News
SpaceX raises more than half a billion dollars for Starship, Starlink programs
In the last three months, SpaceX has managed to raise more than half a billion dollars from private investors, money that will likely go directly into the company’s ambitious Starship and Starlink programs.
Despite a huge amount of public focus now placed on SpaceX’s successfully-realized human spaceflight ambitions, said by NASA to have been viewed live by no less than 10 million people around the world, the company is still committed to two extraordinarily ambitious development programs. Known as Starlink and Starship, both are integral to SpaceX’s founding goal of enabling the sustainable expansion of humanity into space.
Starship aims to be the world’s first fully-reusable orbital-class launch vehicle, nominally enabling SpaceX to place 150 metric tons (330,000 lb) in orbit with a single, low-cost launch. With orbital refueling from other Starship tankers, SpaceX could potentially send dozens of people to Mars at a cost that could put a ticket in reach of hundreds of millions of – if not more than a billion – people around the world. Starlink is no less ambitious and aims to blanket every inch of the Earth with high-quality, low-cost broadband internet via a fleet of more than 40,000 satellites. Both share three main similarities: they offer immense technical challenges, require extremely capital-intensive development programs, and may – if successful – enable the sustainable settlement of Mars.
First reported by CNBC after SpaceX amended an SEC filing on May 26th, the news unsurprisingly fell through the cracks less than 24 hours before the company attempted its inaugural NASA astronaut launch. Initially said to have raised $567 million out of a target of $500 million, CNBC later revised their report on SpaceX’s latest round of funding, instead stating that the company had raised $346 million with a $349.9 million funding round.
As it turns out, the initial report was technically correct aside from its assertion that SpaceX was pursuing a $500M raise. Between two separate funding rounds seeking $250 million and $349.9 million, both opened on February 28th, 2020, SpaceX was able to raise $567 million of the $599.9 million it was hoping for from 27 investors. Based on SEC filings, SpaceX has now raised more than $1.6 billion since the start of 2019, nearly all of which has likely gone towards its expensive Starship and Starlink programs.
Incredibly, in just the last five months, SpaceX has managed to launch 360 Starlink satellites, while the next launch – scheduled no earlier than (NET) June 3rd – should give the company an orbital fleet around 475 satellites strong. Admittedly, 475 satellites represent barely more than 1% of the fleet SpaceX will need to realize its full Starlink ambitions, but it’s already the largest operational satellite constellation by more than a factor of two. By Starlink-14, potentially launching as early as August 2020, SpaceX can begin generating revenue by serving customers internet, revenue that – once profitable – could partially or fully fund Starship and Mars settlement development.
In the same period of time, SpaceX has dramatically expanded its South Texas Starship production facilities, built and tested several test tanks past the pressures needed for orbital flight, built and tested three full-scale Starship prototypes, and performed five successful Raptor engine static fires with one of those vehicles.
In short, the company has made extraordinary progress. Thanks to the unprecedented efficiency of Starship and Starlink production and the low cost and reusability of Falcon 9, SpaceX has also done so on a shoestring budget that would make its competitors and national space agencies recoil in disbelief. With another half a billion dollars in the bank and the continued support of Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa, SpaceX has likely secured at least another 12-18 months of full-steam-ahead Starship and Starlink development.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
