News
DeepSpace: China tests SpaceX-reminiscent grid fins after iSpace snags orbital milestone
Eric Ralph · August 1st, 2019
Welcome to the latest edition of DeepSpace! Each week, Teslarati space reporter Eric Ralph hand-crafts this newsletter to give you a breakdown of what’s happening in the space industry and what you need to know.
Although the accomplishments aren’t quite as flashy as a launch to the Moon, the last week has featured a number of interesting developments and significant milestones from both the state-run and quasi-commercial wings of Chinese spaceflight.
In the commercial realm, Chinese startup iSpace became the country’s first commercial entity to successfully reach orbit, achieving the feat with a three-stage solid rocket called Hyperbola 1.
One day later, state-owned Chinese company China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) completed its 50th successful Long March 2 rocket launch on a relatively routine government spy satellite mission. Unique was the fact that the rocket marked the first flight test of grid fins – extremely similar to those used on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 – on a Long March rocket.
The march to orbit
- In 2019 alone, three Chinese spaceflight startups have made their first orbital launch attempts and more tries are planned in the second half of the year. OneSpace and LandSpace both got close but ended up suffering partial failures that cut their attempts short before safely reaching orbit.
- Enter iSpace: one of dozens of startups in a burgeoning Chinese commercial spaceflight industry, the company’s three-stage solid rocket – named Hyperbola 1 – became the first Chinese startup-launched rocket to successfully reach orbit on July 25th.
- Although a large amount of the hardware may well have been procured (or licensed) wholesale from CASC, the success still signifies the start of a new alternative to government launches for companies (and perhaps government agencies) seeking to launch smaller satellites.
- Hyperbola 1 stands about 21m (68 ft) tall, is 1.4m (4.6 ft) in diameter at its widest point, and weighs about 31 tons (68,000 lb) when fully fueled. Three solid rocket stages are followed by an extremely small fourth stage meant to circularize the payload(s) in low Earth orbit (LEO).
- The rocket is capable of launching as much as 260 kg (570 lb) to a 500 km (310 mi) sun-synchronous orbit (SSO).
- For iSpace, Hyperbola 1 is more of a stopgap measure as the company works to develop Hyperbola 2, a significantly larger launch vehicle meant to feature a reusable booster and internally-developed liquid rocket engines.
- Ultimately, Hyperbola 1 reaching orbit is an exciting milestone, but it will be far more significant when a Chinese startup reaches orbit with a launch vehicle it has truly designed and built itself. A number of companies aim to do just that next year (2020).
The sincerest form of flattery…
- A day later (July 26th) and approximately 1000 miles (1600 km) to the southeast, state-run corporation CASC was preparing for a routine launch of its Long March 2C rocket, carrying a trio of relatively small spacecraft for a government spy satellite constellation.
- Technically known as YW-30 Group-5, the launch was a routine success that just so happened to be the Long March 2 family’s 50th successful launch in more than 35 years. The family has only suffered one in-flight failure.
- Long March 2C is a two-stage rocket that stands 42m (138 ft) tall (shorter than Falcon 9’s first stage), 3.35m (11 ft) wide, and weighs ~233 tons (514,000 lb) fully fueled. The 2C variant is capable of launching ~3850 kg (8500 lb) into LEO and more than 1250 kg (2750 lb) into geostationary transfer orbit (GTO).
- Although the rocket’s 50th launch success milestone is worth recognizing, this particular launch wound up drawing a significantly greater amount of attention for an entirely different reason: attached to the outside of the Long March 2C’s booster interstage was a quartet of immediately familiar grid fins.
- SpaceX has grown famous in the last five or so years for its spectacularly successful Falcon 9 recovery and reusability, aided in no small part by grid fins used by the booster to retain aerodynamic control authority during its hypersonic jaunts through the atmosphere.
- The appearance of grid fins on a Chinese rocket – looking undeniably similar to SpaceX’s first-generation aluminum fins – raised some (moderately xenophobic) ire in the space community, with people falling back on the stereotype of the perceived willingness of Chinese people to flagrantly ‘copy’ ideas.
- Both the stereotype and the grid fin-stoked ire are arguably undeserved. SpaceX did not invent grid fins, nor did it invent the concept of using grid fins to guide suborbital projectiles.
- In fact, CEO Elon Musk would almost certainly be happy to see someone – anyone! – blatantly copy SpaceX’s approach to reusability. A blatant copy, while not exactly worthy of pride, is still a major improvement over companies sticking their heads in the sand and tacitly choosing insolvency and commercial irrelevance rather than admit that they were wrong and SpaceX was right.
-
- (Pauline Acalin – Teslarati)
- According to CASC, this mission’s grid fins were included to flight-test their ability to more carefully guide the booster’s return to Earth. China infamously takes a… lax… approach to range safety, allowing spent boosters and fairings to haphazardly crash into inhabited areas, often containing remnants of their sometimes toxic propellant.
