News
SpaceX finishes stacking new Starship for the first time in six months
For the first time in more than half a year, SpaceX has stacked a new Starship prototype to its full height, hopefully marking the end of a period of relatively slow progress.
That period began when Starship S20 was stacked to its full height in early August 2021. Until very recently, Ship 20 was said and expected to be the prototype assigned to Starship’s first orbital test flight, making it exceptionally important. In an unusual change in attitude, SpaceX may have felt the same, which may explain why Starship S20’s first static fire test took place more than two months after it first left the factory. A year prior, Starships SN9, SN10, SN11, and SN15 all completed proof testing a matter of weeks after rollout.
That sudden change of pace relative to past development has meant that Ship 20 is the only Starship prototype SpaceX has tested since May 2021 and the only Starship to graduate from final assembly to testing in the last six months. In that period, Ship 20 has completed a few major cryogenic proof tests and four static fires – two of which ignited all six Raptor engines. While Ship 20’s six-engine tests were unprecedented and marked a major program milestone, SpaceX once static-fired Starship SN9 three times in one day in January 2021.
However, that period of sluggish prototype testing may finally be coming to an end. In August 2021, when SpaceX stacked Starship S20 and Super Heavy B4 for the first time, the general assumption was that the seemingly imminent march towards orbital flight testing would be similar to SpaceX’s attempts to land a Starship from medium altitude between December 2020 and May 2021 – lots of prototypes in flow and multiple back-to-back tests and launches, in other words. That was not the case.
Starship S21, for example, began final assembly in mid-October 2021 and its tank section and nose section were both fully stacked less than a month later. However, rather than stack them into a second complete ship, SpaceX has left those separate assemblies sitting around Starbase for the last three months. Simultaneously, while Ship 21’s apparent limbo seemed to imply that SpaceX was implementing another block upgrade and moving on to newer prototypes, the company actually started stacking Starship S22 about a week after S21’s separate sections were completed. Only three months later have SpaceX’s plans for those three sections finally become clear.
On February 14th, 2022, Ship 22’s tank section followed Ship 21’s nose section into Starbase’s high bay assembly facility, where they were quickly stacked to form a full Starship prototype the same day. This raises the question: why?
Given that Starship S20 effectively completed qualification testing with three successful static fires in December 2021 and a fourth in early January 2022 and has been seemingly ready to fly ever since, its Super Heavy booster readiness – not ship readiness – that appears to be holding SpaceX back. Perhaps because of pad readiness issues, SpaceX has yet to perform a single Super Heavy static fire test – or even a less risky wet dress rehearsal – at the orbital launch site. As such, it’s hard to say why SpaceX has suddenly decided to finish Ship 22 instead of focusing on a newer version of Starship (S24) and Super Heavy (B7) – both of which are expected to debut upgrades.
It’s possible that Ship 22 is being completed merely as practice for the Starbase workforce, who have gone half a year without fully assembling another ship prototype, but then there would have been no reason not to install Ship 21’s nose on Ship 21’s tank section instead of withholding it for Ship 22. Ship 22 could also be a replacement for Ship 21 if appearances are misleading and SpaceX uncovered issues with the older prototype during testing but again, no booster is ready to launch either ship.
Regardless of the outcome or purpose of Ship 22, seeing any new Starship prototype completed is an exciting and interesting change of pace after half a year of following the windy paths of Ship 20, Booster 5, and Ship 21 to their uncertain goals.
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
