News
SpaceX’s Starlink satellites “happy and healthy” as Elon Musk fires managers and VP
Reuters is reporting that SpaceX’s Starlink internet satellite constellation project experienced significant organizational upheaval earlier this year, triggered by fundamental disagreements between CEO Elon Musk and executives overseeing Starlink as to how exactly SpaceX should approach the complex system’s development.
Despite the report’s primary focus on reorganization and Musk’s decision to simply fire 5+ key executives, SpaceX employees that spoke with Reuters were of the opinion that the two demo satellites – named Tintin A and B – are operating nominally in orbit more than half a year after launch.
The 2 test sats launched in Feb, Tintin A and B, seem to be healthy. "We’re talking with them every time they pass a ground station, dozens of times a day," one employee said. In the first week they streamed "4k YouTube and played ‘Counter-Strike: GO’ from Hawthorne to Redmond."
— Joey Roulette (@joroulette) October 31, 2018
Musk apparently believed that Starlink’s development timeline ought to be far shorter than certain senior executives overseeing the program were planning for. As a result of continuing success with the first two prototype satellites that launched in March 2018, a SpaceX engineer paraphrased Musk as being of the opinion that Starlink “can do the job with cheaper and simpler satellites, sooner.”
Rajeev Badyal, Vice President of SpaceX’s satellite program before being fired by Musk in June 2018, apparently wanted another three full iterations of prototype satellites to be launched and tested prior to beginning serious mass-production and launching the first real batch of Starlink satellites. While his extremely cautious approach may have had undeniable long-term benefits, it would also be a major hindrance in a field now rife with competitors like Telesat, OneWeb, LeoSat, and more, all eager to be first to offer internet services from low Earth orbit (LEO).
-
- SpaceX’s first two Starlink prototype satellites are pictured here before their inaugural launch, showing off a thoroughly utilitarian bus and several advanced components. (SpaceX)
-
- One of the first two prototype Starlink satellites separates from Falcon 9’s upper stage, February 2018. (SpaceX)
Prior to joining SpaceX in 2014, Badyal – like dozens of others now working on SpaceX’s Starlink constellation – worked at Microsoft for almost two decades, developing the consumer electronics and software company’s hardware programs (Zune, Xbox, Surface, etc.). In retrospect, it may not come as a huge surprise that a senior hardware development manager at Microsoft might be moderately risk-averse or at least methodical – while Surface and other more modern hardware programs have more functional iterative life cycles (usually annual), Xbox infamously spent nearly seven years between the launch of the Xbox 360 and Xbox One.
On the ground hardware side of Starlink development, user terminals, ground terminals, and other high-volume networking equipment could certainly benefit from someone like Badyal’s extensive experience developing high-volume consumer electronics like Xbox, but the Starlink satellites themselves are a different story. As a technology essentially without precedent, it could ultimately be almost anachronistically expensive to ‘refine’ the design of constellations of hundreds or thousands of high-bandwidth internet satellites before ever actually building and operating such a system.
A clash of approaches – Musk vs. Silicon Valley
What Musk instead seems to prefer – as demonstrated through his strategic direction of Tesla and SpaceX – is an approach where hardware development projects explicitly avoid striving for perfection with the first general iteration of a new system. Tesla did not spend years prototyping and performing limited tests in secret before building Model 3 as their first car ever – high-volume desirable electric vehicles simply did not exist. With SpaceX, Musk chose to explicitly develop a very small operational rocket – Falcon 1 – rather than very tediously attempting to go from scratch to Falcon 9 or BFR.
For Starlink, a Musk-style development program would fast-track a bare-minimum baseline for the satellite constellation and its ground systems, mass-producing and launching hardware that would inevitably be lacking in many ways but would still be able to act as a proving ground for the broader concepts at stake. One step further, the FCC’s Starlink constellation grant depends on an odd but unwavering requirement that SpaceX (or any other prospective LEO constellation-operator) launch at least 50% of all of any planned constellation within six years of receiving a license.
-
- SpaceX’s first Starlink prototypes launched in late February aboard a flight-proven Falcon 9 booster. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Falcon 9 Block 5 will be absolutely critical to the success (and even the basic completion) of Starlink. (Tom Cross)
-
- B1048 returns to port on drone ship JRTI after its successful July 2019 launch debut. (Pauline Acalin)
For SpaceX, that means that the basic ability to commercially operate Starlink is fundamentally at risk unless the company can somehow launch a minimum of 2213 (and up to ~5950) Starlink satellites between 2018 and 2024, an almost unfathomable challenge. Assuming ~500kg per satellite and perhaps 20 satellites per Falcon 9 launch, completing 50% of Starlink by 2024 would demand – without interruption – a minimum of one launch every two weeks for five years, mid-2019 to mid-2024. As such, every month spent prototyping and refining can essentially be viewed as a month where SpaceX didn’t launch dozens of Starlink satellites in pursuit of initial operational capabilities.
The news coming from Reuters’ reporting is ultimately a very positive look at Starlink, aside from Musk’s characteristically brusque and uncompromising approach to program management and leadership. Employees spoke proudly of the operational health and overall success of the two Tintin satellites already on orbit, noting that “they’re happy and healthy [and functioning as intended], and we’re talking with them [dozens of times a day] every time they pass a ground station”. Contrary to tenuous evidence to that suggested one of the two satellites had suffered an anomaly, preventing it from operating its electric thrusters, it appears that both satellites are doing just fine.
-
- SpaceX is already fairly experienced with launching multi-satellite missions and building custom payload adapters. (NASA)
-
- During a normal Iridium NEXT launch, two groups of five satellites are stacked on top of each other. Here, the top stack was replaced by NASA/DLR’s GRACE-FO spacecraft. (NASA)
-
- A spectacular view of Iridium NEXT satellites during orbital deployment. Starlink deployment will be even more of a spectacle. (SpaceX)
Up next for Starlink is the launch of a second batch of demonstration satellites, expected to occur “in short order” according to an official SpaceX comment on the matter.
“Given the success of our recent Starlink demonstration satellites, we have incorporated lessons learned and re-organized to allow for the next design iteration to be flown in short order.” – SpaceX spokesperson Eva Behrend
Musk’s ultimate hope with this reorganization is to push Starlink to begin operational satellite launches as early as mid-2019, an ambitious goal to say the least. Understandably, the intent with such an expedited schedule would be to continuously modify, update, and improve Starlink satellite, terminal, and network designs at the same time as they are being built and operated. Much like SpaceX and Tesla, this helps to ensure that the ultimate result of development is a rapid initial product offering eventually followed by a highly-optimized ‘finished’ product.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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
