News
SpaceX’s first government Falcon Heavy launch aiming for “early 2019” per USAF
Linked to the rocket and mission through its own LightSail 2 solar sail satellite, The Planetary Society reports that the USAF and SpaceX are now targeting Falcon Heavy’s first launch for a government customer in “early 2019”.
Previously expected to launch around November 30th, just a month from today, it’s clear that SpaceX’s second Falcon Heavy rocket has yet to approach flight readiness, likely marginalized by a more pressing focus on near-term Falcon 9 missions and Crew Dragon’s imminent flight debuts.
LightSail 2 launch pushed to early 2019
An Air Force official says an ‘initial launch capability’ is being reassessed: https://t.co/QYA6NFPP1I pic.twitter.com/RJclLvcbSs
— Planetary Society (@exploreplanets) October 29, 2018
According to Planetary Society, a USAF official provided an update – per the group’s involvement in its STP-2 rideshare launch – stating that its “initial launch capability” was being reassessed, essentially a roundabout way of saying “A new launch date is being determined”. Reasons for the multitude of delays since Falcon Heavy’s successful February 2018 debut are few and far between, with the most likely explanation being some combination of issues with one or several of the ~25 satellites manifested and SpaceX’s ability to build a new Falcon Heavy rocket in time.
However, it’s decidedly ambiguous as to which one of those explanations truly takes precedence, given that SpaceX apparently told the USAF and its customers that it was ready to launch the mission between June and August.
“Officials working on the mission said SpaceX has provided the Air Force and other customers a 60-day window for launch opening on June 13. The Air Force spokesperson confirmed it will be the second Falcon Heavy mission.” – Stephen Clark, SpaceflightNow
Assuming SpaceX’s launch readiness announcement was accurate, the USAF and its customers must have run into some extreme issues while organizing all STP-2 payloads and integrating those satellites onto a custom-built adapter, a task that companies like Spaceflight Industries have shown to often be the long pole of rideshare launches. It’s also possible that SpaceX executives and managers underestimated or undersold the challenge of moving from a Falcon Heavy built solely on old Falcon 9 Block 2 and 3 boosters to an all-Block 5 version of the rocket, featuring a large number of highly-consequential changes like uprated engines and an entirely new approach to assembling each booster’s octaweb.
-
- Spaceflight’s SSO-A rideshare mission is quite similar to STP-2, albeit with more satellites on the smaller side. (Spaceflight)
-
- One group of STP-2 passengers, known as DSX, has been awaiting launch for more than eight years. (USAF)
-
- SpaceX’s second Falcon Heavy launch will either be the USAF’s STP-2, a collection of smaller satellites, or Arabsat 6A, a large communications satellite. (USAF)
Lastly, depending on the nature of the launch contract between them, it’s possible that SpaceX had been planning on reflying Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters as its next Falcon Heavy’s side boosters, a move that would dramatically shorten the lead time required for a new Falcon Heavy to be produced. If the USAF expects or has unconditionally demanded all-new hardware for the launch of STP-2, SpaceX would need at least two (if not three) times the production resources to build and test Falcon Heavy #2, all while paralyzing those resources until well after the rocket’s first flight.
Building three separate Falcon 9/Heavy boosters, acceptance-testing them in Texas, and delivering them to Florida – all under uniquely strict USAF standards – would likely take SpaceX a bare minimum of four months from start to finish. In the guaranteed event that SpaceX had to simultaneously continue regular production, test operations, and preparations for Crew Dragon launches, an all-new Falcon Heavy would likely take more than 6-8 months to make flight-ready while still allowing SpaceX to avoid severe launch delays for its many other customers.
-
- The communications satellite Arabsat-6A. (Lockheed Martin)
-
- Falcon Heavy’s side boosters seconds away from near-simultaneous landings at Landing Zones 1 and 2. (SpaceX)
To add additional confusion to the mix, multiple reliable sources have confirmed that STP-2’s actual launch target is closer to March 2019, quite a stretch for “early 2019”. At the same time, Falcon Heavy customer Arabsat has reported that its Arabsat 6A satellite is expected to launch as early as January 2019. Ultimately, clarity can only come from the USAF, Arabsat, or SpaceX itself – for now, we wait.
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.
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
