News
SpaceX installs full set of car-sized grid fins on second Super Heavy booster
SpaceX appears to have installed a full set of car-sized grid fins on Starship’s second flightworthy Super Heavy booster, leaving the massive rocket just a few steps away from completion.
Measuring ~69m (~225 ft) tall and 9m (~30 ft) wide, Super Heavy Booster 5 (B5) – like B4 before it – will be one of two of the largest rocket boosters ever built once completed. In broad strokes, Super Heavy B4 and B5 are the same. Aside from near-identical dimensions, both have been built to hold up to 29 Raptor engines while Starbase has already begun receiving parts of the first 33-engine Super Heavy. That means that Booster 4 and 5 – while both potentially capable of flight – are also pathfinders for an upgraded version of Super Heavy with similar dimensions but the potential to produce more than 40% more thrust once Raptor 2 production takes over.
While more similar than not, there are significant differences between SpaceX’s first and second flightworthy Super Heavy boosters.
The biggest visible differences are tweaks SpaceX has made to the Super Heavy assembly process. Booster 4 was assembled out of mostly naked steel rings and only had thousands of feet of external plumbing, wiring, raceways, and hardware installed after it was stacked to its full height. That may partially be because CEO Elon Musk had ordered SpaceX to complete the first full-height Starship stack by early August, requiring the build team to prioritize speed above all else.
Regardless, SpaceX appears to be outfitting Super Heavy Booster 5’s exterior before and during the process of stacking the booster to its final height. Most sections of 3-4 steel rings have had partial plumbing and raceways preinstalled, meaning that Booster 5 will be far closer to test readiness than Booster 4 once stacking is complete. Booster 4, on the other hand, required at least several more weeks of outfitting after SpaceX briefly rolled the rocket to the orbital launch pad for a full-stack photo-op and fit check.
On October 12th, after rapidly stacking Super Heavy B5’s upper methane tank to completion, SpaceX began installing the booster’s four car-sized grid fins. Fixed in place and assembled out of welded steel unlike the Falcon family’s deployable, cast titanium fins, Super Heavy grid fins are several times larger and heavier but still serve the same purpose of stabilizing boosters during atmospheric reentry, descent, and landing. Like Booster 4, SpaceX has also installed all four Booster 5 grid fins before stacking the Super Heavy to its full 69-meter height.
Based on B4, that final stack could happen just a few days from now, though there are signs that it might take B5 a fair bit longer. Notably, whereas Booster 4’s aft liquid oxygen (LOx) tank was already fully stacked by the start of grid fin installation, Booster 5’s LOx section is still waiting on its thrust dome. That thrust section was most recently spotted inside a production tent on October 11th – far more thoroughly outfitted than Booster 4’s aft but awaiting installation nonetheless.
That slight difference in timing pales in comparison to a massive tube that may or may not have been installed inside Super Heavy B5 late last month and that definitely wasn’t installed in B4. Without official information, it’s hard to know for sure, but the general community consensus is that this new tube (possibly one of two installed inside Booster 5’s LOx tank) is some kind of header tank or sump meant to collect propellant for Super Heavy’s boostback and/or landing burn.
If SpaceX really is adding header tanks to Super Heavy, it would drastically increase the complexity of booster plumbing, potentially explaining why Super Heavy B5’s thrust section installation is taking longer than B4. Only time (and hopefully a tweet or two from Musk) will tell.
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
