News
SpaceX settles on Thursday for first Falcon 9 launch of 2021
After a few days of delays, SpaceX appears to have settled on Thursday, January 7th for the first of several dozen Falcon 9 launches planned in 2021.
Originally scheduled to launch as early as January 4th, SpaceX’s Turksat 5A communications satellite launch was “placed TBD due to mission assurance” on January 1st – an unfortunate catch-all euphemism often used by launch providers in lieu of any real explanation for delays. Regardless, Next Spaceflight reports that Turksat 5A will be Falcon 9 B1060’s fourth launch, a milestone the first stage (booster) has reached just six months after its first flight.
Despite the minor delay, SpaceX’s current target of four launches this month is still well within reach even though the slip exemplifies the uphill battle the company will face as it aims to achieve CEO Elon Musk’s goal of 48 launches in 2021. Weather is currently 60% favorable for SpaceX’s first launch of the year and Turksat 5A is scheduled to lift off no earlier than 8:28 pm EST on January 7th (01:28 UTC, 8 Jan).
Good timing, too — the 45th said SpaceX’s next launch of Turksat was “placed TBD due to mission assurance.”— Emre Kelly (@EmreKelly) January 1, 2021
New forecast (60% favorable) and hazard area: pic.twitter.com/cEapdSd2DP— Emre Kelly (@EmreKelly) January 5, 2021
Unfortunately, SpaceX’s first launch of the new year has been steeped in unprecedented controversy for the company, including the first-ever instance of mass-protests at its Hawthorne, California factory and headquarters. The reason: Turksat 5A, while partially meant for civilian communications, will also support the Turkish military, which supported Azerbaijan after the country – unprovoked – reignited a long-simmering conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region in September 2020.
Stemming from events that transpired over the last several centuries, Armenian-Azeri conflict and Turkish involvement are extraordinarily complex and messy. In the 1910s and 1920s, Turkey (then the Ottoman Empire) infamously committed atrocities against Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek communities within its occupied territory in a process of “Turkification”, systematically killing 1-3 million people in what would ultimately be labeled genocide. In a separate but related conflict, Turkey eventually chose to support Azerbaijan’s claim to the ethnically (75-90%) and historically Armenian territory, backing the country against Armenia in the first Nagorno-Karabakh War in the 1990s.
Azerbaijan reignited the conflict in 2020, resulting in the deaths of at least 6000 combatants and civilians on both sides and ultimately securing a substantial portion of Nagorno-Karabakh territory as part of a November 2020 ceasefire agreement. To an extent, Nagorno-Karabakh’s borders are now more or less back to where they were before the first war in the 1990s. While an avoidable loss of life is inherently deplorable, it’s extremely difficult to say whether Azerbaijan was justified but it and Turkey’s history of systematic and discriminatory hostility towards Armenians leaves little benefit of the doubt worth giving.
Ultimately, that cloud of ambiguity makes it hard to directly fault SpaceX for choosing to launch Turksat 5A or for its contracts to launch Turksat 5B and future domestically-built satellites. Additionally, if SpaceX should be criticized for willingly launching the satellite, Airbus – contracted by Turkey to build Turksat 5A – is at least as worthy of critique but has yet to be included at all in protest discourse despite the fact that Turkey’s production contract was publicly announced in 2017.
In the history of spaceflight, a satellite that is completed but never launches is all but unheard of, as the inherent bureaucratic and financial inertia behind a launch campaign mere months away from its scheduled liftoff is obviously immense. Even if SpaceX were to accept major financial penalties and back out of its contract, Arianespace, Roscosmos, or ULA would assuredly accept any replacement contract.
For protestors still set on making an impact, the shrewd move would be to redirect attention on future Turkish satellite projects like Turksat 5B, 6A, and beyond with the intention of killing contracts in the cradle – a far more tenable goal.
Stay tuned for more launch details as SpaceX nears its first mission of 2021.
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
