News
SpaceX installs second Starship Mk1 canard ahead of transport to launch pad
SpaceX has begun to install Starship Mk1’s second of two forward ‘canards’, aerodynamic flaps the rocket prototype will soon use to attempt the first radical skydiver-style landing. SpaceX technicians are likely working to fully outfit the rocket before transporting its nose section to the launch pad, where it can be mated to Starship Mk1’s lower tank and engine section.
This second canard installation follows just a few days after SpaceX technicians began installing the first fin, a process that took a fair bit longer than usual as a result of new hardware integrated with the control surfaces this time around. Discussed earlier today, those large mechanism are likely the substantial actuators Starship will need to rapidly tweak its trajectory while falling through the atmosphere.
“Barely three weeks after the rocket’s forward flaps (canards) were removed, SpaceX technicians began the reinstallation process with one major visible difference: a massive motorcycle-sized actuator. The appearance of that previously unseen actuator mechanism on the first reinstalled canard suggests that this time around, SpaceX is installing Starship’s flaps with their final purpose of controlling Starship’s free-fall in mind.”
Teslarati, 11/04/2019
With the first installation complete, SpaceX’s Boca Chica technicians will likely be able to install Starship Mk1’s second canard more quickly. Beyond attaching the prototype’s control surfaces, SpaceX has also made a significant amount of progress outfitting Starship Mk1’s nose section with other hardware, notably fitting the nose’s exterior fuel lines with what is likely insulation.
That same black and silver insulation has been visible on SpaceX’s Starship Mk2 prototype in Cocoa, Florida, where technicians appear to have taken a slightly different step than Texas, insulating the plumbing before installing it on the vehicle.
Together again, at last
On October 30th, SpaceX lifted Starship Mk1’s tank and engine section onto a remote-controlled transported and moved the rocket half approximately a mile to its Boca Chica, Texas launch facilities, where Starship was installed on a freshly-constructed launch mount. SpaceX’s decision to move Mk1’s halves separately came as a bit of a surprise but appears to have been driven by a need to ensure that the spacecraft’s bottom half fit properly on the launch mount’s umbilical connections. Between the mount’s hefty steel beams, the beginnings of those panels (often deemed ‘quick disconnects’) are visible at the base of the panorama below.
Also visible around the base of Starship Mk1’s shiny aft section are a number of black steel structures – six, to be precise. Those protrusions are Starship’s landing legs, one of the last significant mechanisms installed on the rocket before SpaceX transported the half to the launch site. For unknown reasons, Starship Mk1’s legs – as well as Mk2’s – are almost nothing like those SpaceX have proposed for past Starship iterations and are even more dissimilar to Falcon 9’s extensively flight-proven hardware.
Instead of Falcon 9’s triangular, spread-eagle legs or BFR’s older tripod fin setup, Starship 2019 features six peg-like legs that only deploy or retract directly up or down. As some observers have noted, some of the hardware installed in and around those steel beam-like legs resembles industrial-grade linear brakes, suggesting that the legs will be deployed from their stowed positions by releasing those brakes and letting gravity do most of the work.
Layman concerns remain about the stability of six perfectly vertical legs with a span essentially the same as Starship’s own diameter, a possible indicator that the dead-simple landing legs on Mk1 and Mk2 may be dramatically simplified for the sake of speedy development. At the same time, it’s possible that their linear brake mechanisms could simultaneously offer some sort of minor suspension or terrain compensation, but their extremely narrow span fundamentally limits their potential stability. For landing on a prepared concrete slab, however, they will likely be sufficient, although almost any lateral velocity at all could result in Starship tipping over.
For now, SpaceX has road closures scheduled on November 7th, 8th, and 12th, the former two of which are probably more focused on transporting Starship Mk1’s nose section to the pad for installation atop the tank section. At the same time, SpaceX is clearly preparing for a series of major Starship tests, including a tank proof test, a wet dress rehearsal, and a triple-Raptor static fire. Stay tuned for updates!
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
