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.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
