News
SpaceX Falcon Heavy booster spotted at Kennedy Space Center
SpaceX has been spotted transporting a Falcon Heavy booster through NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) facilities, offering a slight glimpse behind the scenes amid a seemingly unending series of launch delays for the most powerful operational rocket in the world.
Continuing a recent surge of Falcon Heavy booster appearances at or around SpaceX facilities, the latest instance saw the company transporting new, unflown Falcon Heavy center core south through KSC to its HangarX rocket storage and processing facilities. While it does not appear that this particular Falcon Heavy center core is the same core believed to be assigned to the rocket’s next launch, its movement is still significant.
First, it’s not entirely clear where the Falcon Heavy center core came from. SpaceX maintains several fragmented processing and storage facilities in hangars strewn throughout the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS), though SpaceX’s new HangarX facility – located within KSC ground – was presumably meant to organize booster and fairing storage, outfitting, and refurbishment under one roof.
Regardless, the new Falcon Heavy center core moved to HangarX on March 9th, 2022 was missing at least a few essential parts, suggesting that it could merely be headed there to be fully outfitted for an upcoming launch. However, it could also have been moved to HangarX for longer-term storage after waiting too long at a satellite storage facility. Due to seemingly unrelenting delays impacting at least three of several Falcon Heavy launches planned in 2022, SpaceX has been stuck shuffling more and more Falcon Heavy cores over the last six or so months.
As of September 2021, all three new Falcon Heavy cores meant to support USSF-44 – set to be the rocket’s first launch in more than two years – were already inside the integration hangar at Pad 39A, the only launch site able to support Falcon Heavy. Originally meant to launch in late 2020, both USSF-44 and USSF-52 have been more or less indefinitely delayed ever since. In September, USSF-44 – one or several geostationary US military satellites – was expected to launch as early as October 2021. Soon after, the launch was delayed to “early 2022.” As of March 2022, the US military now refuses to offer even a vague public estimate for the mission’s latest launch target.
Combined with a series of either two or three Dragon launches – all of which need Pad 39A – planned as early as late March, mid-April, and early May, it’s now all but guaranteed that Falcon Heavy will have to wait until May or June 2022 for its first launch since June 2019 – a staggering three-year gap. Due to those delays, SpaceX is currently juggling an unprecedented fleet of six (soon to be seven) unflown, ready-for-flight Falcon Heavy boosters on top of another dozen flight-proven Falcon 9 and Heavy boosters.
On top of the military’s USSF-44 and USSF-52 missions, both of which are now years behind schedule, satellite communications provider ViaSat also recently announced the latest in a long line of ViaSat-3 launch delays, pushing its Falcon Heavy launch from this spring to no earlier than “late summer” – i.e. late Q3 2022. Ironically, of Falcon Heavy’s near-term missions, only NASA’s Psyche spacecraft – designed to orbit and explore an exotic asteroid tens to hundreds of millions of miles from Earth – has survived the last year or two without a major launch delay. It remains on track to launch in August 2022.
In fact, given that there is apparently so much uncertainty surrounding USSF-44 and USSF-52 that the US military is no longer willing to offer any public schedule estimate, it’s starting to look likely that Psyche – barring its own delays – could launch before USSF-44, USSF-52, and ViaSat-3. If that’s the case, SpaceX has almost half a year to prepare for the launch and it would only make sense to move all Falcon Heavy cores to longer-term storage until schedule confidence improves.
Unfortunately, that means that until there are signs of tangible preparations or actual military payloads arriving at Cape Canaveral, it’s very likely that SpaceX will have to wait until August 2022 at the earliest for Falcon Heavy’s first launch in more than three years.
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
