News
SpaceX transports Falcon 9 to launch site ahead of Block 5’s second expendable launch ever
Photos published on July 28th by customer Spacecom show a sooty SpaceX Falcon 9 booster and fresh upper stage on their way to LC-40 for the launch of the AMOS-17 communications satellite, scheduled to lift off no earlier than 6:51 pm EDT (22:51 UTC), August 3rd.
Sadly, the booster will reportedly be expended during the launch. According to Spacecom, AMOS-17 – built by Boeing – is an undeniably large satellite, weighing more than 6500 kg (14,300 lb) and featuring a solar array wingspan of ~35m (115 ft). SpaceX has certainly launched larger satellites than AMOS-17 and still recovered their Falcon 9 boosters, but this mission is somewhat unique and SpaceX is obviously willing to go the extra mile in this case.
In a surprise development, Spacecom officially confirmed that AMOS-17 will be SpaceX’s second expendable Falcon 9 Block 5 launch in the rocket’s ~15 months of operations, following in the footsteps of its expendable December 2018 launch debut. This is more than a little disappointing, thanks in large part to the fact that SpaceX has developed Falcon 9 (and Heavy) reusability to such a level of maturity that fully expendable Falcon launches just feel wrong.
In fact, just a month ago, SpaceX reached a major milestone of reusability when it recovered two flight-proven Falcon Heavy boosters and became the first company in history to launch and land more orbital-class rocket boosters than it has expended (as of June 2019: 81 launched, 43 landed). SpaceX followed this up with landing #44 after Falcon 9 B1056.2 successfully completed its second launch on July 25th.
While expending a Block 5 booster that SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has stated could launch upwards of 20-30 times is certainly disappointing, the sting of Block 5’s second expendable mission is at least soothed by the knowledge that it will be this booster’s third and final launch. The first expendable Block 5 launch – the US Air Force’s GPS III SV01 mission – made use of a brand new booster (B1054).
A (hopefully) worthy sacrifice
In a small way, Falcon 9 B1047’s premature demise could easily be viewed as a sort of symbolic eye-for-an-eye sacrifice. Although not a literal 1:1 replacement, AMOS-17 is still essentially a follow-on to Amos-6, destroyed on September 1st, 2016 when Falcon 9 suffered an exotic COPV failure that led to a massive explosion (Musk called it a ‘fast fire’).
Installed on top of the rocket during what was meant to be a pre-launch static fire test, the ~$200M+ Amos-6 satellite was not spared from the destruction and owner Spacecom ultimately received an insurance settlement it then used (in part) to purchase AMOS-17. Additionally, instead of accepting a cash payout from SpaceX, Spacecom chose the contractual alternative: a free Falcon 9 launch of their choice.
Is it a coincidence that a Block 5 booster is going to be expended as part of that replacement launch? Almost certainly, yes. At a minimum, SpaceX – essentially launching for free per a contractual agreement with Spacecom – has clearly decided along with Spacecom that putting all of Falcon 9’s energy into AMOS-17 is preferable to withholding margin for a landing.
With Falcon 9 B1047.2 in an expendable configuration, SpaceX can take a no-holds-barred approach towards delivering Spacecom’s AMOS-17 to the highest orbit possible. The higher the geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) Falcon 9 can launch AMOS-17 to, the faster the satellite can begin serving customers and thus generating revenue for Spacecom. Combined with the fact that more than half of AMOS-17’s massive 6.5-ton mass is chemical propellant, the spacecraft – pending a healthy launch and on-orbit commissioning – could be ready to start serving customers just a month or two after lift-off.
Falcon 9 B1047 will be missed, but the booster’s demise is an understandable cost of SpaceX prioritizing customer Spacecom’s launch experience above the company’s own best interests.
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
