News
SpaceX loses dozens of new Starlink satellites to “geomagnetic storm”
SpaceX says that dozens of the 49 Starlink satellites aboard its most recent Starlink launch may have been doomed by a “geomagnetic storm” that arrived the day after.
In an update published on SpaceX.com, the company revealed that “up to 40 of the [49 Starlink V1.5] satellites [launched on February 3rd] will reenter or already have reentered the Earth’s atmosphere” after the “severity of the storm caused atmospheric drag to increase up to 50 percent higher” relative to past Starlink launches. The incident is likely the first time in spaceflight history that a geomagnetic storm – solar weather – has caused satellites to fail because of its effects on Earth’s atmosphere.
There’s some ambiguity in SpaceX’s statement as to how exactly the storm caused up to 40 Starlink satellites to fail or if those satellites actually failed, per se. According to SpaceX, a geomagnetic storm that began on February 4th caused “the atmosphere to warm and atmospheric density at [the mission’s] low deployment altitudes to increase [up to 50%],” thereby increasing the drag on each Starlink satellite by the same amount. SpaceX intentionally launches almost every batch of Starlink satellites to very low parking orbits with perigees (the point of the orbit closest to Earth) around 200 kilometers (125 mi).
At that altitude, both Falcon 9’s upper stage and malfunctioning Starlink satellites will naturally reenter Earth’s atmosphere in a matter of weeks or even days, thus guaranteeing that satellites that fail early on won’t become space debris. Only the Starlink satellites that pass initial testing in orbit are allowed to raise themselves to operational orbits around 550 kilometers (340 mi), where a failed satellite will instead take years to deorbit. Just 500 kilometers higher, natural decay takes decades or even centuries.
For Starlink 4-7, it’s ambiguous if the radiation environment created by the geomagnetic storm or days of exposure to the edge of the atmosphere actually damaged dozens of Starlink satellites beyond recovery or if they simply deorbited so quickly in the unusual environment that they fell past the point of no return. In the latter scenario, the incident is effectively an unforeseen fluke of nature – especially given that three-dozen other Starlink launches have run into no such issues in the last three years. In the fluke-of-nature scenario, it’s also unclear if SpaceX could have predicted – and thus prevented – the anomaly.
-->
SpaceX says it “commanded the satellites into a safe-mode where they would fly edge-on (like a sheet of paper) to minimize drag” as soon as it was aware of the issue but that “the increased drag…prevented the satellites from leaving safe-mode to begin orbit raising maneuvers.” Based on that phrasing, the most obvious explanation is that the added drag caused up to 40 of the satellites to fall far enough into the atmosphere that their ion thrusters would no longer be able to raise their orbits faster than the drag was lowering them. Raising their solar arrays into the position needed for maximum power generation (and thus maximum sustained thrust) would also drastically accelerate reentry.
The 40 satellites SpaceX believes will be lost likely cost the company anywhere from $10 million to $40 million to build, making for a very expensive lesson. The anomaly also means that SpaceX will likely need to factor in yet another weather condition – geomagnetic storms – into Starlink launch planning. If a bit more time could have saved Starlink 4-7, it’s possible that the company will also consider slightly raising the low parking orbits used for Starlink, trading slightly slower natural reentries to reduce the risk of losing dozens of brand new satellites again.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk gives nod to SpaceX’s massive, previously impossible feat
It was the booster’s 30th flight, a scenario that seemed impossible before SpaceX became a dominant force in spaceflight.
Elon Musk gave a nod to one of SpaceX’s most underrated feats today. Following the successful launch of the Transporter-15 mission, SpaceX seamlessly landed another Falcon 9 booster on a droneship in the middle of the ocean.
It was the booster’s 30th flight, a scenario that seemed impossible before SpaceX became a dominant force in spaceflight.
Elon Musk celebrates a veteran Falcon 9 booster’s feat
SpaceX completed another major milestone for its Smallsat Rideshare program on Friday, successfully launching and deploying 140 spacecraft aboard a Falcon 9 from Vandenberg Space Force Base. The mission, known as Transporter-15, lifted off two days later than planned after a scrub attributed to a ground systems issue, according to SpaceFlight Now. SpaceX confirmed that all payloads designed to separate from the rocket were deployed as planned.
The Falcon 9 used for this flight was booster B1071, one of SpaceX’s most heavily flown rockets. With its 30th mission completed, it becomes the second booster in SpaceX’s fleet to reach that milestone. B1071’s manifest includes five National Reconnaissance Office missions, NASA’s SWOT satellite, and several previous rideshare deployments, among others. Elon Musk celebrated the milestone on X, writing “30 flights of the same rocket!” in his post.
Skeptics once dismissed reusability as unfeasible
While rocket landings are routine for SpaceX today, that was not always the case. Industry veterans previously questioned whether reusable rockets could ever achieve meaningful cost savings or operational reliability, often citing the Space Shuttle’s partial reusability as evidence of failure.
-->In 2016, Orbital ATK’s Ben Goldberg argued during a panel that even if rockets could be reusable, they do not make a lot of sense. He took issue with Elon Musk’s claims at the time, Ars Technica reported, particularly when the SpaceX founder stated that fuel costs account for just a fraction of launch costs.
Goldberg noted that at most, studies showed only a 30% cost reduction for low-Earth orbit missions by using a reusable rocket. “You’re not going to get 100-fold. These numbers aren’t going to change by an order of magnitude. They’re just not. That’s the state of where we are today,” he said.
Former NASA official Dan Dumbacher, who oversaw the Space Launch System, expressed similar doubts in 2014, implying that if NASA couldn’t make full reusability viable, private firms like SpaceX faced steep odds.
