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.
Elon Musk recently restated a fact that still defines SpaceX’s origin story: if Falcon 1’s fourth launch had failed, the company would not exist. The comment answered a reminder that after three consecutive losses, SpaceX had money for only one more attempt.
On X, Peter Diamandis said that the present-day acknowledgement of SpaceX’s success does not discount the rough start the company had. “Almost nobody remembers that Elon’s first rocket failed three times, and there was money for exactly only one more attempt.”
Musk said, “If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist.”
If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 30, 2026
In late 2008, the firm was nearly out of cash. Another failure would have ended payroll, closed the Hawthorne factory, and left the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as unfinished drawings.
The first flight lifted off from Omelek Island on 24 March 2006. Thirty-three seconds later, a corroded aluminum fitting on a fuel line leaked. Kerosene ignited around the Merlin engine, control was lost, and the vehicle came apart. The small DARPA payload, FalconSAT-2, survived the short flight only to land on a storage shed near the pad. Investigators later traced the fitting to a materials mix-up that should never have reached the rocket.
Flight 2, on 21 March 2007, looked far better at first. The first stage burned cleanly and handed off to the Kestrel-powered upper stage. The vehicle crossed 100 kilometers and reached a peak of about 289 kilometers. Then propellant slosh in the second-stage tank started a circular coning motion that grew until the engine shut down. Telemetry faded as the stage tumbled, and SpaceX had reached space but not orbit. Over the next year, the team redesigned everything from the ground up, including tanks, baffles, and the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C.
That engine flew on Flight 3 on 2 August 2008. The first stage performed almost perfectly and reached 217 kilometers. After main-engine cutoff, leftover fuel in the cooling channels produced a faint residual thrust, roughly 10 pounds per square inch of chamber pressure. On a Texas test stand, the effect was invisible beneath ambient air pressure. In vacuum it was enough to push the spent first stage back into the second stage after separation. The stages collided, the upper stage spun, and the mission was lost. Musk later said a slightly longer delay before staging would have saved the flight.
Six weeks later, the team assembled Flight 4 from remaining parts and flew it on 28 September 2008 at 23:15 UTC. The payload was Ratsat, a 165-kilogram aluminum mass simulator built in-house. Staging was delayed so residual thrust could decay. The Kestrel ignited, the fairing split away, and nine and a half minutes after liftoff the vehicle was in orbit. After a coast, the second stage restarted, settling into a 621-by-643-kilometer path at 9.35 degrees inclination. Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach Earth orbit. Musk called the insertion “middle of the bull’s-eye.”
SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success
That success unlocked NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services award later that year. Without it, there would have been no Falcon 9, no reusable first stages, and no Dragon cargo or crew flights to the International Space Station. Launch prices would have remained far higher. Starlink’s constellation would not exist; broadband from low Earth orbit would still be a paper concept.
Ride-share markets, high launch cadence, and the current pace of lunar and Mars hardware would be years behind. Communications, Earth observation, and the cost of putting anything into space would look more like the 2000s than the 2020s.
One extra second of residual thrust in August 2008 would have written a different decade.
News
Tesla surges Robotaxi fleet ahead of Cybercab launch event
Tesla’s unsupervised robotaxi fleet quietly grew sevenfold in three weeks just before Cybercab Day arrives.
Tesla’s unsupervised Robotaxi fleet has grown far faster than the public numbers suggested, and the timing lines up with the company’s biggest autonomy showcase yet. According to data compiled by the crowdsourced Robotaxi Tracker, Tesla now has nearly 200 vehicles operating without a safety monitor across Austin, Dallas and Houston, yielding a roughly 7X increase in about three weeks.
The jump lands four days before this week’s Tesla Cybercab launch event in Austin, where the company plans to show off its purpose-built, two-seat robotaxi with no steering wheel or pedals in a live commercial setting for the first time. Stick with us on X and Facebook for live reporting from the event.
