CEO Elon Musk says SpaceX is churning out Starlink satellites faster than it can launch them, the best sign yet that the company is having some amazing success in what is already the most productive satellite factory in history.
Since SpaceX first revealed its radical flat-satellite Starlink design, stacking approach, and deployment mechanism back in May 2019, the company has successfully launched an incredible 300 satellites, ~290 of which are still functioning as intended. At this point, that means that Starlink is likely the largest satellite constellation in history by a factor of two, crushing the second largest’s ~150 satellites. Perhaps even more significant is the mass of SpaceX’s nine-month-old constellation, currently standing at more than 75 metric tons (165,000 lb) of satellites in orbit.
Despite the already awe-inspiring scale of SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, the company’s Starlink factory is already so successful that the company is now unable to launch the spacecraft as quickly as they’re built. Given that SpaceX has maintained an average of ~1.3 Starlink launches per month since November 2019, many of which suffered significant delays as a result of weather or minor hardware issues, this likely means that SpaceX is building dozens more satellites than it can launch, probably creating its own internal launch manifest backlog as those surplus spacecraft pile up.
Considering the fact that SpaceX has gone from two prototype spacecraft to the proud owner of the largest satellite constellation in history in less than nine months, the fact that the company’s Starlink factory is already outpacing its launch capacity is arguably a good sign. While it’s likely that weather and hardware-related launch delays on the last few Starlink missions have made it harder than expected to stick to plans for an average of two Starlink launches per month, SpaceX isn’t falling that short of its classically lofty ambitions (a bit less than one Starlink launch every two weeks).
SpaceX may now be the first company in history to chronically suffer from its factories building more satellites than it can launch in a given time frame. In those terms, a surplus of flight-ready satellites is actually a highly desirable “problem” to have. Competitor OneWeb, for example, was forced to delay its first 34-satellite launch by two months after its new Florida factory suffered several production delays.
SpaceX, on the other hand, has to build almost twice as many satellites per launch, has effectively launched 35% of OneWeb’s entire constellation (~650 satellites) in the last three months alone, and still has an apparent backlog of satellites ready to head to orbit. As of March 3rd, SpaceX’s fifth launch of 60 upgraded Starlink v1.0 satellites and sixth launch overall (Starlink V1 L5 or Starlink-6) is scheduled to lift off no earlier than March 14th after slipping from February 14th, March 4th, and March 11th. The mission’s most recent delays were caused by an issue discovered in the Falcon 9 second stage assigned to launch Cargo Dragon’s CRS-20 mission, triggering SpaceX to swap it with Starlink V1 L5’s unaffected second stage.
After Starlink V1 L5, SpaceX has more batches of 60 Starlink satellites that – given Musk’s comments – might already be stacked and ready for flight, both of which could potentially fly in March or April. In the midst of its Starlink launch ambitions, SpaceX has scheduled Florida’s first polar launch in half a century on March 30th, followed by a historic US Air Force launch and landing no earlier than (NET) April 27th.
If Cargo Dragon successfully lifts off this Friday, SpaceX will reach an average of ~1.9 weeks per launch, a cadence that – if maintained – would set the company up for at least 27 launches in 2020. With room for improvement after several weather-related days: so far, so good.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
