Update: SpaceX says it and NASA are moving forward with plans to launch a Crew Dragon carrying US, Japanese, and Russian astronauts as early as noon EDT (16:00 UTC) on Wednesday, October 5th.
Concurring with a statement made on October 3rd, SpaceX has also called off a planned October 4th launch of its Starlink 4-29 mission. However, the company has delayed Starlink 4-29 just 24 hours and says that Falcon 9 will launch the latest batch of internet satellites out of California no earlier than (NET) 4:10 pm PDT (23:10 UTC) on October 5th. Intelsat has also confirmed that its Galaxy 33 and Galaxy 34 geostationary communications satellites are scheduled to launch on a Falcon 9 rocket as early as 7:07 pm EDT (23:07 UTC) on October 6th, leaving SpaceX on track to launch three Falcon 9 rockets from three launch pads in 31 hours.
The company achieved a similar feat earlier this year when it launched three Falcon 9 rockets in 36 hours. Three launches in 31 hours would break that record.
SpaceX is on the cusp of launching three Falcon 9 rockets in a handful of days. Minor issues with two of the three missions, however, have complicated the already hard process of coordinating so many launches at the same time.
For many reasons, rocket launches are an inherently difficult thing to schedule, and that difficulty only gets magnified when attempting to launch rockets as quickly as possible for customers with very different needs while using a fixed number of launch pads. SpaceX’s upcoming series of launches demonstrates the slippery nature of high-cadence rocket launch scheduling better than most.
Last month, SpaceX ran into issues (mainly bad weather) that delayed its Starlink 4-34, 4-35, and 4-36 missions by varying degrees. Before those delays, SpaceX had intended to break its LC-40 pad turnaround record with Starlink 4-35 and then repeat the feat with Starlink 4-36, but that opportunity closed when Starlink 4-34’s several weather delays pushed Starlink 4-35 from September 19th to the 24th and raised the risk of the next launch, Starlink 4-36, interfering with customer missions planned in the first half of October.
That burst of customer missions, all of which take priority over SpaceX’s own Starlink missions, meant that a few-day delay for a mission two launches prior ultimately pushed Starlink 4-36 from the end of September to no earlier than October 20th. It will launch out of Cape Canaveral Space Force Station’s (CCSFS) LC-40, the same pad that launched Starlink 4-35 on September 24th and will launch Intelsat’s Galaxy 33 and 34 satellites no earlier than (NET) October 6th and Eutelsat’s Hotbird 13F satellite NET October 13th. All four launches (including Starlink 4-36) are thus contingent upon each other, so a delay with one mission would likely delay each subsequent mission to leave enough time for pad turnaround and rocket processing.
Date Mission Rocket Location Pad 10/04/22 Starlink 4-29 Falcon 9 California VSFB SLC-4E 10/04/22 SES-20/21 Atlas V Florida CCSFS LC-41 10/05/22 Crew-5 Falcon 9 Florida KSC LC-39A 10/06/22 Galaxy 33/34 Falcon 9 Florida CCSFS LC-40 10/13/22 Hotbird 13F Falcon 9 Florida CCSFS LC-40 10/20/22 Starlink 4-36 Falcon 9 Florida CCSFS LC-40
SpaceX isn’t the only company that launches out of Cape Canaveral, Florida. Originally scheduled in late September, the United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) Atlas V launch of the SES-20 and SES-21 geostationary communication satellites was delayed by the same weather system that indirectly hampered Starlink 4-35 and 4-36. That mission is now set to launch NET 5:36 pm EDT (21:36 UTC) on October 4th.
Up first, however, is SpaceX’s Starlink 4-29 mission out of California’s Vandenberg Space Force Base (VSFB). Delayed to October 4th hours before its October 3rd target, the new schedule will give SpaceX “more time for pre-launch checkouts,” Falcon 9 will now lift off as early as 4:48 pm PDT (23:48 UTC), a little over two hours after Atlas V. However, making the whole situation even more interlinked, SpaceX says it will stand down from its October 4th Starlink launch attempt if its next Florida mission – Crew Dragon’s fifth operational NASA astronaut launch – remains on track for its current noon EDT (16:00 UTC), October 5th launch target.
In an October 3rd briefing following a mostly clean launch readiness review (LRR), NASA and SpaceX officials revealed that three new minor issues – “not showstoppers” – had appeared after a busy period of ground testing. An otherwise successful astronaut dry dress rehearsal and a subsequent wet dress rehearsal and static fire uncovered a possible fire extinguisher leak in the Dragon spacecraft and a minor issue with one of the Falcon 9 rocket booster’s nine Merlin 1D engines. A communications issue was also discovered on the SpaceX drone ship Crew-5’s rocket booster is meant to land on in the Atlantic Ocean.
SpaceX and NASA officials weren’t especially worried about the issues and were confident they would be resolved in time for an October 5th launch. If they aren’t and Crew-5 slips to October 6th, SpaceX should be able to launch Starlink 4-29 on October 4th, but then it’s unclear if the company will also be able to launch Intelsat’s Galaxy 33 and Galaxy 34 geostationary communications satellites on the same day as Crew-5. Galaxy 33/34 is scheduled to launch NET 7:07 pm EDT on October 6th, likely ~6 hours after Crew-5’s own October 6th launch window.
If Crew-5 slips and Galaxy 33/34 can’t launch on the same day, it would likely delay both Hotbird 13F and Starlink 4-36. It’s also unclear if Starlink 4-29 can launch on the same day as Crew-5 if it flies after Dragon. Either way, SpaceX could potentially end up launching Crew-5, Galaxy 33/34, and Starlink 4-29 on October 5th and 6th – potentially less than a day and a half apart.
As SpaceX continues to push the limits of what is possible with its existing Falcon launch and landing infrastructure, chaotic scheduling situations like this, where small issues impact large strings of launches, will become the norm instead of the exception
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
