News
SpaceX’s Starship Mk1 prototype heads to the launch pad – but why?
SpaceX has transported (half of) its Starship Mk1 prototype to its South Texas launch pad for the first time ever, signifying that the company is about to enter a major new stage of testing.
The move, however, raises the question: why is SpaceX transporting only half of Starship Mk1 to the launch pad?
Following SpaceX CEO Elon Musk’s September 28th presentation on Starship, the spacecraft prototype was partially disassembled, having essentially been mocked up to stand as a backdrop at the event. The impact was fairly minor, taking up no more than a few days of work, but Starship Mk1 remains in two large, separate pieces – a curved nose section and the ship’s cylindrical propellant tank and propulsion section.
A little over a month after Musk’s presentation, SpaceX technicians freed Starship Mk1’s lower tank section from a steel mount and temporarily installed the giant half-spacecraft on framework mounted to a Roll Lift transporter. SpaceX has consistently relied on Roll Lifts for the task of transporting Starship’s massive segments both around and between its Boca Chica, Texas build and launch facilities. This time around, only Starship Mk1’s lower half was loaded onto the transporter before being staged overnight near the main gate of SpaceX’s build site.
Although work continued throughout the night, around dawn on October 30th, transport activity restarted in earnest, with technicians preparing to move Starship. A road closure filed with Cameron County suggested that something would occur on the 30th, with followers speculating that Starship Mk1 would be transported to SpaceX’s South Texas launch pad. As it turned out, that speculation was correct, and (half of) Starship Mk1 was indeed moved to the launch pad and installed atop a new launch mount that was built from scratch in just a few months.
(Half a) Starship on the pad
While it’s undeniably thrilling to see Starship Mk1 head to SpaceX’s Boca Chica launch pad for the first time ever, it remains to be seen why exactly only half of the rocket was transported – no mean feat. Although a great deal of progress has been made over the last month outfitting Starship Mk1 with all the wiring, electronics, plumbing, and other subsystems the prototype will need to function, it’s plainly visible that a significant amount of work remains before Starship will be ready for integrated testing.
Most notably, as pictured above, the launch mount frame is certainly more or less complete, but most of the complex plumbing, wiring, and power equipment it will need to serve its function is not obviously present. There is admittedly a possibility that SpaceX will reuse the ‘quick disconnect’ umbilical ports used by Starhopper on Starship Mk1, but that remains to be seen.
Additionally, Starship Mk1 also has some level of work left before it will be ready for its first propellant loading test, let alone flight. Aside from a large amount of wiring and avionics that still needs to be partially run, harnessed, and connected, Starship’s main liquid oxygen and methane feedlines – needed to fuel the rocket – are largely complete but still unfinished.
There are at least a few obvious possible explanations for SpaceX moving the Starship Mk1 tank section to the launch pad in its partially-finished state. The easiest explanation is that SpaceX wants to perform leak and pressure tests of Starship’s tanks as early as possible, even if that involves testing the rocket without its nose (the host of Mk1’s batteries, power controllers, COPVs, pressurization tanks, and more). It’s not clear that Starship Mk1 is – at present – capable of performing a wet dress rehearsal (WDR), a common aerospace test where a rocket is fully fueled and counts down to launch without actually igniting.
Instead, SpaceX could potentially perform a pressure (or at least leak) test with a neutral gas (or perhaps liquid nitrogen) just to verify that Starship Mk1 is structurally sound before kicking off cryogenic propellant loading. Additionally, it’s possible that SpaceX could get around Mk1’s incomplete propellant feed lines by attaching pad umbilicals directly to the ends of the incomplete feed lines.
At the same time, it’s possible that SpaceX has decided to finish assembling Starship at the launch pad itself, hinted at when a local photographer captured a number of Mk1’s control surfaces and aero covers being moved around shortly after Starship was moved to the pad. Time will tell. For the time being, SpaceX has no more road closures scheduled (meaning no nose section transport) until November 7th and 8th, followed by another on the 12th.
Stay tuned to find out what transpires!
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
