News
SpaceX set to launch 40 satellites on fourth dedicated rideshare mission
SpaceX says a Falcon 9 rocket is on track to launch its fourth dedicated rideshare mission no earlier than (NET) 12:24 pm EDT (16:24 UTC) on Friday, April 1st.
Known as Transporter-4, SpaceX will launch the batch of 40 customer satellites out of its Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS) LC-40 pad. Poor weather means that the company currently has a roughly 30% chance of favorable conditions on April 1st, improving to 50% on April 2nd and 80% on April 4th. Following the first NASA Space Launch System (SLS) rocket’s trip to a nearby launch pad, SpaceX also has to work around the agency’s plans to attempt an important wet dress rehearsal (WDR) test as early as April 3rd, preventing any launches that day.
SLS has already partially contributed to delays to Axiom-1 – the first all-private astronaut launch to the International Space Station – and could potentially disrupt Transporter-4 if weather or Falcon 9 fail to cooperate on Friday or Saturday.
Transporter-4’s payload of 40 satellites is the smallest number SpaceX has ever manifested on one of its dedicated rideshare missions. It’s unclear why so few satellites will be aboard, but one customer in particular likely explains why the company can launch such a small payload. That customer is Germany’s national space agency (DLR), which has manifested EnMAP – a hyperspectral Earth observation satellite – on Transporter-4. EnMAP itself is quite a bizarre case: the wildly overambitious smallsat was initially scheduled to launch as early as 2012 but has suffered a full decade of delays as endless issues arose. Painfully, those delays mean that EnMAP – a spacecraft largely designed before 2010 – is merely the latest in a long line of similarly capable satellites. Italy, for example, began work on an almost identically capable spacecraft – PRISMA – in 2008 and launched it in 2019 for ~$140 million.
According to one estimate, EnMAP’s cost has likely ballooned from ~$100 million to more than $330 million. In other words, it’s fairly reasonable to assume that SpaceX was able to charge DLR quite a bit more than Transporter-4’s other rideshare customers. SpaceX could have positioned it as a heavily discounted dedicated launch that just so happens to carry some secondary payloads – perhaps charging ‘just’ $15-30 million. EnMAP (950 kg or 2100 lb) is slightly heavier than the maximum weight SpaceX’s one-size-fits-all pricing allows for, but a customer with a similar 830 kilogram (1830 lb) spacecraft could launch it for as little as $4.6 million on a Transporter mission.
Of Transporter-4’s 40 payloads, at least 16 are using intermediaries like Spaceflight, Exolaunch, and D-Orbit, who then deal with SpaceX for the satellite owners. Excluding EnMAP, at least six other customers likely booked directly through SpaceX. Combined, total Transporter-4 revenue before EnMAP could be as low as ~$13 million. According to a SpaceX executive speaking in 2020, the total cost of a Falcon 9 launch with a recoverable, flight-proven booster is $28 million. Given that some executives have compared Transporter missions to public transit, it’s possible that SpaceX is willing to launch some rideshare missions even knowing they will lose money, but it’s hard to imagine it would burn $10-15 million (or more) instead of just delaying a few months to add more payloads.
Even though EnMAP is thus likely picking up all of financial slack, Transporter-4 is still a good demonstration of SpaceX’s flexibility – flexibility that current or prospective providers with much smaller rockets simply can’t match. With Falcon 9, SpaceX can just throw a 1-ton, $300 million spacecraft on top of a several-dozen-satellite rideshare mission and still recover both the booster and fairing without issue – all while charging its smaller customers a more or less unbeatable $1.1 million per 200-kilogram slot and $5500 for each additional kilogram.
SpaceX will begin streaming its first Transporter-4 launch attempt around 12:10 pm EDT (16:10 UTC).
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
