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.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
