News
SpaceX’s Starship factory is churning out steel rockets faster than ever
SpaceX’s South Texas Starship factory is churning out steel rocket hardware faster than ever before according to photos of yet another prototype already in the works.
At the same time as SpaceX works around the clock to test SN4 and prepare the ship for what will be the first flight of a full-scale Starship prototype, the company is building not one; not two; but three additional prototypes. A confirmation that a third Starship was being simultaneously manufactured in South Texas came on May 25th when local Boca Chica resident and observer Mary (bocachicagal) captured a photo of a pair of stacked steel rings rather conspicuously labeled “SN7”.
While it’s possible that “SN7” is just a coincidence, it’s far more likely that it refers to Starship serial number 7 (SN7), set to be the seventh full-scale prototype built by SpaceX. The apparent start of SN7’s steel ring assembly process some two weeks ago also suggests that no less than several other rings are likely being mated in one or more of SpaceX’s three main manufacturing tents or a much taller windbreak structure. In fact, SpaceX is building Starship prototypes so quickly that the company is actively assembling a second launch mount, suggesting that two Starships could soon be tested more or less simultaneously without stepping on each other’s steel toes.
The most impressive aspect of SN7’s appearance, however, is the fact that SpaceX is already in the late stages of stacking Starship SN5 and begun preparing to stack Starship SN6 directly beside it just a few days ago. Based on labels attached to the side of a new steel nosecone section rolled out of SpaceX’s tent factory a few days ago, Starship SN5 will likely become the first full-scale Starship to reach its full height in a permanent, functional fashion. Back in October 2019, SpaceX did technically stack Starship Mk1 to its full height for a few weeks, but the ship’s nose section was never permanently attached and really only served as a pathfinder and full-scale mockup.
Starship Mk1 ultimately failed prematurely during its first major cryogenic pressure test in November 2019, bursting well before it reached the tank pressures needed for low-velocity hop tests (let alone orbital flight). In the sixth months since, SpaceX refocused its resources and spent much of the time dramatically upgrading its South Texas Starship production facilities and methods. In a rapid-fire series of tests of custom-built Starship tanks, SpaceX quickly proved that those improved methods could produce steel tanks more than capable of surviving pressures of ~8.5 bar (~125 psi) and beyond.
More recently, Starship SN4 – a full-scale prototype with two propellant tanks and three tank domes – passed a ~7.5 bar (~110 psi) cryogenic pressure test with flying colors, just shy of fully validating the smaller tank tests that made it possible. According to CEO Elon Musk, ~8.5 bar is enough to perform orbital launches with the ~40% safety margin preferred for human spaceflight, while 7.5 bar meets the minimum needed for Starship to perform uncrewed orbital launches with a ~25% safety margin.
In other words, SpaceX isn’t simply churning out low-fidelity prototypes – the ships that are being mass-produced are of a high enough quality to be qualified for orbital-class launches. Of course, the physical structure of Starship is just one of many technologies that need to work in harmony for successful orbital flights, many of which need to pass their own challenging tests to be declared ready for launch, but it’s still undeniably impressive that SpaceX is already building complete Starship fuselages in a matter of weeks.
In fact, given that Starship SN4 could perform the first hop test and that SN5 could be assigned to the first high-altitude (3-20+ km) flight tests, there is definitely a chance, however minimal, that Starship SN6 or SN7 could eventually be upgraded for the system’s inaugural orbital launch attempt. Regardless, it’s safe to say that the next several weeks are going to be jam-packed with numerous Starship production and test milestones.
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
