News
SpaceX “intends” to start launching next-generation Starlink satellites in March
In a new Q&A with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), SpaceX says it still “plans” and “intends” to begin launching the next generation of Starlink satellites as early as March 2022.
In August 2021, SpaceX filed an application modification request with the FCC in a bid to change its plans for the next-generation “Gen2” Starlink constellation, which still aims to drastically improve and expand upon its first few phases. SpaceX filed the first unmodified Gen2 Starlink application with the FCC in May 2020, requesting permission to launch an unprecedented 30,000 satellites. While the size of the proposed constellation is extraordinary, the FCC has also been exceptionally slow to process it. Only five months after SpaceX submitted its Starlink Gen2 modification request and nineteen months after its original Gen2 application did the FCC finally accept it for filing, which means that it has taken more than a year and a half to merely start the official review process.
That extremely slow pace of work could pose problems for SpaceX’s characteristically ambitious deployment schedule.
In a January 7th, 2022 electronic filing in which SpaceX answered a dozen questions from the FCC, the company didn’t outright criticize the extreme sluggishness with which it was reviewing the application but the sentiment was still just below the surface throughout it. After noting that the FCC continues to ask for far more information from SpaceX than it does from other constellation applications, some of which have recently received licenses in spite of that, SpaceX states that it while it “filed its Gen2 Application more than nineteen months ago…and its Amendment nearly five months ago, they were accepted for filing only two weeks ago.”
It’s perhaps no coincidence that that inexplicable delay only came to an end two weeks after FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel – who SpaceX notes recently acknowledged a “need to speed the processing of applications to keep pace with…innovation” – was finally confirmed by the US Senate.
Most importantly, though, SpaceX used its extensive Q&A to reveal that it downselected to one of the two similar constellation configurations proposed in its Gen2 application modification. Specifically, SpaceX says it will continue to develop Configuration 1 only, which is designed and organized to take full advantage of the company’s next-generation Starship launch vehicle. That should simplify the licensing process for many Starlink competitors, which have sought to hobble SpaceX’s application with bizarre requests to the FCC and complained ad nauseam about how much of a burden analyzing two potential constellation layouts was for them. Now they will only have to consider one constellation layout, making SpaceX’s Gen2 constellation a more traditional – if still massive – proposal.
Clearly lacking a great deal of self-awareness about the irony of such of a question, the FCC also saw fit to ask SpaceX for “any updates regarding the expected timing of launches for the Gen2 system.” The timing of Starlink Gen2 launches is obviously unequivocally contingent upon FCC approval more than 19 months after SpaceX first submitted an application for said approval. Nonetheless, SpaceX politely answered the question, revealing that it had “informed Commission staff before filing its Amendment” in August 2021 that it “plans to have Gen2 satellites prepared for launch as soon as March 2022” and “still intends to begin launching [Starlink Gen2 satellites] as early as March 2022.”
Many readers and industry followers interpreted this as an implicit claim that Starship will be ready to launch Starlink Gen2 satellites as early as March 2022 – just another of the company’s detached-from-reality schedule estimates, in other words. That’s simply not the case, though. While SpaceX does confirm that it’s settling on a Starlink Gen2 configuration that will explicitly depend upon Starship for the full 29,988-satellite constellation’s timely, cost-effective deployment, FCC deployment and operations licensing are almost inherently unconcerned with how the constellation gets into space. For example, the original Gen2 application SpaceX modified last August never mentioned which launch vehicle would be responsible for launching tens of thousands of satellites. So long as the rocket is compliant with FCC regulations and has an active permit for any given launch, which is also the responsibility of a different bureau, the FCC is effectively indifferent about which rockets launch a given constellation.
In other words, while SpaceX has made it clear that Starlink Gen2 Configuration 1 is optimized for Starship, SpaceX will be free to launch Gen2 satellites on any rocket it wants if or when the FCC approves the constellation. Assuming that Starlink Gen2 satellites will still be able to fit inside a 5.2m (17 ft) wide payload fairing, that includes Falcon 9. Further, in early 2018, the FCC allowed SpaceX to launch the first two Starlink satellite prototypes before it had issued the company a license for the full constellation, making it clear that with the right paperwork, prospective constellation operators can launch and test prototype satellites before their full constellations are approved.
This is to say that there is nothing theoretically preventing SpaceX from again pursuing permission to launch a few prototype Starlink satellites (this time Gen2) before the FCC has finished reviewing and approving the whole constellation. In fact, anything less would actually be surprising and unusual for the company. When SpaceX says in January 2022 that it plans to have Gen2 satellites ready for launch by March 2022, it’s thus not hard to believe that that’s the truth. Perhaps it will take a month or two longer than planned to complete the prototypes, secure temporary FCC approval, and build and license a new E-band ground station, but it’s still believable that SpaceX will be ready and able to launch the first few Starlink Gen2 satellites on Falcon 9 within the next several months. Above all else, unless SpaceX has explicitly designed Starlink Gen2 satellites such that they no longer fit inside a Falcon fairing, nothing is forcing SpaceX to wait for Starship if Gen2 prototypes are ready to launch before the next-gen rocket.
Given that Starship will have to wait until at least March 2022 for its first orbital test flight after FAA review delays, it’s obviously implausible that the rocket will be ready to launch Starlink prototypes by then. Starship S20 – currently said by CEO Elon Musk to be the first space-bound prototype – doesn’t even have a payload bay. Unless SpaceX wants to wait several more months after that to kick off the flight-testing phase of Starlink Gen2 development, it’s likely that the first few satellites will launch on Falcon 9 – either alongside routine Starlink V1.5 launches or on their own.
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
