News
SpaceX on track to become third most valuable private company in the world
SpaceX is on track to become the third most valuable private company in the world if it successfully raises a new round of funding.
First reported and confirmed by CNBC, SpaceX hopes to raise between $500 million and $1 billion via a new investment offering. The Series N round would ultimately value the company at $44 billion – second only to China’s Didi and Bytedance (known in the US for TikTok) – if SpaceX finds significant investor interest at the upgraded $270 share price. Based on the ~$3.4 billion SpaceX has raised over more than a dozen rounds in just the last several years, strong investor demand is all but guaranteed.
The confidence and interest of investors can be explained in large part by SpaceX’s spectacular success in the face of countless systemic and technological challenges, as well as its association with founder and Tesla CEO Elon Musk. Perhaps even more at odds with success than SpaceX’s near-term goals, Tesla’s meteoric rise and iron grip on the global consumer electric vehicle industry has unsurprisingly helped convince many that success is often just a matter of time for Musk’s calculated ventures.
Like several recent fundraising rounds, SpaceX is seeking investors willing to support the company’s long-term vision in the hopes that its Starship and Starlink programs will be as disruptive and revolutionary as they aim to be. CNBC reports that SpaceX is telling prospective investors that Starlink aims to become a major player in a range of industries with a potential global market of more than $1 trillion per year. That figure is almost certainly a best-case theoretical value assuming that SpaceX has completed a vast ~40,000-satellite Starlink constellation and is able to capture almost every single prospective customer.
It’s still within the realm of possibility, though. On its own, Starlink holds the potential to become one of the largest companies in the world – public or private – if SpaceX achieves every ambitious goal it’s set itself to. In that context, there’s a chance that acquiring a stake in SpaceX at a valuation of ~$44 billion will set investors up for unprecedented returns on the order of Tesla investors buying shares for $100-200 in the early 2010s.
Of course, that investment rationale doesn’t even touch on Starship, aside from the fact that Starship will be a necessity if SpaceX is to have any chance of launching and maintaining a constellation of tens of thousands of satellites. Beyond the Starship/Super Heavy launch vehicle’s integral role in future plans for Starlink, the next-generation rocket is arguably a much thornier technical challenge than Starlink while also offering far less return-on-investment (ROI) certainty. Relative to other industries, particularly those with demand for communications services, the global demand for commercial launch services is minuscule, representing just a few billion dollars per year.
Even if Falcon 9 – let alone Starship – dramatically cuts the cost of access to orbit, there’s no guarantee beyond basic economic theory that lowering the barrier to entry will necessarily expand the market for launches. For a radical expansion in demand, entire new space-adjacent industries will have to be created given that the vast majority of modern demand comes from space-based communications companies.
SpaceX has known that this would be the case for at least half a decade, however, and is thus intelligently positioning Starlink as a primary investor focus as far as revenue and profit are concerned. Starlink would thus help SpaceX complete the Starship launch vehicle, which is far more focused on the company’s foundational goal of making humanity a multiplanetary species by enabling the creation of a self-sustaining city on Mars. Still, Starship will need to be revolutionarily affordable, reliable, and reusable for SpaceX to ever even dream of achieving that founding goal.
In the process of tackling those technical challenges, Starship could very well expand the global space industry by one or several magnitudes, but it will remain a major wildcard up until the day it does.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
News
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile want 290 MHz cut from an FCC satellite plan before Thursday.
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are asking the Federal Communications Commission to pull nearly 300 MHz of spectrum out of a proposal that would let satellite companies like SpaceX offer cell service directly to ordinary phones. The request lands one day before the agency votes on it.
The FCC will vote Thursday, October 29, on a notice of proposed rulemaking that would make an additional 482 MHz available for direct to device service, expanding the number of eligible bands from five to 13, according to the FCC fact sheet. It would also scrap the rule requiring a satellite operator to lease spectrum from carriers, replacing it with a certification that the operator has coexistence agreements in place or holds the terrestrial license itself.
That second path matters for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported earlier this month, SpaceX agreed to buy Grain Management’s nationwide 800 MHz portfolio to turn Starlink Mobile into a full US carrier, adding to the spectrum it already bought from EchoStar.
The carriers want two bands removed, 2.5 GHz and 3.45 GHz, which make up 290 MHz of the 482 MHz on the table. Through industry group CTIA, they argued that about 300 million users depend on those bands and that satellite operations in them are not technically feasible. T-Mobile, which calls 2.5 GHz the foundation of its Ultra Capacity 5G network, said in its own filing that satellite interference could wipe out up to 96% of a cell site’s uplink coverage area and cut uplink speeds by 88% to 99%.
Executives from all three carriers met with FCC staff on October 20, and T-Mobile CEO Srini Gopalan met separately with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. T-Mobile’s role stands out because it is still SpaceX’s US launch partner for Starlink Mobile. The three carriers have also teamed up on their own satellite joint venture to pool spectrum, a move widely seen as a response to Starlink.
SpaceX is asking for the opposite. In an October 23 filing after meetings with FCC staff and commissioners’ offices, the company asked regulators to add the 902 to 928 MHz band to the proposal. “Doing so now saves time later,” SpaceX wrote. The company also asked the FCC to modernize interference rules and align satellite deployment requirements with those for terrestrial cell networks, saying the goal is to let satellite and ground networks work together so Americans stay connected wherever they are.
The carriers have not been shy about how they view SpaceX as a competitor. On Verizon’s third quarter earnings call Monday, its chief executive said Starlink Mobile “just can’t compete with a terrestrial network” and estimated SpaceX would need four to six years and $300 billion to $500 billion to build a full US carrier network.
Thursday’s vote will not settle which bands survive. Adopting the notice opens a public comment period, with final rules to come later in the proceeding. The FCC already considered and rejected 2.5 GHz for satellite coverage once, in 2024. SpaceX also is not the only satellite player watching: the FCC approved Amazon’s $11.6 billion acquisition of Globalstar on October 27, giving its planned direct to device fleet its own mobile satellite spectrum.
A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.
The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.
There were no injuries reported.
🚨 A Tesla Semi reportedly caught fire, with California Highway Patrol confirming. The Semi was on I-880 SB
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.
However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.
@Tslachan From on of the videos looks like it’s an old Semi (not the refresh version that recently started production) https://t.co/KzwmR2kXow
— Area Under The Curve 🎗️ (@AreaUnderCurve) October 28, 2026
At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.
The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.
The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.
Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.
A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.
“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”
🚨 Here’s the first look at Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away function in action:
Apparently this driver accidentally enabled it and drove forward; you can see the Supercharger pull with the car.
Tesla said previously this would cost up to $25k if not used properly. https://t.co/B4qQRrsO6B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.
Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.
Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:
- You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
- You must leave the area immediately.
- Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
- Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.
After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know
