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 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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
