News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk teases steel Starship on the Moon and Mars
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has published the first official renders of the company’s updated stainless steel Starship, offering glimpses of the spacecraft on both the Moon and Mars.
Although the designs of Starship and Super Heavy (formerly BFS and BFR) have shifted significantly over the past three years, the vehicle’s primary destinations have remained stable. Above all else, SpaceX remains focused on designing its next-gen rocket to be the best spacecraft ever built for transporting huge payloads and humans to the Moon, Mars, and ultimately throughout the solar system. The interplanetary future of Starship is currently an unknown quantity but SpaceX is already building the first full-scale orbital prototype and testing multiple finished versions of the Raptor engine that will power it.
As discussed earlier today, SpaceX has already completed a low-fidelity prototype of Starship known as Starhopper, designed to – per its namesake – perform low-altitude, low-velocity hop tests. Powered by Raptor, Starhopper also acts as a mobile test stand for the next-gen rocket engine meant to power both Starship and its Super Heavy booster. SpaceX’s current planning has delayed a vacuum variant of the engine for several years, instead choosing to standardize the same Raptor engine across both stages of BFR. Starship will feature seven Raptor engines producing ~14,000 kN (~3.2M lbf) of thrust, while Super Heavy’s latest iteration would require a 31 Raptors and produce a staggering 62,000 kN/14M lbf of thrust at liftoff.
That performance – theoretically making Starship/Super Heavy almost two times as powerful as Saturn V – is essential to support massive missions to Mars and the Moon while also enabling complete reusability of the rocket. SpaceX rightly judged that rapid, low-effort reusability is the only way to truly revolutionize the cost of access to orbit, at least for the indefinite future. This need itself piggybacks on CEO Elon Musk’s founding motivation: to make humanity a multi-planetary species and protect it against future mass-extinction events.
Musk has long viewed the Moon as a distraction to that goal, offering very little prospect of being more than a detour, but both NASA and the political apparatus currently controlling the US have decided that a rebranded Moon return is desirable. Repeating several nearly identical Moon return proposals from the last few decades, the political powers that be have yet to actually put any money where their mouths are. SpaceX and Musk have nonetheless jumped on the bandwagon, a pragmatic decision to hedge bets in case funding actually appears. Unsurprisingly, SpaceX is interested in any opportunity to acquire federal funding for its expensive Starship/Super Heavy/Raptor development programs.
In September 2018, SpaceX announced plans to send Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa and 8-10 artists of his choice on the first Starship mission around the Moon. According to Musk, that could happen as early as 2023 but will necessarily be preceded by at least one uncrewed demonstration of Starship’s performance in deep space. Given the nominal reusability of Starship, the same spacecraft might perform both missions.
In the meantime, SpaceX is in the process of building the first orbital Starship prototype, although it’s unclear just how advanced the vehicle will be. Depending on how polished and successful SpaceX’s Starship Alpha (for lack of a better term) is, it’s conceivable that the spacecraft could be retrofitted or upgraded for actual demonstration missions to deep space or the Moon. To enable the long-term reusability of Starships, SpaceX will need to rely on in-orbit refueling by way of dedicated tanker launches. However, a lower-fidelity prototype that might otherwise be scrapped could be a prime candidate for a one-way Moon-impact or lunar-landing mission, reducing risk for future crewed or uncrewed Starship missions to the Moon before SpaceX has the facilities and hardware to support simultaneous Starship and tanker launches.
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
