News
SpaceX preparing for an inaugural Falcon Heavy launch in November
All three Falcon Heavy cores are believed to be at Cape Canaveral
As we inch closer to SpaceX returning to a regular launch schedule, evidence is adding up that Falcon Heavy is fast approaching launch readiness.
Over at SpaceX’s Cape Canaveral facilities, workers are busily modifying LC-39A and are deep into the reconstruction and reactivation of LC-40, which was severely damaged just over 11 months ago. Members of the SpaceX fan community have taken regular tours of the Kennedy Space Center and offered glimpses into part of the process as workers relentlessly dismantle previous LC-39A pad structures.
-
- During a month without launches, SpaceX has made considerable progress dismantling parts of LC-39A. The main focus right now is the RSS, which is the skeletal structure on the left. (Brian Bundridge/Facebook)
-
- One of Falcon Heavy’s side boosters seen arriving at LC-39A about a month ago. (Reddit /u/MajorRocketScience)
Before SpaceX, the pad hosted the first manned launches of the vast Saturn V rocket and hosted the launch of Apollo 11, which landed the first humans on the Moon in 1969. Decades later, that same pad was recycled for the Space Shuttle and supported dozens of Shuttle launches. SpaceX is deep into the process of dismantling the old pad structures used for the Shuttle, and Elon Musk has recently reported that the Rolling Service Structure (RSS) is expected to be entirely removed before the first launch of Falcon Heavy. While bittersweet for many observers, LC-39A will eventually host both the return of massive rockets to the U.S., as well as the first American-supported launch of crew to the ISS in more than six years.
With this progress, we find ourselves in the pleasantly foreign situation of SpaceX beating one of Musk’s aggressive schedules. In early June, he tweeted about Falcon Heavy cores arriving at the Cape within two or three months. Surprisingly, it has been confirmed that three of three Falcon Heavy cores are already at LC-39A and have been for at least a week or two. At the moment, pad readiness is the main constraint for its inaugural launch. SpaceX is preparing for a period of pad gymnastics as they ready LC-40 to take over for LC-39A. Once this happens, all Falcon 9 launches will be transferred over to LC-40, and this will allow SpaceX workers to conduct necessary modifications to LC-39A’s launch hardware in preparation for Falcon Heavy. These modifications are expected to take about two months.
All Falcon Heavy cores should be at the Cape in two to three months, so launch should happen a month after that
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 8, 2017
Current best guesses peg the first launch from LC-40 in late August or sometime in September, fitting nicely with Musk’s Falcon Heavy launch estimate of November. Falcon Heavy will nevertheless likely require several weeks of fit checks, wet dress rehearsals (like a static fire but without the ignition), and one or several static fires before its first official launch attempt. While Musk has recently been on a warpath of expectation management for Falcon Heavy, going so far as to imply that a failure was a likely outcome, let there be no doubt that SpaceX and Musk will privately do everything realistically possible to ensure a safe launch. If major issues are discovered during pre-launch testing, SpaceX will almost certainly scrub the launch indefinitely.
However, if Falcon Heavy does indeed lift off above a more controlled fireball later this year, fans can look forward to what will be a stunning show of force. Musk once again confirmed that both side cores will land at LZ-1, SpaceX’s land-based landing facilities, and the center core will land on Of Course I Still Live You somewhere in the Pacific. While not guaranteed, Musk’s myriad comments on the spectacular nature of the launch mean that SpaceX’s live coverage will offer some truly incredibly views. Fans have long eagerly anticipated the synchronized landings of the side cores, as well as possible live shots of booster separation during the launch.
-
- NASASpaceflight’s famed graphic designer okan170 has produced multiple gorgeous renders of Falcon Heavy over the years. (NASASpaceflight)
-
- NASASpaceflight’s famed graphic designer okan170 has produced multiple gorgeous renders of Falcon Heavy over the years. (NASASpaceflight)
At the ISSR&D Conference, Musk reiterated the fact that SpaceX’s primary focus is preparation for Commercial Crew. LC-39A is needed for SpaceX’s crewed launches, so it is highly unlikely that the company will risk a Falcon Heavy launch if there is anything more than the slimmest of chances of the pad being lost in a launch failure. Regardless of the outcome, as Musk himself has often said, Falcon Heavy’s inaugural launch is guaranteed to be a spectacle.
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
