Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s orbital Starship launch debut may be pushed to 2022 by slow FAA reviews

Published

on

In a rare sign of material progress, SpaceX and the FAA have finally released what is known as a draft environmental assessment (EA) of the company’s South Texas Starship launch plans.

Set to be the largest and most powerful rocket in spaceflight history when it first begins orbital launches, the process of acquiring permission to launch Starship and its Super Heavy booster out of the wetlands of the South Texas coast was never going to be easy. The Boca Chica site SpaceX ultimately settled on for its first private launch facilities – initially meant for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy but later dedicated to BFR (now Starship) – is simultaneously surrounded by sensitive coastal habitats populated by several threatened or endangered species and situated mere miles as the crow flies from a city whose temporary population oscillates from a few thousand to tens of thousands.

Reception and analysis of the draft and its timing have been mixed. On one hand, SpaceX’s draft EA – completed with oversight from the FAA and help from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – gives a number of reasons for optimism. In a sign that SpaceX is taking a pragmatic approach to the inevitable environmental review and launch license approval hurdles standing in front of orbital South Texas Starship launches, the company has actually pursued what is known as a “programmatic environmental assessment” (PEA).

Most importantly, that means that SpaceX’s Starbase PEA – if approved – will be more like a foundation or stepping stone that should make it easier to start small and methodically expand the scope and nature of the company’s plans for Boca Chica. Along those lines, as part of Starbase’s first dedicated environmental assessment, SpaceX has proposed a maximum of 23 flight operations annually while Starship is still in the development phase, including up to 20 suborbital Starship test flights and 3 orbital launches (or Super Heavy hops). Once SpaceX has worked out enough kinks for slightly more confident Starship operations, the company would enter an “operational phase” that would allow for as many as five suborbital Starship launches and five orbital Starship launches, as well as ship and booster landings back on land after all 10 possible launches.

SpaceX’s “proposed annual [Starship] operations” under the initial PEA.

In other words, SpaceX’s initial draft PEA is extremely conservative, requesting permission for what amounts to a bare minimum concept of operations for orbital Starship launches. At a maximum of 3-5 orbital launches per year, a PEA and subsequent launch license approved as-is would likely give SpaceX just enough slack to perform basic Earth orbit launches and no more than one or two orbital refilling tests per year. However, as an example, a five-launch maximum would almost entirely prevent SpaceX from launching Starship to Mars, the Moon, and maybe even high-energy Earth orbits without using all of its annual launch allotments on a single mission.

Perhaps most importantly, the draft PEA as proposed would unequivocally prevent SpaceX from performing the NASA Human Lander System (HLS) Moon landings it received an almost $3 billion contract to complete. Each HLS Starship Moon landing is expected to require anywhere from 10-16 launches to deliver a depot ship, HLS lander, and ~1200 tons of propellant to orbit. However, in terms of SpaceX’s prospects of developing Starship as quickly as possible, that’s actually a good thing. Above all else, SpaceX’s slimmed-down draft PEA should be far easier for the FAA to approve than a PEA pursuing permission for Starship’s ultimate ambitions – dozens to hundreds of launches annually – from the beginning. In theory, with this barebones PEA approved, SpaceX would then be able to build off the foundation with additional environmental assessments – like, for example, of expanding Starship’s maximum launch cadence.

Advertisement

Of course, SpaceX first needs the FAA turn this first draft PEA into a favorable environmental assessment (not a guarantee) before any of the above starts to matter. Based on the content of the draft itself and associated appendixes, SpaceX appears to have a decent shot at receiving a “finding of no significant impact (FONSI)” or “mitigated FONSI” determination. However, SpaceX began the process of creating that draft as far back as mid-2020, followed by an FAA announcement in November 2020. The implication is that the FAA managed to drag out a draft release process that some have estimated should have taken 3-4 months into an arduous 10-15 month ordeal.

Combined with the uphill battle it’s starting to look like SpaceX will have to wage for an orbital Starship launch license in South Texas, it’s looking increasingly likely that Starship, Super Heavy, and Starbase will be technically ready for orbital launch tests well before the FAA is ready to approve or license them. Barring delays, the public now has until mid-October to read and comment on SpaceX’s draft PEA, after which the FAA and SpaceX will review those comments and hopefully turn the draft into a completed review. Even if the FAA were to somehow take just two months to return a best-case FONSI, clearing Starbase of environmental launch hurdles, it’s hard to imagine that the agency could then turn around and approve an orbital Starship launch license – or even a one-off experimental permit – in the last few weeks of 2021.

Ultimately, that means that nothing short of a minor miracle is likely to prevent the FAA’s environmental review and licensing delays from directly delaying Starship’s orbital launch debut. There is at least a chance that Starship, Super Heavy, and Starbase’s orbital launch site wont be ready for orbital launches by the end of the year, but it’s increasingly difficult to imagine that all three won’t be proof tested, qualified, and ready for action just a month or two from now. For the time being, we’ll just have to wait and see where the cards fall.

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

My Tesla did this on FSD (Supervised) v14.1 and the internet went crazy

Published

on

My Tesla did something on Full Self-Driving (Supervised) v14.1, and it garnered quite the response from the internet.

I received access to Tesla’s FSD v14.1 on Tuesday night, and by Wednesday, I was already using it and seeing all the progress the company had made from v13.2.9.

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.1 first impressions: Robotaxi-like features arrive

However, there was one thing that it did during the drive that I shared on our social media accounts, and it really got a lot of interesting reactions from people from all corners of the world.

