News
SpaceX’s next Starhopper flight needs more analysis for FAA go-ahead, says Elon Musk
According to SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, the company’s next major Starhopper flight test is still awaiting FAA approval due to a need for more hazard analysis, presumably required because Starhopper will be traveling much higher than before.
On August 9th, SpaceX completed a routine wet dress rehearsal (WDR) with Starhopper, loading the vehicle with propellant and fluids and replicating a launch countdown up to the point of Raptor ignition. Starhopper remains untethered in a sign that SpaceX doesn’t have plans for a static fire test before the low-fidelity rocket prototype’s next flight milestone. Originally scheduled for August 12th, that milestone – a 200m (650 ft) hop test – has been indefinitely delayed as SpaceX awaits an updated permit from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The oddity of the apparent difficulty SpaceX is having with the FAA’s experimental permit process is deepened by the fact that Starhopper is already permitted by the FAA and demonstrated its first successful flight just a few weeks ago, on July 25th. On top of the fact that the local Boca Chica and Brownsville, Texas airspace tends to be extremely quiet, it’s unclear what exactly is holding up SpaceX, the FAA, or both in what should otherwise be a relatively streamlined process.
A few weeks ago, after one false start on July 24th, Starhopper performed its first untethered flight ever on July 25th, successfully demonstrating its integrated steel propellant tanks, avionics, software, and Raptor propulsion over the course of 20 or so seconds of flight. Starhopper’s inaugural flight was delayed at least several weeks by a major bug with SpaceX’s next-gen Raptor engine, described by Elon Musk as a problem with a certain frequency of vibration (i.e. mechanical resonance).
According to Musk, said resonance failure mode was effectively solved with unspecified modifications made to the sixth Raptor engine produce (Raptor SN06). That engine became the first to successfully pass SpaceX’s regime of pre-hop static fires in McGregor, Texas around July 10th and was shipped south to Boca Chica and installed on Starhopper scarcely 24 hours later.
Assuming those vibration issues have been completely quashed, Musk has also stated that SpaceX is aiming to produce as many as two Raptor engines per day by the end of 2019. It’s believed that all engines preceding SN06 (SN01-05) were either damaged or destroyed during testing, be that a result of intentional testing-to-destruction or anomalous behavior during certain test regimes. It should be noted that full-scale Raptor is still undoubtedly in development and hardware failure during developmental testing is more predictable and valuable than it might seem. As long as the program can handle it, ‘hardware-rich’ development (i.e. moving fast and breaking things) can be equally – if not more – valuable than an extremely cautious get-it-right-the-first-time approach.
Regardless, once SpaceX’s propulsion engineering team is confident that the more major bugs that plagued early Raptor engines have been alleviated, they will likely give the go-ahead for the engine manufacturing team to begin ramping production rates. Musk believes that SpaceX could be ready for the first test flights of either or both of the company’s orbital Mk1 and Mk1 Starship prototypes as early as mid-September, milestones that will eventually require three sea-level Raptor engines and up to three vacuum Raptor engines per rocket.
Meanwhile, although SpaceX has yet to begin assembling the first Super Heavy booster(s), said boosters will require dozens of Raptor engines each for their first flights. Musk says that SpaceX will start out with something like 20 Raptor engines per booster to minimize losses and disruption in the event of a catastrophic failure, eventually expanding to as many as 35 engines per booster as confidence grows.
For now, Starhopper’s next flight test was scheduled from August 16th through the 18th but has since been tentatively rescheduled to Aug. 19-21. Starhopper will remain grounded until the FAA is satisfied with SpaceX’s updated hazard analyses for the rocket’s 200m flight test.
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
