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.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