The strategic logic is straightforward. Tesla has spent the past year scaling Robotaxi in small, deliberate steps, first widening geofences, then extending operating hours, then quietly growing fleet size, usually with little advance notice. Ashok Elluswamy told investors on the Q2 earnings call that the program had logged more than 380,000 unsupervised miles with zero notable incidents, a safety record the company has leaned on to justify moving slowly. Critics have used the flip side of that caution, a fleet that appeared stuck around two dozen vehicles for months, as evidence that Tesla’s driverless ambitions were outrunning its actual deployment.
A fleet quietly scaling to nearly 200 vehicles right before Cybercab Day undercuts that argument without Tesla having to say anything about it directly. It also sets up the event to do double duty. Rather than simply introducing new hardware, Tesla can point to an operating base of unsupervised Model Ys already running at meaningful scale, then argue the Cybercab, which uses the same underlying Full Self-Driving stack according to earlier coverage of the fleet’s software upgrades, is a natural next steps. Tesla has separately been registering the two-seat Cybercabs with Texas regulators this week, with the count climbing from seven to 45 in a matter of days.
The two ramps, one in software-driven Model Y deployment and one in physical Cybercab registrations, are happening in parallel rather than in sequence. That suggests Tesla wants Thursday’s event to land as proof that the robotaxi business is already running at scale, not just a reveal of a new vehicle shape. Whether the unsupervised numbers hold up once Cybercabs start mixing into the same fleet is the detail worth watching once the event wraps.
Tesla is lowering the monthly price of its Cybertruck Windshield Protection Plan from $35 to $25. The new rate will apply to the first payment on or after October 1, 2026. Tesla has told subscribers that all other benefits stay the same.
The plan covers unlimited repairs for chips and minor cracks on the front windshield. It also includes one full replacement every 12 months at no extra charge. Additional replacements in the same year carry a $100 deductible. Service is performed with Tesla glass and camera calibration, which matters because Autopilot and Full Self-Driving rely on those lenses behind the windshield.
Looks like Tesla is decreasing the Cybertruck windshield protection plan price from $35 to $25
Awesome https://t.co/MRlTU1XTbf pic.twitter.com/PWkMZt1H7G
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 28, 2026
There is no long-term contract. Coverage applies only to the front glass and does not include collision, vandalism, or weather damage.
The Cybertruck’s large, complex windshield has been more expensive to replace than glass on Tesla’s cars, which is why the pickup started at a higher subscription price. The $10 monthly cut reduces the annual cost from $420 to $300. Tesla has not publicly explained the change. The timing coincides with a year of claims data after the plan was extended to the Cybertruck.
Tesla sells several related protection products as monthly subscriptions through the Tesla app. The Windshield Protection Plan is also offered on other models. Model 3 and Model Y currently cost $16 a month. Those passenger-car rates are unchanged in the latest Cybertruck notice.
The Wheel and Tire Protection Plan covers road-hazard damage such as potholes, nails, and debris. Repairs are unlimited. Each wheel or tire replacement appointment has a $25 deductible. Pricing varies by model and whether the vehicle is a Performance version. Tesla is raising some of those rates on the same October 1 date.
Reported examples include Model 3 Performance moving from $16 to $24 and Model Y Performance from $20 to $24. Cybertruck wheel-and-tire coverage has been listed at $20 a month for the standard configuration.
A separate Luxe Package bundles four years of windshield coverage, wheel-and-tire coverage, and recommended maintenance on certain new Model S, Model X, and Cyberbeast orders, although the Model S and X are now defunct.
Tesla also offers an Extended Service Agreement after the basic vehicle warranty ends. That product covers many Tesla-manufactured parts rather than glass or tires. Together, the plans give owners a menu of targeted, cancel-anytime coverage instead of relying only on auto insurance.
Elon Musk says SpaceX would not exist if this crucial early launch failed
Tesla surges Robotaxi fleet ahead of Cybercab launch event
