News
SpaceX’s first Starlink V2 satellites spotted at Starbase
On Monday, SpaceX was spotted loading some of the first Starlink V2 satellite prototypes into a custom mechanism designed to refill Starship’s magazine-like payload bay.
While it’s not the first time SpaceX has used the dispenser, the photos captured by photographer Kevin Randolph for the YouTube channel ‘What about it!?’ are the first to clearly show real prototypes of the next generation of Starlink satellites. According to CEO Elon Musk, those Starlink Gen2 or V2 satellites will be “at least 5 times better”, “an order of magnitude more capable,” and about four times heavier than current (V1.5) Starlink satellites.
The potential of the new satellite bus design paired with Starship’s massive fairing and lift capacity could dramatically improve the viability and cost-effectiveness of SpaceX’s Starlink constellation. First, though, the company needs to launch and qualify prototypes of the new satellite design and verify that all associated ground support equipment works as expected.
Due to the designs SpaceX has settled on for both Starlink V2.0 satellites and the Starship hardware that will deploy them in orbit, that ground support equipment and the general path each satellite will take from its arrival at the launch facilities to liftoff on a Starship are wildly different than anything done before. July 18th’s photos (and screenshots from a recent factory tour) confirm that the next-gen satellites are basically enlarged versions of their smaller predecessors, which are also narrow rectangles.
The new spacecraft have a very similar aspect ratio but are around seven meters long and three meters wide (23′ x 10′) instead of approximately 3m x 1.5m (10′ x 5′). They also appear to be about twice as thick and reportedly weigh ~1,250 kilograms to V1.5’s estimated 310 kilograms (~2,750 lb vs ~680 lb). As a result, the V2.0 bus will have about 7-10 times more usable volume than V1.0 and V1.5. It should be no surprise, then, that each next-gen satellite could offer almost magnitude more usable bandwidth.
Assuming that Starship launch costs are roughly the same as Falcon 9 and that Starship can only launch a similar 50-60 satellites at once, an almost 10x performance improvement from a satellite that only weighs five times as much relative to V1.5 would make Starlink V2.0 constellation deployment at least twice as cost-efficient to deploy even if Starship could only launch the same mass (~16 tons) as Falcon 9. In fact, a recent SpaceX render suggests that Starship will be able to carry 54 Starlink V2.0 satellites initially. As a result, even if Starship costs five times more to launch than Falcon 9 (~$75M), it will still be cheaper per unit of bandwidth launched. If Starship eventually reaches marginal launch costs as low as Falcon 9 (~$15M), the cost of Starlink launches (not including satellite cost) could plummet from about $15,000 per gigabit per second (Gbps) to around $1,500-2,500 per Gbps depending on individual satellite bandwidth.
The total cost of the network will be higher, of course, and dependent on more variables, but the combination of Starship and V2.0 satellites could eventually reduce the relative cost of Starlink launch operations by a factor of 5-10. If Starlink V2.0 satellites are actually cheaper to manufacture per unit of throughput than V1.5 satellites, which is not implausible once mass-production begins, those savings will deepen. If Starship can quickly mature and becomes fully and efficiently reusable, the equation could become even more favorable.
Still, loading Starship with satellites is going to be no minor feat and will add a significant amount of complexity and risk relative to the methods SpaceX currently uses for Falcon 9 Starlink launches. SpaceX’s initial Starship payload bay design is a roughly square enclosure that slots just above the ship’s uppermost tank dome and below its inward-curving nosecone. Per a render of the mechanism released last month, it measures about nine meters (30 ft) tall and eight meters (26 ft) wide, can store up to 54 Starlink V2.0 satellites, and dispenses pairs of satellites through a relatively tiny payload bay door that’s only wide enough for the task at hand.
Starship’s airframe is almost exclusively welded together. Once the nosecone and payload bay are installed on top of a ship, the only way to access the interior of the bay is through the dispenser door or an even smaller human-sized access port. SpaceX’s solution: build a mobile satellite storage box that will be lifted by crane (or launch tower arms) dozens to hundreds of feet off the ground and use the payload bay’s own dispenser mechanism in reverse to load satellites like bullets into a giant magazine. If that sounds simple, which it shouldn’t, it’s not.
It’s great, then, to see SpaceX apparently practicing that process with some of the first Starlink V2.0 prototypes. In photos captured on July 18th, workers were spotted loading several satellites into the only existing ‘loader’ inside one of Starbase’s three main factory tents. Each satellite was lifted using a load-spreader device that was presumably required to prevent the extremely long and thin satellites from bending too much in the middle during the lift. It’s unclear whether SpaceX is solely practicing the process or if it’s actually installing satellites well in advance for loading onto a Starship prototype.
Starship S24 is in the middle of preflight testing and has already been greeted by the satellite loader once before, possibly to load a prototype or mockup before ground testing began. Starship S25 appears to be at least a month or two away from completion, though its nose and payload bay section are much closer.
Elon Musk
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.
Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.
The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.
The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.
Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing
Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.
Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.
The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.
Tesla revealed plans to develop its own maps internally to fix Navigation issues and give owners more control over their routing.
On the company’s Q3 2026 Earnings Call, a question was asked about FSD Navigation issues, particularly speed limit recognition, parking, and routing. These are issues that surface from version to version and seem to be seriously challenging for Tesla’s AI team to resolve.
Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said in response to the question:
“You’re totally right that we shouldn’t be depending on external people’s maps. So we are building our own maps, but not like the same way as OneMoreMap. We are building an entirely new architecture with essentially AI-based mapping and navigation.”
He continued:
“It’s going to be super awesome. It’s going to be integrated with voice. You can talk to it, ask for different routes. It’s going to learn your personalized preferences, plus the fleet preferences. The collective intelligence of all the cars is going to flow into making the maps and navigation super cool.”
Elluswamy said this issue should be confronted, and the mapping should be available for people by the time the v15 release starts deploying to customers.
“And over the next several months,” he added, “it’s just going to take over all of the navigation functions, parking, destination handling. And it will know you better than you know yourself in some regard for the driving task, and then handle it fully.”
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Navigation is perhaps the most notable complaint with FSD, and although it has gotten better, it is still flawed. Much of the time, FSD will take people on routes that are not preferred by the driver, but Tesla tried to combat this with a routing feature in the Summer 2026 Update.
Tesla currently relies on Google for map data, but it is sort of counterintuitive to believe the company would rely on a third party for this. These improvements will be welcome, as routing and navigation have been such a pain point for so many owners for so long.
Quotes via Motley Fool
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
