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.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
