News
SpaceX announces second Starlink satellite launch in two weeks
SpaceX has announced its second planned Starlink satellite in two weeks, sticking to a trend that could see the company launch more than a thousand communications satellites over the next 12 months.
Barely two weeks after SpaceX opened media accreditation for Starlink-2, the second launch of finalized ‘v1.0’ satellites and third dedicated launch overall, the company has announced that that late-December mission will be followed by another Starlink launch in January 2020. This tracks almost exactly with SpaceX’s reported plans for as many as 24 dedicated Starlink launches in 2020, a feat that would singlehandedly break SpaceX’s current record of 21 launches performed in a single year.
As previously discussed on Teslarati, SpaceX opened media accreditation for Starlink-2 on November 24th, confirming that the company hopes to complete one more 60-satellite Starlink launch before the end of 2019. That mission is currently targeted no earlier than (NET) late-December and would be SpaceX’s last launch of 2019 if current schedules hold.
Regardless of when it happens, there’s a strong chance that the 60 Starlink-2 satellites will make SpaceX the world’s largest individual satellite operator, potentially raising the number of satellites under the company’s command to ~170. According to SpaceX’s announcement, Starlink-3 – another 60-satellite mission – is now scheduled to launch no earlier than January 2020. If Starlink-2 is successful and no more v0.9 spacecraft drop out of the operational constellation, it can be said with certainty that Starlink-3 will unequivocally make SpaceX the world’s largest satellite operator.
Incredibly, if those schedules hold, SpaceX will have gone from two satellites in orbit to the world’s largest satellite constellation operator – by a large margin – in as few as nine months. In fact, after cresting that peak, it will take nothing short of a miracle for SpaceX to be usurped. The company hopes to launch as many as 24 Starlink missions in 2020 and is simply miles ahead of its competitors in its efforts to make high-performance orbital launches as efficient and affordable as possible.
If SpaceX and its executives are to be believed, as early as the very first dedicated Starlink launch (May 2019), the cost of launching Falcon 9 was already significantly less than the cost of its payload of 60 Starlink v0.9 satellite prototypes. CEO Elon Musk and COO Gwynne Shotwell have strongly implied that the per-satellite cost is already well below $500,000, meaning that the absolute worst-case internal cost of a Falcon 9 launch is less than $30M.
If, for example, each Starlink satellite already costs as little as $250,000 to build, it’s possible that SpaceX can already launch a dedicated 60-satellite mission (including launch costs) at an internal cost of less than $30M ($15M for launch, $15M for 60 satellites). Even in the former scenario, a single Starlink launch might cost SpaceX has little as $60M in total.
In a best-case scenario for megaconstellation competitor OneWeb, the company purchased up to 21 Soyuz launches from Roscosmos for “more than $1 billion”, translating to roughly $50 million per launch (rocket costs only). Meanwhile, OneWeb’s satellite design is far more traditional and Soyuz offers significantly less performance than Falcon 9, resulting in a cap of 34 ~150 kg (330 lb) per launch. Finally, OneWeb hopes to build each satellite for about $1M, translating to a best-case per-launch cost of ~$85 million. OneWeb aims to launch once per month after its first 34-satellite mission, currently NET January 30th, 2020.
This is all a very roundabout way of illustrating the fact that once SpaceX becomes the world’s largest satellite operator, nothing short of repeated launch failures or the company’s outright collapse will prevent it from retaining that crown for the indefinite future. Once OneWeb has completed all 21 of its planned Soyuz launches, a milestone unlikely to come before mid-2021, it will have a constellation of ~700 satellites.
Even if SpaceX falters and manages a monthly Starlink launch cadence over the next 13 months, the constellation could surpass OneWeb’s Phase 1 plans as early as Q3 2020 – up to as early as June 2020 if SpaceX manages a biweekly cadence. By the time OneWeb’s constellation is complete, SpaceX could potentially have more than 2000 operational satellites in orbit – perhaps ~600 metric tons of spacecraft compared to OneWeb’s ~100 metric tons.
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