I’ll give some background about the situation: I was driving on Main Street in Dallastown, PA, and the route was about to take me left onto Pleasant Avenue. It is a tight and usually very congested intersection; Main Street is a popular route for many construction vehicles and even some tractor-trailers.

It is a pretty tight intersection for full-size trucks and larger passenger vehicles. It is not super tight for my Model Y, but it gets to feel congested at times, including with what happened yesterday.

The light when I approached the intersection was a green yield; there was also a solid green arrow at the beginning of my light cycle, but I had arrived after that had already turned into the green yield. Oncoming traffic had a green light.

My Model Y got out into the middle of the intersection, and the light turned yellow, then red. Most people, including myself, would have probably made the left turn after the light turned red since the car was already out in the intersection.

The Tesla, using FSD v14.1, did not. Instead, it chose to back up to the “Stop Here on Red” line, which is further back due to the tight turn the perpendicular traffic has:

As I mentioned, I would have probably taken the left turn. However, I believe the Tesla did not see the traffic that sat to the left, and because of this, it weighed the turn as a higher probability of an accident than if it were to just back up to the line.

If you look at these two screenshots from when the light was yellow and red, Tesla’s driver visualization does not have any idea what traffic is to the left on Pleasant Avenue:

I believe that, since FSD could not tell what traffic was down to the left, it chose to reverse.

People had some polarizing opinions on it:

As far as the legality of the move, it does not seem to be against Pennsylvania law to go through or choose to back up. I have seen many cars do both things over the course of my life of driving in this state, and neither has ever gotten anyone a ticket.

I think FSD just did what it felt was the safer option here.

Continue Reading

News

NHTSA probes 2.9 million Tesla vehicles over reports of FSD traffic violations

The agency said FSD may have “induced vehicle behavior that violated traffic safety laws.”

Published

on

Credit: Whole Mars Catalog/YouTube

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has opened an investigation into nearly 2.9 million Tesla vehicles over potential traffic-safety violations linked to the use of the company’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.

The agency said FSD may have “induced vehicle behavior that violated traffic safety laws,” citing reports of Teslas running red lights or traveling in the wrong direction during lane changes.

As per the NHTSA, it has six reports in which a Tesla with FSD engaged “approached an intersection with a red traffic signal, continued to travel into the intersection against the red light and was subsequently involved in a crash with other motor vehicles in the intersection.” Four of these crashes reportedly resulted in one or more major injuries. 

The agency also listed 18 complaints and one media report which alleged that a Tesla operating with FSD engaged “failed to remain stopped for the duration of a red traffic signal, failed to stop fully, or failed to accurately detect and display the correct traffic signal state in the vehicle interface.”

Some complainants also alleged that FSD “did not provide warnings of the system’s intended behavior as the vehicle was approaching a red traffic signal,” as noted in a Reuters report.

Advertisement

Tesla has not commented on the investigation, which remains in the preliminary phase. However, any potential recall could prove complicated since the reported incidents likely involved the use of older FSD (Supervised) versions that have already been updated. 

Tesla’s recent FSD (Supervised) V14.1 update, which is currently rolling out to drivers, is expected to feature significantly improved lane management, intersection handling, and overall driving accuracy, reducing the chances of similar violations. It should also be noted that Tesla maintains that FSD is a supervised system for now, and thus, is not autonomous yet.

While autonomous systems face scrutiny, NHTSA’s own data highlights a much larger danger on the road from human error. The agency recorded 3,275 deaths in 2023 caused by distracted driving due to activities like texting, talking, or adjusting navigation while operating a vehicle manually. It is also widely believed that a good number of traffic violations are unreported due to their frequency and ubiquity.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla quietly files for Model Y+ in China, and its range numbers could be wild

The upcoming variant was listed in the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology’s (MIIT) public catalog.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla has filed for regulatory approval of a new Model Y+ in China, hinting at a long-range update to its best-selling crossover SUV. 

The upcoming variant was listed in the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology’s (MIIT) public catalog.

Mirroring Model 3+ Range

Based on the MIIT’s catalog, the Model Y+ will feature a 225 kW/302 horsepower single-motor setup. It will also feature ternary LG Energy Solution batteries, similar to the long-range Model 3+, which was launched earlier this year. The vehicle is expected to offer around 800 kilometers of CLTC range, potentially making it the longest range Model Y in Tesla China’s lineup.

The new Model Y+, identified under model number TSL6480BEVBR0, retains the same five-seat configuration and dimensions as the current Model Y. Though Tesla has not yet confirmed official range figures, industry observers expect it to be quite similar to the Model 3+’s 830-kilometer CLTC performance, as noted in a CNEV Post report.

Intensifying Competition

Tesla’s filing comes amid intensifying domestic competition in China. The U.S. EV maker sold 57,152 vehicles in August, down nearly 10% year-on-year, though up almost 41% from July’s 40,617 units, as noted by data from the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA). Still, the Model Y+ could help Tesla regain traction against strong local players by offering class-leading range and improved efficiency, two factors that have become a trademark of the electric vehicle maker in China. 

Advertisement

Tesla’s experience with the Model 3+, which received a RMB 10,000 price cut within a month of launch, suggests that raw range numbers alone may not guarantee stronger sales. With this in mind, the rollout of features such as FSD could prove beneficial in boosting the company’s sales in the country. 

Continue Reading

Trending