News
SpaceX COO offers harsh critique of Falcon 9, Starlink, and Starship’s competitors
SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell says that the company’s Starlink internet constellation is years ahead of competition from OneWeb and Amazon. A step further, the executive also voiced several unprecedently harsh critiques of Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin and Boeing and Lockheed Martin (ULA).
SpaceX President and Chief Operating Officer Gwynne Shotwell has been as busy as ever and has attended numerous major events over the last few weeks, often speaking with an unprecedented level of candor. The famous SpaceX executive repeatedly indicated that competitors have over-promised and under-delivered and, as a result, are years behind SpaceX’s own Starlink constellation. SpaceX has already launched 60 prototype satellites and has hundreds more on the way as part of a bid to kick off a busy period of “v1.0” satellite.
SpaceX intends to launch has many as 24 dedicated Starlink missions next year, equating to 60 satellites launched every two or so weeks. Meanwhile, the company is in the late stages of preparing to mass-produce “user terminals” and ground stations with the hope of delivering internet service to customers internet as early as mid-2020.
Starlink, OneWeb, and Project Kuiper
Shotwell was especially critical of megaconstellation competitors OneWeb and Amazon, the latter of which began hiring just a few months ago for a several-thousand-satellite constellation known as Project Kuiper. During an October 25th Q&A session with billionaire Ron Baron at the Baron Fund’s annual Investment Conference, Shotwell was uncharacteristically candid about the spaceflight industry outside of SpaceX’s doors, pointing to Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin and the United Launch Alliance as prime examples of the many pitfalls of traditional aerospace methods.
Shotwell, on SpaceX's competitors and why other companies haven't built and landed orbital rockets: "Boeing and Lockheed like their cushy situation."— Michael Sheetz (@thesheetztweetz) October 25, 2019
She responded by crediting the hard work of SpaceX engineers and the often ambitious timelines set forth by company CEO Elon Musk, stating that, “I don’t think there’s a motivation or a drive there.” She explained that she believes that “engineers think better when they’re pushed hardest to do great things in a very short period of time, with very few resources. Not when you have twenty years.” This is a bit of a brutal take given that SpaceX is infamous for offering an often brutally hostile work environment and some of the worst salaries in the industry, but it’s nearly impossible to deny that SpaceX’s list of achievements is essentially unrivaled.
Baron: Why hasn't Bezos been doing this? He's spending lots of money.
Shotwell: They're two years older than us and they've yet to reach orbit. They get $1 billion of "free money" each year but I think engineers work better when they're pushed.— Michael Sheetz (@thesheetztweetz) October 25, 2019
Discussing Blue Origin, Shotwell pulled no punches, stating that “they’ve got a ton of money and they’re not doing a lot.” While both companies – SpaceX and Blue Origin – have remained private and exist in large part thanks to their wealthy owners, SpaceX has pursued commercial relevance and become wildly successful. On the other hand, Blue Origin – despite being two years older – would likely lose all forward momentum or fold outright if owner Jeff Bezos were to cease bankrolling the spaceflight company.
Blue Origin is currently developing a large, reusable, orbital-class rocket known as New Glenn and could eventually become SpaceX’s only serious competition, but the rocket’s first launch is unlikely to occur before H2 2021 or 2022.
Simultaneously, Amazon recently revealed Project Kuiper, a slightly modified version of SpaceX’s Starlink constellation that is being lead by ex-Starlink executives fired by Elon Musk in June 2018. Project Kuiper, however, has only just begun and is likely at least 3-5 years away from beginning orbital testing, let alone providing any sort of service to customers.
Shotwell also addressed a new competitor in the large-scale satellite constellation market, OneWeb. During her talk with Baron, Shotwell bluntly warned potential investors to steer clear of the company. She boasted about SpaceX’s Starlink satellites, stating that they are “17 times better per bit”, a reference to Starlink’s greater per-satellite bandwidth, and cautioned that “if you’re thinking about investing in OneWeb, I would recommend strongly against it. They fooled some people who are going to be pretty disappointed in the near term.”
