News
SpaceX Starlink ‘space lasers’ successfully tested in orbit for the first time
SpaceX has revealed the first successful test of Starlink satellite ‘space lasers’ in orbit, a significant step along the path to an upgraded “Version 2” constellation.
In simple terms, those “lasers” are a form of optical (light-based) communication with an extremely high bandwidth ceiling, potentially permitting the wireless, high-speed transfer of vast quantities of data over equally vast distances. Of the ~715 Starlink satellites SpaceX has launched over the last 16 months, some 650 are operational Version 1 (v1.0) spacecraft designed to serve a limited group of customers in the early stages of the constellation. Prior to SpaceX’s September 3rd announcement, it was assumed that none of those satellites included laser interlinks, but now we know that two spacecraft – presumably launched as part of Starlink-9 or -10 in August – have successfully tested prototype lasers in orbit.
Ever since CEO Elon Musk first revealed SpaceX’s satellite internet ambitions in early 2015, those plans have included some form of interconnection between some or all of the thousands of satellites the company would need to launch. While a functional low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite internet constellation doesn’t intrinsically need to have that capability to function or be successful, inter-satellite links offer some major benefits in return for the added spacecraft complexity and cost.
The single biggest draw of laser interlinks is arguably the major reduction in connection latency (ping) they can enable compared to a similar network without it. By moving a great deal of the work of networking into orbit, the data transported on an interlinked satellite network would theoretically require much less routing to reach an end-user, physically shortening the distance that data has to travel. The speed of light (300,000 kilometers per second) may be immense but even on the small scale of the planet Earth, with the added inefficiencies inherent in even the best fiber optic cables, routing data to and from opposite ends of the planet can still be slowed down by high latency.
Without interlinks, Starlink and internet constellations like it function by acting more like a go-between for individual users and fixed ground stations that then connect those users to the rest of the Internet. Under that regime, the performance of constellations is inherently filtered through the Earth’s existing internet infrastructure and is necessitates the installation of ground stations relatively close to network users. If a satellite without interlinks can ‘see’ (and thus communicate with) customers but can’t ‘see’ a ground station from the same orbital vantage point, it is physically incapable of connecting those communications with the rest of the internet.
This isn’t a showstopper. As SpaceX’s very early Starlink constellation has already demonstrated through beta testers, the network is already capable of serving individual users 100 megabits per second (Mbps) of bandwidth with latency roughly comparable to average wired connections. The result: internet service that is largely the same as (if not slightly worse and less convenient than) existing fiber options. To fully realize a LEO internet constellation’s potential of being much better than fiber, high-performance laser interlinks are thus a necessity.
With laser interlinks, the aforementioned connection dropout scenario would be close to impossible. In the event that an active satellite finds itself serving customers without a ground station in reach, it would route those forlorn data packages by laser to a different satellite with immediate ground station access. One step better, with enough optimization, user communications can be routed by laser to and from the ground stations physically closest to the user and their traffic destination. With a free-floating network of satellites communication in vacuum along straight lines, nothing short of a direct, straight fiber line could compete with the resulting latency and routing efficiency.
Interlinks offer one last significant benefit: by sacrificing latency, an interlinked network will be able to service a larger geographic area by allowing the connections of users far from ground stations to be routed through other satellites to the nearest ground station. Large-scale ground station installation and the international maze of permitting it requires can take an inordinate amount of time and resources for nascent satellite communications constellations
SpaceX’s fully-interlinked Starlink Version 2 constellation is targeting latency as low as 8 milliseconds and hopes to raise the bandwidth limit of individual connections to a gigabit or more. As soon as a viable Starlink v2.0 satellite design has been finalized and tested in orbit, SpaceX will likely end v1.0 production and launches, entering the second phase of iteration after the v0.9 to v1.0 jump.
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
