News
SpaceX’s third Starlink launch in three weeks is just around the corner
SpaceX is just a few days away from Falcon 9’s third Starlink internet satellite launch in 22 days, also the second commercial Starlink rideshare mission in two weeks.
If successfully, Starlink v1.0 L9 mission will mark nearly six hundred internet satellites launched by SpaceX since the company began dedicated missions in May 2019, as well as ~530 operational v1.0 spacecraft launched since November 2019. According to SpaceX executives, the company can begin rolling out internet service to customers via “UFO on a stick” user terminals once 14 v1.0 launches have been completed, meaning that the constellation could be just five launches away from generating consistent revenue after the next batch of satellites are safely in orbit.
Meanwhile, SpaceX debuted a separate method of generating revenue from Starlink launches just ten days ago when it successfully launched three Planet imaging satellites on top of 58 new Starlink spacecraft. While the revenue from booking a few satellites to launch on Starlink missions is likely nowhere close to covering the actual material cost to SpaceX, it can certainly help offset the extraordinarily capital-intensive process of constellation build-out. Less than two weeks after SpaceX’s Starlink rideshare debut, the very next launch is scheduled to include two commercial imaging satellites – this time for BlackSky Global.
Built by Washington startup LeoStella, the two imaging satellites scheduled to launch on Starlink-9 arrived in Cape Canaveral, Florida on June 1st in time to be processed and installed on top of a stack of either 58 or 60 Starlink internet satellites.
Approximately half as large as the three ~110 kg (240 lb) SkySats SpaceX launched on June 13th, LeoStella’s first two BlackSky satellites are believed to weigh around 55 kg (~120 lb) each and are capable of imaging the Earth’s surface at a resolution of ~1m per pixel from a nominal 500 km (310 mi) orbit. BlackSky’s LeoStella contract includes another 18 such satellites, all of which could (but probably wont) launch on future Starlink missions.
Smallsat constellation operators typically aim for diversity when launching more than a handful of satellites, ensuring that a hypothetical launch vehicle failure wont delay or destroy an entire constellation. Still, according to competitor Planet, SpaceX’s rideshare pricing is so good that it has actively changed how the prolific satellite operator thinks about constellation expansion. Planet, for reference, managed to launch three SkySats – weighing ~330 kg (~730 lb) – for something like $3 million, at least 5-7 times cheaper than launching the same spacecraft on three dedicated Rocket Lab Electron rockets.
Supporting Planet’s high praise, SpaceX recently announced that it had already secured launch contracts for more than 100 small satellites less than ten months after the program debuted, potentially injecting an impressive $50 to $100 million in revenue. A large portion of those satellites are likely scheduled to launch on one of SpaceX’s dedicated semi-annual rideshare missions, the first of which is aiming to launch in December 2020, but at least one or several dozen are probably manifested on Starlink launches.
According to CEO Elon Musk, the ultimate cost of a flight-proven Falcon 9 launch can be as low as $15 million – excluding overhead but including a new upper stage, booster recovery, propellant, and other miscellaneous costs. As such, a single 60-satellite Starlink launch likely costs SpaceX less than $30 million total, meaning that an average of five small satellites (base price: $1 million per slot) manifested on a Starlink launch would save SpaceX ~17% every time.
Regardless, Falcon 9 booster B1051 is scheduled to become the third SpaceX rocket to launch five times when it lifts off for Starlink-9 no earlier than (NET) 4:39 pm EDT (20:39 UTC) on June 25th, a delay of three days from the original June 22nd target.
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