OneWeb later provided a follow up to CNBC reporter Michael Sheetz stating “we are not in the business of commenting on competitors. OneWeb’s satellites and constellation design are tested, market leading and we are excited to start our monthly launches soon and to start delivering much needed connectivity to people everywhere.” In reality, OneWeb and executives like Greg Wyler comment on competitors all the time, they just rarely put all their cards on the table.
Regardless, Shotwell’s streak of candor appears to have no end in sight. It remains to be seen whether her move towards uncharacteristically vitriolic public comments is a smart strategy, but she is undoubtedly making waves.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Tesla executive Sendil Palani confirmed in a post on social media platform X that Full Self-Driving, despite being the most robust driver assistance program in the United States, still isn’t garnering any interest from lagging competitors.
Tesla has said on several occasions in the past that it has had discussions with a competing carmaker to license its Full Self-Driving suite. While it never confirmed which company it was, many pointed toward Ford as the one Tesla was holding dialogue with.
At the time, Ford CEO Jim Farley and Tesla CEO Elon Musk had a very cordial relationship.
Despite Tesla’s confirmation, which occurred during both the Q2 2023 and Q1 2024 Earnings Calls, no deal was ever reached. Whichever “major OEM” Tesla had talked to did not see the benefit. Even now, Tesla has not found that dance partner, despite leading every company in the U.S. in self-driving efforts by a considerable margin.
Elon Musk says Tesla Robotaxi launch will force companies to license Full Self-Driving
Palani seemed to confirm that Tesla still has not found any company that is remotely interested in licensing FSD, as he said on X that “despite our best efforts to share the technology,” the company has found that it “has not been proven to be easy.”
Licensing FSD has not proven to be easy, despite our best efforts to share the technology. https://t.co/VGYBU7Aduw
— Sendil Palani (@sendilpalani) February 3, 2026
The question came just after one Tesla fan on X asked whether Tesla would continue manufacturing vehicles.
Because Tesla continues to expand its lineup of Model Y, it has plans to build the Cybercab, and there is still an immediate need for passenger vehicles, there is no question that the company plans to continue scaling its production.
However, Palani’s response is interesting, especially considering that it was in response to the question of whether Tesla would keep building cars.
Perhaps if Tesla could license Full Self-Driving to enough companies for the right price, it could simply sell the suite to car companies that are building vehicles, eliminating the need for Tesla to build its own.
While it seems like a reach because of Tesla’s considerable fan base, which is one of the most loyal in the automotive industry, the company could eventually bail on manufacturing and gain an incredible valuation by simply unlocking self-driving for other manufacturers.
The big question regarding why Tesla can’t find another company to license FSD is simply, “Why?”
Do they think they can solve it themselves? Do they not find FSD as valuable or effective? Many of these same companies didn’t bat an eye when Tesla started developing EVs, only to find themselves years behind. This could be a continuing trend.
Tesla executive Lars Moravy appeared today in front of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee to highlight the importance of modernizing autonomy standards by establishing a federal framework that would reward innovation and keep the country on pace with foreign rivals.
Moravy, who is Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, strongly advocated for Congress to enact a national framework for autonomous vehicle development and deployment, replacing the current patchwork of state-by-state rules.
These rules have slowed progress and kept companies fighting tooth-and-nail with local legislators to operate self-driving projects in controlled areas.
Tesla already has a complete Robotaxi model, and it doesn’t depend on passenger count
Moravy said the new federal framework was essential for the U.S. to “maintain its position in global technological development and grow its advanced manufacturing capabilities.
He also said in a warning to the committee that outdated regulations and approval processes would “inhibit the industry’s ability to innovate,” which could potentially lead to falling behind China.
Being part of the company leading the charge in terms of autonomous vehicle development in the U.S., Moravy highlighted Tesla’s prowess through the development of the Full Self-Driving platform. Tesla vehicles with FSD engaged average 5.1 million miles before a major collision, which outpaces that of the human driver average of roughly 699,000 miles.
Moravy also highlighted the widely cited NHTSA statistic that states that roughly 94 percent of crashes stem from human error, positioning autonomous vehicles as a path to dramatically reduce fatalities and injuries.
