News
SpaceX drone ship dodges high seas en route to first rocket landing of 2020
SpaceX has delayed the first orbital launch of the new year by a handful of days to allow both Falcon 9 and the drone ship it’s scheduled to land on the opportunity to dodge bad weather on the Florida coast and out in the Atlantic Ocean.
Originally scheduled to launch no earlier than December 30th, SpaceX delayed its next mission – Starlink-2 – to January 3rd for unknown reasons. Weather on the new date was unfortunately forecast to be terrible at SpaceX’s LC-40 launch pad and had a 60% chance of scrubbing the mission. SpaceX must have been at least as concerned about conditions for drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) in the Atlantic Ocean, as the company ultimately skipped over a 90%-GO backup window on January 4th for the latest launch target – January 6th.
Historically, only a few Falcon launches have been delayed for booster recovery purposes, but it’s been apparent that – while incredibly sturdy – some of the tacked-on equipment installed on SpaceX’s drone ships (modified barges) can be easily damaged by high seas. Perhaps more importantly, high seas (and thus a pitching drone ship deck) can make booster landings much riskier. Bad luck could easily cause a booster to cut off its landing burn at exactly sea level but still be a dozen or more feet above the drone ship’s deck if it’s coincidentally in the trough of a big swell, potentially destroying or damaging the rocket.
Ultimately, on missions where SpaceX has nothing to lose by delaying the launch, the company now puts a successful booster recovery much higher on its list of priorities. As recently as March 2018, SpaceX intentionally expended a new Falcon 9 booster because ocean conditions would have been extremely risky to OCISLY and crew and the company (or customer) had no interest in delaying the launch further to wait for calmer seas.
By all appearances, that is – for the most part – no longer the case. SpaceX would likely expend a rocket for a few days of schedule for high-priority customers like the USAF and especially NASA, where even a few days of delays could trigger several years of delays to quite literally wait for the planets to realign. It has and will continue to require a significant culture shift in the market for launch but SpaceX is clearly changing those norms and expectations bit by bit, to the point that the company was recently willing to delay Cargo Dragon launches for NASA to ensure that the mission’s Falcon 9 booster the best possible chance of recovery.
For an internal Starlink launch, delaying the mission to prevent drone ship damage and ensure Falcon 9 recovery is thus an absolute no-brainer. Starlink-2 is also partially unique because it will mark the second time a Falcon 9 booster launches for the fourth time, following on the footsteps of B1048 after it became the first booster to launch four times during SpaceX’s November 2019 Starlink-1 mission.
B1048 thus became SpaceX’s lone pathfinder for Falcon 9 booster reusability, hopefully providing excellent insight and some unequivocal physical data to determine the rocket’s health and readiness for a 5th launch. Still, even though the sample sizes available to even the most prolific orbital launch vehicles would make any statistician cringe, it’s safe to say that two data points are better than one, and B1049 – scheduled to launch for the fourth time on Starlink-2 – would thus be quite valuable to SpaceX’s recovery engineers and technicians.
Only one additional Falcon 9 booster – B1056 – has already flown three missions, meaning that SpaceX will – at best – likely have to suffice with three data points (B1048, B1049, B1056) before moving onto the next reusability milestone – launching the same booster five times. Ultimately, every time SpaceX pushes that envelope and demonstrates that Falcon boosters can be definitively reused 3 or 4 or 5 times, the company multiplies the number of launches its fleet of booster can perform by a factor of two.
For, say, the eight flightworthy boosters in SpaceX’s existing fleet, proving that a 4th reuse is possible will ultimately allow the company to squeeze an additional seven launches from existing hardware with almost zero capital investment. For now, the fourth flight of Falcon 9 boosters will remain cutting edge, but with more than three-dozen launches planned in 2020, it’s all but guaranteed that SpaceX will push the envelope of reusability like never before in the coming months.
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
