News
SpaceX Starlink factory building satellites four times faster than closest competitor
An executive says that SpaceX’s Seattle-based Starlink factory is building satellites up to four times faster than OneWeb, the company’s closest competitor in the new low Earth orbit (LEO) internet space race.
Speaking at the SATELLITE 2020 Conference on March 9th, Jonathan Hofeller – VP of Starlink and Sales – revealed SpaceX’s extraordinary Starlink production rate just days before the company’s sixth planned 60-satellite launch. Now two days away from liftoff with Falcon 9 and its satellite stack already vertical at the launch pad, SpaceX will likely end the week with some 350 operational satellites in orbit – around twice as many as any other public or private constellation in history.
While SpaceX will have soon attempted five 60-satellite Starlink launches in four months, CEO Elon Musk recently revealed that the company is still building spacecraft faster than it can launch them. At a reported production rate of six satellites per day, that news is now incredibly unsurprising given that it means SpaceX could theoretically build the world’s second-largest satellite constellation (excluding Starlink) in a single month. To be clear, though, the company has created one of the best possible problems the Starlink program could have.
First revealed in late 2019 and reiterated in recent months, SpaceX executives have consistently noted that the company plans to attempt some 20-24 dedicated Starlink launches in 2020 alone. As previously noted on Teslarati, 20-24 launches could put enough Starlink satellites in orbit for SpaceX to realistically begin serving customers almost anywhere on Earth.
“In recent months, SpaceX has indicated that Starlink will need at least 24 dedicated launches – 1440 satellites – to achieve uninterrupted global coverage, while as few as six launches (300 satellites) could enable service for customers in the northern US and southern Canada.
COO and President Gwynne Shotwell believes SpaceX can begin serving customers as early as mid-2020, ultimately maturing into an experienced internet service provider (ISP) in 2021. With almost 120 satellites already in orbit, if SpaceX can manage an average of 1.5 to 2 Starlink launches per month in 2020, the broadband internet constellation should have near-global coverage by the end of the year.”
Teslarati.com — December 20th, 2019
Two and a half months into 2020, it’s entirely possible that SpaceX already has several launches worth of Starlink satellites waiting for their Falcon rockets. Weather and hardware-related delays have impacted each of the three 2020 Starlink launches SpaceX has completed thus far, pushing its internal manifest back by at least several weeks. SpaceX could be strategically slowing work at its factory based on predictions of rocket availability in the next few months, avoiding a massive stockpile of Starlink satellites. Still, it’s just as likely that its Seattle HQ has been churning out several satellites per day for weeks or even months. Even if SpaceX has only averaged four satellites per day over the last three months, it would likely have a backlog of 4+ launches (~240 satellites).
Bigger, cheaper, faster
Compared to OneWeb, SpaceX Starlink satellites thus weigh 75% more, offer at least 50% more bandwidth for internet services, can be manufactured for less than half the cost in a quarter of the time, and likely cost – per satellite – at least three times less to launch. These are the fundamental, unavoidable benefits of SpaceX’s preferred strategy of vertical integration writ large. End-product quality and functionality held equal, it’s numerically impossible for a more traditional company like OneWeb to compete head-to-head with a vertically-integrated competitor like SpaceX.
Thankfully, though, the supply for LEO-based internet services is currently so small – and the demand so large – that OneWeb will almost certainly be able to find a niche and survive. For now, the fact remains that SpaceX is all but guaranteed to continue building and launching far more satellites than OneWeb — all for a dramatically lower cost.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
