News
SpaceX’s high-altitude Starship launch debut unlikely before Crew-1
Update: SpaceX canceled its November 5th and 6th Starship SN8 static fire test windows on Thursday, delaying the next Starship test window to November 9th unless additional testing is scheduled on the 7th and 8th.
As previously discussed, SpaceX requested three road closures for “Starship SN8 Static Fire and 15KM Flight” attempts on November 9th, 10th, and 11th on Wednesday. With recent cancellations, NASASpaceflight reporter Michael Baylor says that the odds that Starship SN8 will be ready to fly before SpaceX’s Crew-1 operational NASA astronaut launch debut (NET November 14th) are now minuscule, further indicating that each of the three upcoming test windows will be dedicated to one or more Raptor static fires.
Stay tuned for updates as SpaceX continues to prepare Starship for its most ambitious, challenging, and risky test yet.
In the form of road closure filings, SpaceX has effectively announced the first possible dates for Starship’s high-altitude launch debut, a high-risk test that CEO Elon Musk recently made clear could fail.
Per road closures published on SpaceX’s dedicated Cameron County, Texas page, Starship serial number 8 (SN8) could apparently be ready for its historic launch debut as soon as November 9th in a 12-hour window that opens at 9am CST (15:00 UTC). Identical 9am-9pm windows on November 10th and 11th will serve as backups in the event of one or several launch aborts or delays – fairly likely for a prototype as complex as Starship SN8.
However, several tests stand between SN8 and flight-readiness, further increasing the odds of delays as SpaceX continues to work out the kinks in what amounts to the first fully-assembly, functional Starship.
Musk has already stated that Starship SN8 will need to complete another Raptor static fire test – potentially with one, two, or three engines – before SpaceX will consider the rocket ready for its flight debut. Over the last few days, NASASpaceflight.com reporter Michael Baylor has noted on livestreams that multiple more static fire tests are actually in order before SpaceX will attempt to launch Starship SN8. It’s currently unclear what the purpose of those additional static fire tests is, given that SN8 has already completed a triple-engine Raptor static fire.
In the two weeks since that milestone, however, SpaceX did take a major step forward, mating Starship SN8’s nose section to create what is effectively the first full-scale, functional prototype. Aside from two smaller forward flaps and attitude control system (ACS) cold gas thrusters, that nose section also contains a small secondary liquid oxygen tank known as a header tank – meant to store a small amount of highly pressurized propellant to be used during Raptor reentry and landing burns. Several months back, Musk revealed that Starship SN4 completed a static fire while only feeding on fuel (liquid methane) stored in the rocket’s methane header tank, making it reasonable to assume that SpaceX wants to repeat a similar test with SN8 while using both fuel and oxidizer header tanks.
For Starship SN8, those header tanks will be an irreplaceable necessity during the rocket’s first attempted launch, free-fall, flip maneuver, and landing. In a clear sign of preparation for a header-tank-only static fire test, SpaceX appeared to successfully complete a cryogenic proof of Starship SN8’s newly-installed nose section and nose (LOx) header tank on November 3rd, verifying that liquid nitrogen – standing in for LOx – can be pumped more than 50 meters (~165 ft) from Starship’s launch mount to the tip of its nose to load said tank.
SpaceX has one more “SN8 nose cone cryo proof” test window scheduled from 8am to 5pm CST Thursday, November 5th that could be used for one or more of those expected static fire tests. Otherwise, SpaceX’s Starship SN18 15 km (~50,000 ft) launch closures were technically filed for an “SN8 Static Fire and 15 KM Flight,” allowing SpaceX to perform one or several static fires before attempting to launch. All things considered, the odds that Starship SN8 will launch on time between November 9th and 11th are probably less than 50:50, but there is definitely a chance.
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