News
Tesla AI and Autopilot VP hints that Robovan will have RV conversions
Tesla’s vice president of AI and Autopilot software, Ashok Elluswamy, hinted at the linitiative in a reply to Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan.
It appears that Tesla is indeed considering an RV in its future pipeline, though the vehicle that would be converted for the purpose would be quite interesting. This is, at least, as per recent comments by a Tesla executive on social media platform X.
Robovan as an RV
Tesla’s vice president of AI and Autopilot software, Ashok Elluswamy, hinted at the linitiative in a reply to Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan, who called for a startup to build RVs with Full Self-Driving capabilities. In his reply, Elluswamy simply stated “On it,” while including a photo of Tesla’s autonomous 20-seat people mover.
Tesla unveiled the Robovan in October 2024 at the “We, Robot” event. The vehicle lacks a steering wheel and features a low floor for spacious interiors. The vehicle, while eclipsed by the Cybercab in news headlines, still captured the imagination of many, as hinted at by X users posting AI-generated images of Robovan RV conversions with beds, kitchens and panoramic windows on social media platforms. One such render by Tesla enthusiast Mark Anthony reached over 300,000 views on X.
Elon Musk on the Robovan
Elon Musk addressed the Robovan’s low profile in October 2024, stating the van uses automatic load-leveling suspension that raises or lowers based on road conditions. The system maintains the futuristic look while handling uneven pavement, Musk wrote on X. The CEO also stated that the Robovan is designed to be very airy inside, which would be great for an RV.
“The view from the inside is one of extreme openness, with visibility in all directions, although it may appear otherwise from the outside. The unusually low ground clearance is achieved by having an automatic load-leveling suspension that raises or lowers, based on smooth or bumpy road conditions,” Musk stated.
-->Elluswamy’s response on X suggests that Tesla is considering a Robovan RV conversion, though it would be interesting to see how the company will make the vehicle capable of reaching campsites. The Robovan has a very low ground clearance, after all, and campsites tend to be in unpaved areas.
Tesla recently released Full Self-Driving (FSD) v14.2.1, its latest version, but the tinkering with Speed Profiles has perhaps gone too far.
We try to keep it as real as possible with Full Self-Driving operation, and we are well aware that with the new versions, some things get better, but others get worse. It is all part of the process with FSD, and refinements are usually available within a week or so.
However, the latest v14.2.1 update has brought out some major complaints with Speed Profiles, at least on my end. It seems the adjustments have gone a tad too far, and there is a sizeable gap between Profiles that are next to one another.
Tesla FSD v14.2.1 first impressions:
✅ Smooth, stress-free highway operation
✅ Speed Profiles are refined — Hurry seems to be limited to 10 MPH over on highways. Switching from Mad Max to Hurry results in an abrupt braking pattern. Nothing of concern but do feel as if Speed…— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 29, 2025
The gap is so large that changing between them presents a bit of an unwelcome and drastic reduction in speed, which is perhaps a tad too fast for my liking. Additionally, Speed Profiles seem to have a set Speed Limit offset, which makes it less functional in live traffic situations.
Before I go any further, I’d like to remind everyone reading this that what I am about to write is purely my opinion; it is not right or wrong, or how everyone might feel. I am well aware that driving behaviors are widely subjective; what is acceptable to one might be unacceptable to another.
Speed Profiles are ‘Set’ to a Speed
From what I’ve experienced on v14.2.1, Tesla has chosen to go with somewhat of a preset max speed for each Speed Profile. With ‘Hurry,’ it appears to be 10 MPH over the speed limit, and it will not go even a single MPH faster than that. In a 55 MPH zone, it will only travel 65 MPH. Meanwhile, ‘Standard’ seems to be fixed at between 4-5 MPH over.
This is sort of a tough thing to have fixed, in my opinion. The speed at which the car travels should not be fixed; it should be more dependent on how traffic around it is traveling.
It almost seems as if the Speed Profile chosen should be more of a Behavior Profile. Standard should perform passes only to traffic that is slower than the traffic. If traffic is traveling at 75 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, the car should travel at 75 MPH. It should pass traffic that travels slower than this.
Hurry should be more willing to overtake cars, travel more than 10 MPH over the limit, and act as if someone is in a hurry to get somewhere, hence the name. Setting strict limits on how fast it will travel seems to be a real damper on its capabilities. It did much better in previous versions.
Some Speed Profiles are Too Distant from Others
This is specifically about Hurry and Mad Max, which are neighbors in the Speed Profiles menu. Hurry will only go 10 MPH over the limit, but Mad Max will travel similarly to traffic around it. I’ve seen some people say Mad Max is too slow, but I have not had that opinion when using it.
In a 55 MPH zone during Black Friday and Small Business Saturday, it is not unusual for traffic around me to travel in the low to mid-80s. Mad Max was very suitable for some traffic situations yesterday, especially as cars were traveling very fast. However, sometimes it required me to “gear down” into Hurry, especially as, at times, it would try to pass slower traffic in the right lane, a move I’m not super fond of.
We had some readers also mention this to us:
The abrupt speed reduction when switching to a slower speed profile is definitely an issue that should be improved upon.
— David Klem (@daklem) November 29, 2025
After switching from Mad Max to Hurry, there is a very abrupt drop in speed. It is not violent by any means, but it does shift your body forward, and it seems as if it is a tad drastic and could be refined further.
Elon Musk gives nod to SpaceX’s massive, previously impossible feat
Tesla AI and Autopilot VP hints that Robovan will have RV conversions
