News
SpaceX Starlink, Starship programs crush funding goals, raise $2 billion
On the heels of a successful ~$350 million fundraising round, SpaceX has crushed its own expectations of a second, far more ambitious fundraiser, likely ensuring stable Starship and Starlink development for years to come.
First reported by Bloomberg on July 23rd, SpaceX’s second investment round of 2020 initially pursued $1 billion in funding, boosting the company’s valuation to $44 billion. Less than four weeks later, an August 18th SEC filing revealed that SpaceX had more than doubled its offering after it received overwhelming interest from prospective investors.
According to the regulatory document, SpaceX has now secured an incredibly $1.9 billion of a $2.06 billion of new funding for its Starlink and Starship programs, likely guaranteeing the health of both expensive development programs for 12-18+ months. Alternatively, the company could feasibly speed up either or both programs by a substantial amount with such a massive capital injection, shrinking the time required for Starship to reach orbit and begin operational launches and for Starlink to begin serving customers and generating revenue.
Prior to August 2020, SpaceX had raised a total of ~$3.4 billion over ~12 years of major funding rounds. In 2015, Google and Fidelity invested $1 billion in SpaceX – a round that remained the company’s biggest until now. Once again primarily driven by Fidelity, if SpaceX successfully closes the $2 billion series it kicked off last month, the company’s funding to date will jump nearly 60% in a single round.
Very few companies in history can claim to have closed an oversubscribed $2 billion funding round, making it easy to say that SpaceX is currently one of the hottest private investment opportunities in the world. There are several likely reasons that help explain why.
The track record of companies run by Elon Musk likely plays a huge role in investor confidence. Against all odds and in the face of hordes of detractors and naysayers, Tesla has shaped itself into the world’s premier electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer and managed to do so while still becoming a profitable (or at least sustainable) company. As a result, the value of $TSLA has exploded in 2019 and 2020, turning it into one of the most lucrative investments in years.
SpaceX has proven itself to be just as disruptive – if not more so – in the aerospace industry, designing, building, and fielding industry-leading rockets and spacecraft that are years ahead of “competition” and doing so with cost efficiency that competitors and national space agencies did not believe was possible. As a result, SpaceX now owns a vast majority of the global commercial launch market, is the only entity on Earth operating orbital-class reusable rockets, and is the only company capable of both building and launching its own satellite constellations.
From an investment perspective, the commercial launch market likely makes most eyes glaze over. Starlink, however, has the potential to tap into a large portion of a global communications market worth hundreds of billions to more than a trillion dollars. Building a satellite constellation large and capable enough to do so is an extraordinarily expensive ordeal no matter how efficient SpaceX is, but once it’s even partially complete, it could almost effortlessly magnify the company’s annual revenue by 5-10x.
Once Starlink is able to serve millions of customers, it could easily become self-sustaining. With tens of millions of customers, it could become a veritable cash cow, generating >$6 billion in annual revenue on annual upkeep and operating costs of $1-2 billion at most (conservatively estimating 24 Starlink launches per year for $50 million each).
This doesn’t even account for Starship, which could effectively create whole new markets for space access if SpaceX is able to achieve its ambitious design goals. For Starlink, though, Starship would be equally game-changing by making constellation deployment at least ~7 times more cost-effective than Falcon 9 (~400 vs. ~60 satellites per launch).
Regardless, with at least $1.9 billion soon to be in the bank, it should be clear that any doubt that SpaceX has the resources it needs to sustain its Starlink and Starship development programs for one or several more years is woefully misplaced.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
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.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
