News
SpaceX Starship prototype ignites six engines, starts major brush fire
SpaceX has successfully ignited all six engines on its latest Starship prototype, taking a significant step towards ensuring that the upper stage will be ready for the rocket’s first orbital launch attempt.
Unfortunately, the same successful static fire of a Starship upper stage – potentially producing almost twice as much thrust as the booster of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket – scattered superheated debris hundreds of meters away, igniting a major brush fire. It’s not the first major fire caused by Starship activities in South Texas, and it likely won’t be the last.
Starship S24 completed its first successful static fire on August 9th, igniting two Raptor engines. Several unsuccessful attempts to test more engines followed throughout the rest of the month, and SpaceX ultimately decided to replace one of Starship S24’s three Raptor Vacuum engines in early September before trying again. After workers installed the new engine and buttoned up Ship 24, the stars eventually aligned on September 8th.
Kicking off the test, SpaceX pumped several hundred tons of liquid oxygen (LOx) and a much smaller quantity of liquid methane (LCH4) fuel into Ship 24 in about 90 minutes, producing a crisp layer of frost wherever the cryogenic liquids touched the skin of the rocket’s uninsulated steel tanks. No frost formed on Starship’s upper methane tank, implying that SpaceX only loaded methane fuel into internal ‘header’ tanks meant to store propellant for landings. The hundreds of tons of liquid oxygen, then, were likely meant as ballast, reducing the maximum stress Starship could exert on the test stand holding it to the ground.
That potential stress is substantial. Outfitted with upgraded Raptor 2 engines, Starship S24 could have produced up to 1380 tons (~3M lbf) thrust when it ignited all six for the first time at 4:30 pm CDT. On top of smashing the record for most thrust produced during a Starbase rocket test, Ship 24’s engines burned for almost 8 seconds, making it one of the longest static fires ever performed on a Starship test stand.
Several brush fires were visible almost immediately after clouds of dust and steam cleared. More likely than not, the combination of the extreme force, heat, and burn duration likely obliterated the almost entirely unprotected concrete surface below Ship 24. Despite continuous evidence that all Starship static fire operations would be easier and safer with the systems, SpaceX still refuses to install serious water deluge or flame deflector systems at Starbase’s test stands and launch pads.
Instead, under its steel Starship test stands, SpaceX relies on a single middling deluge spray nozzle and high-temperature concrete (likely martyte) that probably wouldn’t pass muster for a rocket ten times less powerful than Starship. In multiple instances, Starships have shattered that feeble martyte layer, creating high-velocity ceramic shards that damage their undersides or Raptor engines, requiring repairs and creating risky situations. With essentially no attempt at all to tame the high-speed several-thousand-degree Raptor exhaust, static fire tests at Starbase thus almost always start small grass fires and cause minor damage, but those fires rarely spread.
Ship 24’s first six-engine test was not so lucky, although the Starship made it through seemingly unscathed. Most likely, eight long seconds of blast-furnace conditions melted the top layer of surrounding concrete and shot a hailstorm of tiny superheated globules in almost every direction. Indeed, in almost every direction there was something readily able to burn, a fire started. In several locations to the south and west, brush caught fire and began to burn unusually aggressively, quickly growing into walls of flames that sped across the terrain. To the east, debris even made it into a SpaceX dumpster, the contents of which easily caught fire and burned for hours.
Eventually, around 9pm CDT, firefighters were able to approach the safed launch pad and rocket, but the main fire had already spread south, out of reach. Instead, they started controlled burns near SpaceX’s roadblock, hoping to clear brush and prevent the fire (however unlikely) from proceeding towards SpaceX’s Starbase factory and Boca Chica Village homes and residents.
The nature of the estuary-like terrain and wetlands means that it’s very easy to stop fires at choke points, so the fire likely never posed any real threat to Boca Chica residents, SpaceX employees, or onlookers. It was also unlikely to damage SpaceX’s launch facilities or return to damage Starship S24 from the start, as both of are surrounded by a combination of concrete aprons, empty dirt fields, and a highway.
Still, the “brush” burned by the fire is a protected habitat located in a State Park and Wildlife Refuge. While fire is a natural and often necessary element of many habitats, including some of those in Boca Chica, this is the second major brush fire caused by Starship testing since 2019, which may be less than desirable. At a minimum, fighting fires around Starbase generally requires firefighters to walk or even drive on protected wetlands and salt flats, the impact of which could ultimately be as bad for wildlife and habitats as the fire itself.
SpaceX’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA), which fully greenlit the company’s existing Starbase Texas facilities and launch plans earlier this year, only discusses fire [PDF] a handful of times. Repairing and preventing future damage to wetlands, however, comes up dozens of times and is the subject of numerous conditions SpaceX must meet before the FAA will grant Starship an orbital launch license.
Ultimately, given that the FAA approved that PEA in full awareness of a 2019 brush fire caused by Starhopper (an early Starship prototype) that may have been as bad or worse than 2022’s, there’s a chance that it will play a small role in the ongoing launch licensing process, but the odds of it being a showstopper are close to zero. Still, it would likely benefit SpaceX at least as much as the surrounding Boca Chica wilderness if it can implement changes that prevent major brush fires from becoming a regular ‘accidental’ occurrence.
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
