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
Elon Musk fires back after Wikipedia co-founder claims neutrality and dubs Grokipedia “ridiculous”
Musk’s response to Wales’ comments, which were posted on social media platform X, was short and direct: “Famous last words.”
Elon Musk fired back at Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales after the longtime online encyclopedia leader dismissed xAI’s new AI-powered alternative, Grokipedia, as a “ridiculous” idea that is bound to fail.
Musk’s response to Wales’ comments, which were posted on social media platform X, was short and direct: “Famous last words.”
Wales made the comments while answering questions about Wikipedia’s neutrality. According to Wales, Wikipedia prides itself on neutrality.
“One of our core values at Wikipedia is neutrality. A neutral point of view is non-negotiable. It’s in the community, unquestioned… The idea that we’ve become somehow ‘Wokepidea’ is just not true,” Wales said.
When asked about potential competition from Grokipedia, Wales downplayed the situation. “There is no competition. I don’t know if anyone uses Grokipedia. I think it is a ridiculous idea that will never work,” Wales wrote.
After Grokipedia went live, Larry Sanger, also a co-founder of Wikipedia, wrote on X that his initial impression of the AI-powered Wikipedia alternative was “very OK.”
“My initial impression, looking at my own article and poking around here and there, is that Grokipedia is very OK. The jury’s still out as to whether it’s actually better than Wikipedia. But at this point I would have to say ‘maybe!’” Sanger stated.
Musk responded to Sanger’s assessment by saying it was “accurate.” In a separate post, he added that even in its V0.1 form, Grokipedia was already better than Wikipedia.
During a past appearance on the Tucker Carlson Show, Sanger argued that Wikipedia has drifted from its original vision, citing concerns about how its “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” framework categorizes publications by perceived credibility. As per Sanger, Wikipedia’s “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” list leans heavily left, with conservative publications getting effectively blacklisted in favor of their more liberal counterparts.
As of writing, Grokipedia has reportedly surpassed 80% of English Wikipedia’s article count.
News
Tesla Sweden appeals after grid company refuses to restore existing Supercharger due to union strike
The charging site was previously functioning before it was temporarily disconnected in April last year for electrical safety reasons.
Tesla Sweden is seeking regulatory intervention after a Swedish power grid company refused to reconnect an already operational Supercharger station in Åre due to ongoing union sympathy actions.
The charging site was previously functioning before it was temporarily disconnected in April last year for electrical safety reasons. A temporary construction power cabinet supplying the station had fallen over, described by Tesla as occurring “under unclear circumstances.” The power was then cut at the request of Tesla’s installation contractor to allow safe repair work.
While the safety issue was resolved, the station has not been brought back online. Stefan Sedin, CEO of Jämtkraft elnät, told Dagens Arbete (DA) that power will not be restored to the existing Supercharger station as long as the electric vehicle maker’s union issues are ongoing.
“One of our installers noticed that the construction power had been backed up and was on the ground. We asked Tesla to fix the system, and their installation company in turn asked us to cut the power so that they could do the work safely.
“When everything was restored, the question arose: ‘Wait a minute, can we reconnect the station to the electricity grid? Or what does the notice actually say?’ We consulted with our employer organization, who were clear that as long as sympathy measures are in place, we cannot reconnect this facility,” Sedin said.
The union’s sympathy actions, which began in March 2024, apply to work involving “planning, preparation, new connections, grid expansion, service, maintenance and repairs” of Tesla’s charging infrastructure in Sweden.
Tesla Sweden has argued that reconnecting an existing facility is not equivalent to establishing a new grid connection. In a filing to the Swedish Energy Market Inspectorate, the company stated that reconnecting the installation “is therefore not covered by the sympathy measures and cannot therefore constitute a reason for not reconnecting the facility to the electricity grid.”
Sedin, for his part, noted that Tesla’s issue with the Supercharger is quite unique. And while Jämtkraft elnät itself has no issue with Tesla, its actions are based on the unions’ sympathy measures against the electric vehicle maker.
“This is absolutely the first time that I have been involved in matters relating to union conflicts or sympathy measures. That is why we have relied entirely on the assessment of our employer organization. This is not something that we have made any decisions about ourselves at all.
“It is not that Jämtkraft elnät has a conflict with Tesla, but our actions are based on these sympathy measures. Should it turn out that we have made an incorrect assessment, we will correct ourselves. It is no more difficult than that for us,” the executive said.
Elon Musk
Music City Loop could highlight The Boring Company’s real disruption
The real story behind the tunneling startup’s Nashville tunnel project is the company’s targeted $25 million per mile construction cost.
Recent commentary on social media has highlighted what could very well prove to be The Boring Company’s real disruption.
The analysis was shared by tech watcher Aakash Gupta on social media platform X, where he argued that the real story behind the tunneling startup’s Nashville tunnel project is the company’s targeted $25 million per mile construction cost.
According to Gupta’s breakdown, Nashville’s 2018 light rail proposal was priced at roughly $200 million per mile. New York’s East Side Access project reportedly cost about $3.5 billion per mile, while Los Angeles Metro expansion projects have approached $1 billion per mile.
By comparison, The Boring Company has stated it can construct 13 miles of twin tunnels in the Music City Loop for between $240 million and $300 million total. That implies a cost near $25 million per mile, or roughly a 95% reduction from industry averages cited in the post.
Several technical departures from conventional tunneling allow the Boring Company to lower its costs, from its smaller 12-foot diameter tunnels to its fully electric Prufrock machines that are designed to mine continuously with no personnel inside the tunnel and their capability to “porpoise” for easy launch and retrieval.
Tesla and Space CEO Elon Musk responded to the post on X, stating simply that “Tunnels are so underrated.”
The Boring Company has seen some momentum as of late, with the company recently signing a construction contract in Dubai and the Universal Orlando Loop progressing. Recent reports have also pointed to tunnels potentially being constructed to solve traffic congestion issues near the Giga Nevada area.
While The Boring Company’s tunnels have so far been used for Loop systems publicly for now, Elon Musk recently noted that the tunneling startup’s underground passages would not be limited only to ride-hailing vehicles.
In a reply to a post on X which discussed the specifications of the Music City Loop, Musk clarified that “any fully autonomous electric cars can use the tunnels.” This suggests that vehicles potentially running systems like FSD Supervised, even if they are not Teslas, could be used in systems like the Music City Loop in the future.
Elon Musk fires back after Wikipedia co-founder claims neutrality and dubs Grokipedia “ridiculous”
Tesla Sweden appeals after grid company refuses to restore existing Supercharger due to union strike
