News
SpaceX VP says Starship is already winning commercial launch contracts
A SpaceX executive says that the company’s next-generation, fully-reusable Starship rocket has already secured multiple commercial launch contracts.
Set to debut no earlier than (NET) the first quarter of 2022 with a semi-orbital launch that aims to send Starship about 85% of the way around the Earth, Starship has a ways to go before it’s ready to routinely launch payloads. Nonetheless, SpaceX is confident enough in Starship’s eventual success to have effectively made it the foundation of every one of the company’s future goals – both in the short and long term.
Today, SpaceX’s Falcon rockets have become a spectacularly successful revolution in cost-effective launch through reusability and vertical integration, among other things. Thanks to that unprecedented affordability, SpaceX has been able to kick off the deployment of its Starlink internet constellation, launching more than 1800 satellites and becoming the largest satellite operator in history in less than two and a half years. Where competition is possible, Falcon 9 dominates the global commercial launch market for both small and large satellites. And yet despite its staggering success, Falcon 9 remains at least one or two magnitudes too expensive and too performance-constrained to realize SpaceX’s grander ambitions.
Those overarching goals are simple enough and directly related. First, SpaceX – through Starlink – aims to blanket the Earth’s surface with high-quality, affordable satellite internet that is either indistinguishable from or better than ground-based alternatives, ultimately connecting tens or even hundreds of millions of people to the internet. Second, SpaceX’s founding goal has always been to make humanity a multiplanetary species by enabling the creation of one or several permanent, self-sustaining cities on Mars. For the latter goal, Starship or a fully reusable rocket like it has always been essential – without which it would be prohibitively expensive to launch the sheer mass and volume of supplies needed to build a city on another world.
Recently, if SpaceX’s often hyperbolic CEO is to be believed, Starlink’s success has also become dependent on Starship, with Musk stating in a company-wide memo that SpaceX as a whole could face bankruptcy if Starship isn’t ready to launch 200+ Starlink satellites per month by the end of 2022. While it’s simply untrue that SpaceX is at risk of bankruptcy, there might be some truth behind Musk’s statement. Fearmongering aside, the gist of Musk’s argument is that Starlink is “financially weak” under the current paradigm, where Falcon 9 delivers approximately 50 300-kilogram (~650 lb) satellites to orbit with each launch.
In the same vein as Starship, Musk believes that next-generation “Starlink V2” satellites – several times larger than V1 satellites – will drastically improve the cost-effectiveness of the constellation by allowing SpaceX to squeeze much more network capacity out of every unit of satellite mass. However, making Starlink V2 satellites several times larger would reduce the efficiency of launching them on Falcon 9 by an equal degree – hence the apparently dire need for Starship.
Contrary to Musk’s apocalyptic vision, even if it might be significantly slower and more expensive to deploy, it’s quite likely that a full Starlink V1 constellation launched by Falcon 9 could still be economically viable. What it probably wouldn’t be, though, is exceptionally profitable, which has long been SpaceX’s main plan for funding its multiplanetary dreams. With a Starship capable of achieving its design goals, that could change.
According to Musk and other SpaceX executives, the true cost – before payloads – of a flight-proven Falcon 9 launch is somewhere between $15M and $28M. At an estimated cost of $250-500k apiece, 50-60 Starlink V1 satellites raise the total cost of a Starlink launch to approximately $30-60M – the range between marginal and total cost. In a partially reusable configuration, Falcon 9 is capable of launching about ~16 tons (~35,000 lb) to low Earth orbit (LEO).
Starship, however, is designed to launch at least 100 tons (~220,000 lb) and possibly up to 150 tons (~330,000 lb) to LEO for a marginal cost of as little as $2M. Even if SpaceX is a magnitude off of that target and never gets beyond 100t to LEO, a $20M Starship launch fully loaded with Starlink satellites would still cost five times less than Falcon 9 per unit of satellite mass launched. At 150 tons to LEO for $10M, Starship would cost 15 times less. If SpaceX one day perfects full reusability and marginal costs do fall to $2M, a 150-ton Starship launch could be up to 70 times cheaper than Falcon 9.
For the exact same reasons it could radically improve the cost-efficiency of Starlink deployment and finally make humanity’s expansion beyond Earth affordable enough to be viable, Starship would also inherently revolutionize access to space for all other launch customers – not just SpaceX.
According to SpaceX Vice President of Commercial Sales Tom Ochinero, Starship has already begun to make inroads with SpaceX’s healthy list of existing Falcon customers. While relatively minor and inevitable, it’s still an important symbolic step for SpaceX and Starship as it attempts to deliver a launch vehicle so cheap and capable that it ushers the company’s own Falcon rockets into retirement.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
