News
SpaceX’s Starship/Super Heavy rocket needs a launch pad and work is already starting
According to SpaceX job posts published early this month, the company has already begun the process of looking for the engineer or engineers that will be responsible for preparing both Starship/Super Heavy and its prospective pad facilities for the rocket’s inaugural launches.
Per one of those posts, Starship/Super Heavy’s “initial launch capability” will be achieved at Kennedy Space Center’s historic Launch Complex 39A (also known as Pad 39A), a facility SpaceX has leased since 2014 and launched from since 2017. Originally constructed in the 1960s to support Saturn V, the largest operational US rocket ever built, Pad 39A spent another three decades supporting dozens of Shuttle launches until the latter was also retired, after which SpaceX took over the historic facility. Although SpaceX has specifically discussed plans to ultimately turn its South Texas outpost into a full-fledged orbital launch site, that will be an extremely slow and expensive endeavor and Pad 39A makes sense for several reasons.
Building rocket launch facilities is hard
Even though SpaceX has still tended to aggressively outperform its competitors and peers, the process of building a new launch complex from scratch is extremely challenging. For example, after SpaceX suffered a catastrophic failure of Falcon 9 at Pad 40 (LC-40) in September 2016, the company had to conduct extensive refurbishment and even tacked on some pre-planned upgrades. Still, a large portion of the pad remained intact, including the flame trench (with minor damage), hangar facilities, and more.
Ultimately, it took SpaceX more than 10 months and $50M to repair, rebuild, and upgrade LC-40. The biggest single ticket item was likely the new transporter/erector and its associated launch mount and water deluge system, followed by new plumbing and communications infrastructure throughout the pad. By far the most time-consuming and expensive process, however, is laying a foundation for the launch pad itself, most of which SpaceX was able to skip at Pad 40 after some relatively minor repairs and modifications.
Although Blue Origin is as tightlipped as space startups come, owner Jeff Bezos has indicated that the companies large-scale LC-36 pad – built from a clean slate – was part of an overall investment of “more than $1 billion”. That is split between LC-36, a new factory, and a more general-use campus in and around Cape Canaveral, Florida. Building a factory is even more expensive than launch facilities, so the overall cost of building LC-36 from scratch is likely somewhere between $150M and $300M, although it could be even more expensive.
LC-36 is being built for New Glenn, a rocket that will produce roughly 75% as much thrust as Falcon Heavy and ~25% as much thrust as Starship’s Super Heavy booster at liftoff. This is all to make a simple point: if SpaceX means to do so, building a new Super Heavy-class launch pad at Boca Chica is going to take a bare minimum of a year and $100M+ (assuming Blue Origin has been somewhat inefficient, as usual). SpaceX’s current setup is unambiguously dedicated to far lower-thrust Starhopper (and maybe Starship) test flights, whereas an orbital launch complex capable of surviving Super Heavy liftoffs would be at least 5X larger and involve extensive foundation-laying and far more concrete.
All things considered, it’s thrilling that SpaceX is already in the process of designing and – soon – constructing the launch complex (or add-on hardware) that will support the first suborbital and orbital launches of Starship and Super Heavy. Per the aforementioned Launch Engineer job post, it seems all but certain that visible work at Pad 39A could begin at any moment, regardless of whether SpaceX has plans to subtly modify the existing 39A facilities or build something entirely new within its borders.
According to SpaceX VP of Commercial Sales Jonathan Hofeller, “the goal is to get orbital as quickly as possible, potentially even this year, with the full stack operational by the end of next year and then customers in early 2021.” In short, Starship and Super Heavy-compatible launch facilities are going to be needed at 39A (and, eventually, Boca Chica) far sooner than later. Even if it’s likely that the vehicle development will suffer delays that could push Starship’s orbital launch debut into 2021 or beyond, launch pad design and construction is challenging and slow but still fairly predictable. and it is certainly better to be early than to be late. In short, the next 12 months are going to be wild.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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.
News
Tesla’s Cybercab battery design could make robotaxis even cheaper
Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with spare room for a future switch to LFP.
Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with empty space inside it on purpose, and the reason points to a cheaper robotaxi down the road.
Robert Sumpf, Tesla’s director of mechanical design engineering for battery modules and packs, said the extra room beside and beneath the Cybercab’s modules was left there so the company can move to lithium iron phosphate cells later. “So, we protected this pack to go to an even lower energy dense chemistry as we scale and need to bring LFP into the platform,” Sumpf said in a Cybercab deep dive with Munro Live.
The Cybercab runs on Tesla’s own 4680 cells with a nickel chemistry today. LFP cells store less energy for their size, so a straight swap would cut range. The reserved space lets Tesla add more LFP cells to make up the difference. In return, Tesla would get cells that cost less, run cooler and survive more charge cycles. LFP became the most used EV battery chemistry in the world last year.
Not all of that room was planned for a chemistry change. Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, said part of it exists because “we didn’t need as many batteries as we thought we did.” Tesla told Sandy Munro in early 2025 that it was targeting a Cybercab pack under 50 kWh with close to 300 miles of range.
The pack also breaks from the structural design Tesla used in some Model Y and Cybertruck builds. Instead of potting hundreds of cells into one block, the Cybercab uses four separate, individually sealed modules, so a bad module can be replaced without scrapping the whole pack. Sumpf was blunt about the older approach, giving the Model Y structural battery “a grade D” because it was hard to build and nearly impossible to repair. He estimated a fully structural pack gains about 10% more cell volume, but said “the issue is the service cost.”
That cost matters more for a car that rarely sits parked. Cybercab chief engineer Eric Earley said replacing an entire pack “before half a million miles is a killer on cost,” which is why remanufacturing and serviceability were built into the design from the start.
The same Munro Live tour produced Moravy’s admission that the Cybercab line at Giga Texas is now outpacing Robotaxi deployments, along with a look at the robotaxi’s unorthodox paint process. Tesla is aiming to deliver the first Cybercabs to outside customers by the end of 2026, though Elon Musk has said the vast majority will stay owned by Tesla and run as a transport service.
Sumpf did not give a date for an LFP version, name a cell supplier or say how a chemistry change would affect range. For now, the 4680 cars keep piling up: Texas DMV records from Tuesday list 544 Cybercabs authorized for Tesla’s Robotaxi fleet, more than the 507 Model Ys on the same roster for the first time.
Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know
Tesla’s ‘Emergency Drive Away’ function gets its first use in the real world
