News
SpaceX’s first batch of Starlink satellites already in Florida for launch debut
According to an official statement, SpaceX’s satellite mass production is “well underway” and the first batch of operational Starlink satellites are already in Florida for their May 2019 launch debut.
Simultaneously, the FCC has granted SpaceX’s request to modify the deployment of its first 1584 Starlink satellites, permitting the company to lower their orbit from approximately 1150 km to 550 km (715 mi to 340 mi). A lower insertion orbit should improve Falcon 9’s maximum Starlink payload, while the lower operational orbit will help to further minimize any risk posed by orbital debris that could be generated by failed SpaceX satellites.
Above all else, SpaceX’s confirmation that the first batch of Starlink satellites are already in Florida drives home the reality that the company’s internet satellite constellation is about to become very real. Said constellation has long been the subject of endless skepticism and criticism, dominated by a general atmosphere of dismissal. There is no doubt that Starlink, as proposed, is an extraordinarily ambitious program that will cost billions of dollars to even begin to realize. SpaceX will have to find ways to affordably manufacture and launch ~11,900 satellites – together weighing something like 500 metric tons (1.1 million lbs) – in as few as nine years, start to finish.
As of November 2018, there are roughly 2000 satellites operating in Earth orbit, meaning that SpaceX’s full Starlink constellation would increase the number of functional satellites in orbit by a factor of almost seven. Just the first phase of Starlink (4409 satellites) would more than triple the number of working satellites in orbit. To meet the contractual requirement that SpaceX launch at least half of Starlink’s licensed satellites within six years of the FCC granting the constellation license, the company will need to launch an average of ~37 satellites per month between now and April 2024. By April 2027, SpaceX will either have to launch all ~2200 remaining Phase 1 satellites or risk forfeiture of its Starlink constellation license. Same goes for the ~7500 very low Earth orbit (VLEO) satellites making up Starlink’s second phase, albeit with their launch deadlines instead in November of 2024 and 2027.
In fact, if SpaceX wants to preserve the separate FCC license for its VLEO Starlink segment, it will actually need to build and launch an average of 100 satellites per month – 20+ per week – for the next five years. In no way, shape, or form is the monthly production of 100 complex pieces of machinery unprecedented. It is, however, entirely unprecedented – and by a factor of no less than 10 – in the spaceflight and satellite industries. Accomplishing that feat will require numerous paradigm shifts in satellite design, manufacturing, and operations. It’s hard to think of anyone more up to the challenge than SpaceX but it will still be an immensely difficult and expensive undertaking.
“Baby” steps
According to SpaceX, the first 75 operational Starlink satellites will be significantly less refined than those that will follow. Most notably, they will eschew dual-band (Ku and Ka) phased array antennas, instead relying solely on Ka-band communications. The second main difference between relates to “demisability”, referring to characteristics exhibited during reentry. The first 75 spacecraft will be less refined and thus feature a handful of components that are expected to survive the rigors of reentering Earth’s atmosphere, creating a truly miniscule risk of property damage and/or human injuries. Subsequent Starlink vehicles will incorporate design changes to ensure that 100% of each satellite is incinerated during reentry, thus posing a ~0% risk on the ground.
In a sense, the first 75 Starlink satellites will be an in-depth demonstration of SpaceX’s proposed constellation. Depending on how the satellites are deployed in orbit, SpaceX’s development team could potentially have uninterrupted access to the orbiting mini-constellation. There will also be constant opportunities to thoroughly test SpaceX’s network architecture for real, including general downlink/uplink traffic, surge management, satellite handoffs, and the laser interlinks meant to join all Starlink satellites into one giant mesh network.
SpaceX has yet to announce the precise number of Starlink satellites that will be aboard Falcon 9 on the rocket’s first dedicated internal launch. More likely than not, the constraining factor will be the usable volume of SpaceX’s payload fairing, measuring 5.2m (17 ft) in diameter. For Flight 1, 10-20 satellites is a reasonable estimate. Likely to weigh around 10,000 kg (22,000 lb) total, the first Starlink payload will be delivered to a parking orbit of ~350 km (220 mi), easily allowing Falcon 9 to return to SpaceX’s Florida Landing Zone or perform a gentle landing aboard drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY). The satellites will use their own electric Hall thrusters to reach their final destination (550 km).
According to SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, the first Falcon 9 fairing reuse may also happen during an internal Starlink launch, although it’s unclear if he was referring to Starlink Launch 1 (Starlink-1) or a follow-up mission later this year.
For now, SpaceX is targeting a mid-May for its first dedicated Starlink mission, set to launch from Launch Complex 40 (LC-40). Up next for LC-40 is SpaceX’s 17th operational Cargo Dragon launch (CRS-17), delayed from April 26th and April 30th to May 3rd.
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
