News
SpaceX installs Raptor Vacuum engine on first orbital-class Starship
Update: Providing the best views yet of the Raptor Vacuum installation process, SpaceX began installing one of Starship S20’s six engines (one of at least two recently trucked to the launch site) on Monday morning.
It remains to be seen exactly how many engines will be installed on Ship 20 or how many will be ignited during its first static fire test but barring the delivery of more Raptors, signs currently point to an initial test of two engines – one sea-level-optimized Raptor Center (RC) and one Raptor Vacuum with a much larger nozzle. Whenever Ship 20 does fire up those engines, it will be the first static fire of a RVac engine installed on a Starship and the first simultaneous, side-by-side static fire of two different Raptor variants. Since publishing time, SpaceX has cancelled a Tuesday road closure, pushing Starship S20’s first static fire attempt to no earlier than (NET) Wednesday evening.
For the third time in two months, SpaceX has begun installing Raptor engines on its first orbital-class Starship prototype – hopefully for good.
In no uncertain terms, Starship 20’s (S20) path to what could be its last Raptor installations has been about as windy and mysterious as they come. Starship 20 (S20) left the Starbase factory floor for the first time in early August – all six Raptors installed in another program first – for a brief fit check and photo op. After spending about an hour installed on top of Super Heavy Booster 4 (B4), Ship 20 was removed and returned to the build site, where teams removed all six engines and finished wiring and plumbing the vehicle.
Days before the ship’s long-anticipated trip to Starbase’s suborbital launch site for qualification testing, the mount SpaceX prepared for the process quickly had hydraulic rams – used to safely simulate Raptor thrust – were abruptly removed. Starship S20 was then installed on the Pad B mount, where SpaceX proceeded to reinstall six Raptors. Weeks later, after slow heat shield repairs neared completion, SpaceX again removed Ship 20’s Raptors and reinstalled the hydraulic rams it had removed – unused – the month prior. Finally, on September 30th, some seven weeks after the prototype arrived at the suborbital launch site, SpaceX put Starship S20 through its first major test – a lengthy ‘cryoproof’.
Now, ten days after completing a seemingly flawless cryoproof test on its first try, SpaceX has once again trucked multiple Raptors – at least one sea level and one vacuum engine – from the Starbase build site to Starship S20’s suborbital test stand. From the outside looking in, it’s hard not to view the contradictory path S20 took to its first tests – and is still taking to its first static fire(s) – as an unusually visible sign of some kind of internal tug of war or major communication failure between different SpaceX groups or executives.
It’s impossible to determine anything specific beyond the apparent fact that several of the steps taken from Ship 20’s first factory departure to its first cryoproof and static fire tests could have probably been deleted entirely with no harm done and many dozens of hours of work saved. At the end of the day, Starship S20 completed cryoproof testing without issue on the first try and is now seemingly on track to begin its first static fire test campaign later this month.
At the moment, SpaceX has three possible static fire test windows scheduled from 5pm to midnight CDT on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday (Oct 12-14). A similar Monday window was canceled days ago on October 7th, suggesting that more cancellations are probably on the horizon. For now, there’s a chance that Starship S20 – with anywhere from two to all six Raptor engines installed – will fire up for the first time before next weekend. It’s hard to say how exactly SpaceX will proceed. It’s not inconceivable that SpaceX will install all six engines and gradually ramp up to a full six-engine static fire over several tests.
Given that SpaceX has already static fired three Raptor Center (RC) engines on multiple Starship and Super Heavy prototypes, odds are good that Starship S20’s test campaign will be similar – beginning with a three-Raptor static fire, in other words. SpaceX could then add one, two, or all three Raptor Vacuum engines into the fray for one or more additional tests with 4-6 engines total. It’s also possible that suborbital launch mount and pad limitations will prevent more than three engines from firing at once, in which case SpaceX would presumably perform two separate tests of Ship 20’s Raptor Center and Raptor Vacuum engines.
Given that two Raptor variants have never been static fired simultaneously on the same vehicle, it’s hard to imagine that SpaceX won’t also want to perform one or several combined static fires with Raptor Vacuum and Raptor Center engines on Ship 20.
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
