News
SpaceX’s Starlink satellites spark fights between astronomy, spaceflight fans
Just a handful of hours after SpaceX successfully placed all 60 of its first Starlink v0.9 satellites in orbit, ground observers began capturing and sharing spectacular nighttime views of the spacecraft. Soon after, fans and practitioners of astronomy and spaceflight began bickering.
The topic of concern: light pollution, not from lights on the ground but from sunlight-reflecting satellites in orbit. Immediately after launch, the ‘train’ of 60 Starlink satellites were undeniably spectacular, easily visible to the eye and as bright or brighter than the brightest stars in the sky. For the most part, reactions seemed to lean more towards awe than concern, but it didn’t take long for people to begin extrapolating from 60 satellites to Starlink’s peak of ~11,900 (an increase of 200X), and some responses began to paint SpaceX’s constellation in a more negative light.
Fans, communicators, and practitioners of astronomy quickly grew into the loudest voice in the room, as fans of SpaceX and Elon Musk started to engage, ultimately making it clear that low Earth orbit (LEO) megaconstellations could soon become a highly controversial topic for unexpected reasons. As is typical of humans in the age of social media, the gentlest hint of controversy and criticism swelled into stone-throwing between two crystallized sides unwilling to breathe and engage in civil debate.
Meanwhile, barely 24-48 hours had elapsed since the first Starlink satellite reached orbit – not their final orbit (550 km) but an insertion orbit at ~450 km. Almost immediately, serious observers noted that the Starlink satellites were rapidly spreading out and dimming as they got to work raising their orbits with onboard ion thrusters. Situated in an urban area, Teslarati photographer Tom Cross described the Starlink ‘train’ as “way too faint to capture” on the evening of May 25th, although they were still subtly visible to the naked eye.
From a practical perspective, it should come as little to no surprise that Starlink satellites are visible – even highly visible – from the ground, particularly in areas with minimal light pollution. SpaceX’s flat-panel design and the location of their antennas means that each satellite will have a metallic, shiny surface constantly facing towards the ground, perfect for reflecting sunlight. Additionally, every satellite has a fairly large solar array, likely measuring about 3m by 12m (10ft by 40 ft). Combined, the 60 satellites have a collective solar array area of more than 2000 square meters (21,500 ft^2), nearly the same size as the International Space Station’s football field-sized arrays.
Here’s a 30 second long exposure of #starlink satellites marching across the sky. I saw them, framed this up, and started it as quickly as I could so there is zero creativity or planning here but I GOT THEM! Aghhhh. @elonmusk — you seen your satellites overhead yet? pic.twitter.com/91KzFKOUq1— ?Trevor Mahlmann (@TrevorMahlmann) May 25, 2019
An astronomical disruption?
However, the visibility of SpaceX’s Starlink satellites for laypeople was never the most contentious concern or a leader of vitriolic responses. Rather, even if the ~12,000 proposed Starlink satellites are minimally visible to the naked eye, they will almost certainly still appear in the sort of long-exposure images used by astronomers to catalog, track, and better understand the universe. This is a reasonable concern and one that should come as little to no surprise, given that astronomy already deals with the thousands of operational and defunct satellites, rocket upper stages, and pieces of large space debris already in Earth orbit.
The problem with giant LEO constellations is that satellites in LEO can appear far brighter and far larger than the traditional geostationary satellites used to provide communications services. This is a critical benefit for the spacecraft, as geostationary distances (~36,000 km, 22,000 mi) create major latency (lag) problems for communications networks.
Will Starlink (alongside other constellations from Telesat, OneWeb, and LeoSat) destroy the night sky as we know it, ruining the perfectly untouched cosmos for the rest of eternity? Will Starlink immediately create a global utopia by affordably connecting every single human on Earth to the internet, all while being completely invisible and undetectable from the ground? No, no, no, and no. As with 99.99% of things, the reality will fall somewhere in the middle and its consequences and benefits will be far more grey than black and white.
Update: Elon Musk addresses the controversy over Starlink light pollution
As more levelheaded spaceflight fans and astronomers thankfully point out, we need to wait weeks – if not months or even years – to actually understand the potential impact LEO mega-constellations might have on science and society. It would likely be beneficial for SpaceX – thus far silent – to open a dialogue with those concerned about those potential impacts. It would also serve astronomy well to find ways to cope with space-based infrastructure meant to eventually benefit tens of millions to billions of people, ranging from astronomers themselves to underprivileged members of developing societies. To accept tradeoffs and make compromises is to be human.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Investor's Corner
NASA taps SpaceX to launch the telescope that could unlock new worlds
NASA’s Roman Space Telescope heads to orbit this August aboard SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with massive scientific ambitions.
SpaceX is set to play a central role in one of NASA’s most anticipated science missions in years. The company’s Falcon Heavy rocket, currently the most powerful operational launch vehicle in the world, will carry the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope into orbit on August 30 from Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Roman is now in final preparations inside the Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility, where on June 26 technicians used a crane to lift the observatory into a specialized stand for fueling and pre-launch testing.
Roman is named after Nancy Grace Roman, NASA’s first chief of astronomy, whose career helped shape how the agency approaches space science.
NASA chose SpaceX Falcon Heavy because of Roman’s needs to reach a specific orbit far from Earth, well beyond where a standard Falcon 9 can deliver it. The Falcon Heavy, which first flew in 2018, has since become NASA’s go-to option for missions that need serious muscle without the cost and complexity of older launch systems.
Celebrating SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Tesla Roadster launch, seven years later (Op-Ed)
Roman will carry a field of view at least 100 times wider than the Hubble Space Telescope, meaning it can photograph enormous swaths of the universe in a single shot rather than the narrow slices Hubble captures. That difference in scale is significant. While Hubble reshaped our understanding of the cosmos over 30 years, Roman is built to work faster and wider, surveying hundreds of millions of galaxies at once.
One of Roman’s most compelling capabilities is its potential to discover and photograph planets orbiting stars outside our solar system, and with enough precision to directly image planets that would otherwise be lost. That means scientists could study the atmosphere and surface characteristics of distant worlds rather than simply confirming they exist. Combined with Roman’s sweeping field of view, the telescope could detect thousands of exoplanets, and some of those planets may be in habitable zones where liquid water could exist. No telescope currently in operation has this level of power and capability. That capability alone could change what we know about other worlds, and perhaps finally answer the question: are we the only intelligent lifeforms in existence?
What Roman actually finds once it reaches orbit is an open question, and that is exactly what makes this launch worth watching.
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
Tesla analyst says Full Self-Driving is about to have its iPhone moment
