News
SpaceX lifts soggy Falcon 9 Block 5 booster ashore after accidental splashdown
Independent group USLaunchReport has published a video capturing the entirety of SpaceX’s ad hoc East Coast Falcon 9 recovery operations, in which forlorn booster B1050 had to be carefully extracted out of the ocean after an unintentional soft-landing in the Atlantic following its successful Dec. 5 launch debut.
72 hours after B1050’s water landing and some painstaking preparation, the booster was towed to SpaceX’s dock space in Port Canaveral, where it spent just a brief few hours floating adjacent to drone ship Of Course I Still Love You and the rest of the company’s Florida fleet. Considerably less than twelve hours after arriving, technicians had already managed to lift the rocket out of the ocean and onto dry land, where another week or so was spent preparing Falcon 9 for transport.
Given the extent of the damage to the Block 5 booster’s interstage and the basic fact that SpaceX recovery technicians and engineers had never attempted anything quite like it before, it was fairly impressive that they took barely six hours to lift the booster out of the water, particularly considering that the rocket appeared to be filled with hundreds or even thousands of gallons of water. No visible damage was caused, although there was clearly some cause for extensive discussion and preparation per an unusually large and lengthy huddle of more than 30 employees prior to the beginning of the lift.
https://twitter.com/_TomCross_/status/1071886823721447424
Once on land, B1050 had an unusual sling placed exactly where the Falcon 9 booster’s liquid oxygen (LOx) and kerosene (RP-1) propellant tanks were welded together, apparently a location that is particularly sensitive to off-nominal X-axis stress. To give context, imagine bending a cardboard tube or straw in half instead of trying to push its ends together – Falcon 9’s structure is quite similar in concept. Built primarily 5mm-thick sheets of lithium-aluminum alloy, Falcon 9’s propellant tanks are extremely thin and light while also being aggressively optimized for vertical (up and down) loading, i.e. the forces experienced while accelerating (and eventually decelerating) through the atmosphere during launch and landing.
As a result, SpaceX almost always pressurizes the first stage propellant tanks of Falcon 9 with nitrogen whenever boosters are horizontal without physical support at their bendy centers. In the case of B1050, SpaceX almost certainly concluded that using its waterlogged umbilical ports to inject nitrogen into its tanks was too much of a risk without knowing the precise condition of the piping and the tanks themselves, opting instead to go with a simple sling to prevent damage from unintended bending. Thankfully, B1050 appears to have made it through its dry land ordeal even better than the time it spent in the Atlantic, suffering no visible damage whatsoever.
- Sad interstage is sad. (Tom Cross)
- An almost impossibly rare view. (Tom Cross)
- That’s no boat… (Teslarati)
- SpaceX technicians had to go through the normal process of Falcon 9 booster recovery at a decidedly abnormal 90 degree delta. (Tom Cross)
- Falcon 9 B1050 was spotted at CCAFS near hangars SpaceX leases for refurbishment. (Instagram/anonymous)
Somewhere between December 14 and 15, the booster was at long last lifted onto SpaceX’s primary East Coast booster transporter and carefully drove the rocket to one of its 2-3 Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) refurbishment and storage hangars, avoiding detection by all but a few passersby. This could full well be the last we see (and even hear) of poor old Falcon 9 B1050, but there is still a decent chance that SpaceX hopes the entire rocket or major components can be easily salvaged.
Given the extreme care taken during the booster’s lift onto land and the week it spent having legs and grid fins removed, it can be definitively concluded that an effort will be made to save the entire vehicle (sans interstage). If it has managed to make it through the past two weeks largely unscathed, it may well become the first Falcon 9 to conduct a dedicated launch of multiple Starlink satellites sometime in the second half of 2019, at least according to CEO Elon Musk’s vague suggestion that it could fly on an “internal SpaceX mission”.
We may use it for an internal SpaceX mission
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 5, 2018
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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.
News
Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know
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.
News
Tesla’s ‘Emergency Drive Away’ function gets its first use in the real world
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.




