeps legal liability and debt at arm’s length: report