🚨 Tesla VP of Vehicle Engineering, Lars Moravy, appeared today before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee to discuss the importance of outlining an efficient framework for autonomous vehicles:
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 4, 2026
Skeptics sometimes point to cybersecurity concerns within self-driving vehicles, which was something that was highlighted during the Senate Commerce Committee hearing, but Moravy said, “No one has ever been able to take over control of our vehicles.”
This level of security is thanks to a core-embedded central layer, which is inaccessible from external connections. Additionally, Tesla utilizes a dual cryptographic signature from two separate individuals, keeping security high.
Moravy also dove into Tesla’s commitment to inclusive mobility by stating, “We are committed with our future products and Robotaxis to provide accessible transportation to everyone.” This has been a major point of optimism for AVs because it could help the disabled, physically incapable, the elderly, and the blind have consistent transportation.
Overall, Moravy’s testimony blended urgency about geopolitical competition, especially China, with concrete safety statistics and a vision of the advantages autonomy could bring for everyone, not only in the U.S., but around the world, as well.
Tesla launched a new configuration of the Model Y this week, bringing more complexity to its lineup of the vehicle and adding a new, lower entry point for those who require an All-Wheel-Drive car.
However, the broadening of the Model Y lineup in the United States could signal a somewhat uncomfortable reality for Tesla fans and car buyers, who have been vocal about their desire for a larger, full-size SUV.
Tesla has essentially moved in the opposite direction through its closure of the Model X and its continuing expansion of a vehicle that fits the bill for many, but not all.
Tesla brings closure to Model Y moniker with launch of new trim level
While CEO Elon Musk has said that there is the potential for the Model Y L, a longer wheelbase configuration of the vehicle, to enter the U.S. market late this year, it is not a guarantee.
Instead, Tesla has prioritized the need to develop vehicles and trim levels that cater to the future rollout of the Robotaxi ride-hailing service and a fully autonomous future.
But the company could be missing out on a massive opportunity, as SUVs are a widely popular body style in the U.S., especially for families, as the tighter confines of compact SUVs do not support the needs of a large family.
Although there are other companies out there that manufacture this body style, many are interested in sticking with Tesla because of the excellent self-driving platform, expansive charging infrastructure, and software performance the vehicles offer.
Additionally, the lack of variety from an aesthetic and feature standpoint has caused a bit of monotony throughout the Model Y lineup. Although Premium options are available, those three configurations only differ in terms of range and performance, at least for the most part, and the differences are not substantial.
Minor Expansions of the Model Y Fail to Address Family Needs for Space
Offering similar trim levels with slight differences to cater to each consumer’s needs is important. However, these vehicles keep a constant: cargo space and seating capacity.
Larger families need something that would compete with vehicles like the Chevrolet Tahoe, Ford Expedition, or Cadillac Escalade, and while the Model X was its largest offering, that is going away.
Tesla could fix this issue partially with the rollout of the Model Y L in the U.S., but only if it plans to continue offering various Model Y vehicles and expanding on its offerings with that car specifically. There have been hints toward a Cyber-inspired SUV in the past, but those hints do not seem to be a drastic focus of the company, given its autonomy mission.
Model Y Expansion Doesn’t Boost Performance, Value, or Space
You can throw all the different badges, powertrains, and range ratings on the same vehicle, it does not mean it’s going to sell better. The Model Y was already the best-selling vehicle in the world on several occasions. Adding more configurations seems to be milking it.
The true need of people, especially now that the Model X is going away, is going to be space. What vehicle fits the bill of a growing family, or one that has already outgrown the Model Y?
Not Expanding the Lineup with a New Vehicle Could Be a Missed Opportunity
The U.S. is the world’s largest market for three-row SUVs, yet Tesla’s focus on tweaking the existing Model Y ignores this. This could potentially result in the Osborne Effect, as sales of current models without capturing new customers who need more seating and versatility.
Expansions of the current Model Y offerings risk adding production complexity without addressing core demands, and given that the Model Y L is already being produced in China, it seems like it would be a reasonable decision to build a similar line in Texas.
Listening to consumers means introducing either the Model Y L here, or bringing a new, modern design to the lineup in the form of a full-size SUV.
Tesla confirms Full Self-Driving still isn’t garnering interest from lagging competitors
Tesla exec pleads for federal framework of autonomy to U.S. Senate Committee
