News
SpaceX’s most important Super Heavy booster part makes first appearance
What is arguably the most complex and important part of SpaceX’s Super Heavy booster prototype has made its first appearance at the company’s South Texas Starship factory.
Following in the footsteps of Starship development, Super Heavy has been able to extensively borrow from the many lessons learned over the course of building, testing, flying, and building more Starship prototypes. SpaceX is able to use virtually identical materials, equipment, and techniques to build and assemble both Starship and Super Heavy propellant tank barrels and domes, while both stages will also share an extensive foundation of avionics, plumbing, propulsion, and ground systems, among other things.
In fact, lacking a conical nose, secondary (‘header’) propellant tanks, flaps, a reusable orbital-class heatshield, and vacuum-optimized Raptor engines, Super Heavy is actually substantially simpler than the Starships it will one day launch towards orbit. However, not everything is simpler. Super Heavy will ultimately be the largest and most powerful liquid-fueled rocket stage ever built or tested – power that demands as many as 28 Raptor engines and a thrust structure capable of feeding and withstanding them.
Designing, building, and testing such a thrust structure is arguably one of – if not the – most challenging engineering hurdle standing between SpaceX and its aspirational Super Heavy design. It’s the first of those Super Heavy-specific thrust structures – in the form of a tank dome – that was spotted at SpaceX’s Boca Chica, Texas Starship factory on January 25th, roughly six weeks after its main component was spotted.
Unlike Starship, which relies on a small central ‘thrust puck’ fit for three sea-level-optimized Raptor engines and plans for three larger vacuum-optimized engines that will attach to the side of its hull, Super Heavy’s current design iteration features as many as 28 sea-level Raptors. Aside from CEO Elon Musk revealing that Super Heavy would have a central cluster of eight engines, the precise configuration has been a mystery.
The reality, as recently captured in photos above by NASASpaceflight photographers and contributors Mary (BocaChicaGal) and Jack Beyer, appears to be a much larger donut-shaped ring with space for eight gimballing Raptor engines. The remaining 20 Raptor engines would then be installed – possible mounted to the skirt, the thrust dome, or both – in the space left between the thrust donut and Super Heavy’s skirt.
Either way, the structures behind the two rings of engines will have to withstand at least 6600 metric tons (14.5 million lbf) of thrust at liftoff – approximately twice the thrust of Saturn V and Soviet N-1 rockets and more than three times the thrust of SpaceX’s own Falcon Heavy. Holding eight Raptors, the donut structure and dome recently pictured for the first time will also have to singlehandedly stand up to 1600 tons (3.5 million lbf; two Falcon 9s’ worth) of thrust while gravity, acceleration, and some 2500 tons of supercooled liquid oxygen push in the opposite direction.
In simpler terms, the business end of Super Heavy poses an extraordinarily difficult challenge and SpaceX has already built the first true-to-life prototype, with future iterations likely close on its heels. Much like Starship, if/when prototype booster number one (BN1) passes basic pressure and cryogenic proof tests, SpaceX will likely focus the rest of Super Heavy’s first test campaign on stressing the rocket’s unproven thrust structure to its design limits.
Like Starship, SpaceX will likely try to begin with nonexplosive methods, perhaps using a similar – but far larger – series of hydraulic rams to less riskily simulate the thrust of 8-28 Raptor engines. A steel structure spotted on a recent aerial overflight of SpaceX’s Starship factory might even fit the bill for such a structure, though only time will tell.
Based on an apparent acceleration of Super Heavy assembly work that may have started last week, as well as the crucial appearance of the last missing puzzle piece in the form of BN1’s thrust dome, the first booster could be completed and ready for testing sooner than later.
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