- Indeed, this particular booster did appear to crash in an uninhabited valley, be it thanks to those experimental grid fins or pure chance
- However, aside from not crashing large objects in populated areas, CASC and China have plans to develop a Long March 6 rocket with a reusable booster that will use the same recovery methods as Falcon 9. That rocket could fly as early as 2021 and July 26th’s grid fin test is an obvious sign that work is ongoing.
- If China manages to develop and launch a partially reusable rocket by 2021, they will be miles (and years) ahead of its space agency peers (NASA, ESA, CNES) and companies like ULA and Arianespace.
Thanks for being a Teslarati Reader! Stay tuned for next week’s issue of DeepSpace.
– Eric
-
-
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) reported a beat in revenues and EBITDA in its first earnings call report while also minimizing losses as its business continues to gain momentum.
After its IPO in July, SpaceX saw some tough losses on Wall Street due to a major selloff after a delay in its 13th Starship test flight. The ship launched later that week and completed what was arguably the most successful IFT operation in the Starship program’s history.
Nevertheless, the company is continuing on and reported some encouraging financials while also promoting what appears to be a robust outlook moving forward in its Space, AI, and Connectivity divisions.
SpaceX to report first-ever earnings today: here’s what to expect
Earnings Results
- Revenues: $7.8 billion reported vs. $6.7 billion expected
- Adjusted EBITDA: $3.5 billion vs. $2 billion expected
- Net loss of $541 million, an improvement of $467 million from net loss of $1.0 billion
Additionally, CFO Bret Johnsen had these comments:
“2026 has been a momentous year so far, and the second quarter demonstrated the true power of SpaceX. Revenue growth accelerated across all our business segments and we delivered strong operating leverage, with significant margin expansion led by our new AI compute agreements. Our unparalleled leadership in launch, Starlink subscriber growth, new enterprise and government partnerships, and best-in-class AI infrastructure underscore our ability to drive meaningful scale and deliver attractive returns. As a newly public company, we are delighted to welcome our broad base of shareholders and bondholders. We ended the second quarter with $100 billion of cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities, and $47.5 billion in backlog. This financial strength gives us substantial capacity to invest in Starship, Starlink Broadband and Mobile satellites, and our AI platform, while maintaining a disciplined long-term capital allocation framework.”
Space Business Highlights
SpaceX shared some of its biggest Space Business Highlights for Q2:
- Space revenues grew 55% sequentially and 29% year-over-year to $962 million, driven by a higher number of large customer launches and a favorable customer shift compared to the prior year
- Total costs and expenses for the Space segment were up by $389 million year-over-year, as we continued to accelerate R&D investments in our Starship program, which we believe will reduce the cost to orbit by 99% or more relative to the historical average, and unlock significant revenue potential across all business segments
- Leading launch provider for the world with 78 launches and 1,041 metric tons of mass to orbit deployed over the six months ended June 30, 2026, primarily allocated to Connectivity for the deployment of our Starlink constellation
- Starship V3 development continued to advance towards full and rapid reusability:
- Completed Starship V3’s first suborbital mission in May, Flight 12, which achieved a successful lift off from our new Starbase pad, a precision landing of Starship’s upper stage, and deployment of modified V2 Starlink satellites
- Subsequent to the second quarter, completed Starship Flight 13 in July, which achieved all flight objectives including deploying 20 production V3 satellites, demonstrating in-space relight of a Raptor engine, and executing the softest ever splashdown of Starship, providing critical views of an intact heatshield
SpaceX will report its earnings today at 4:30 P.M. EDT.
-
Elon Musk issued a second pointed warning to SpaceX short sellers on Tuesday, just hours before the company was set to release its first quarterly earnings as a publicly traded firm. Responding to a report highlighting elevated short interest, Musk wrote on X: “I try to warn them, but they just double down …”
The comment came as data from S3 Partners showed roughly 95 percent of available SPCX shares to borrow were on loan, translating to about 34 percent short interest as a percentage of the float. The stock has traded under pressure since its record-breaking IPO in June 2026, declining significantly from early peaks.
I try to warn them, but they just double down … 🤷♂️
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 4, 2026
This marks the second such message from Musk in under three weeks.
On July 17, amid post-IPO volatility, he stated: “The survival probability of firms who maintain a significant short position in SpaceX over time is very low.” At that time, SPCX had fallen roughly 30 percent from its peak above a $2.6 trillion valuation, with short sellers reportedly realizing gains of about $8.7 billion.
-
Musk’s warning aligned with optimistic analyses projecting that Starship-driven cost reductions could enable a multi-trillion-dollar space economy through applications such as orbital solar power, asteroid mining, data centers, and Mars-related projects, positioning SpaceX as critical infrastructure.
SpaceX is scheduled to report second-quarter results after the market close later today, followed by a webcast. Analysts anticipate revenue near $6.9 billion, reflecting growth in Starlink, launch services, and AI-related segments. The earnings release precedes a major lockup expiration on August 6 that could free hundreds of millions of insider shares.
Musk has a long track record of confronting short sellers, particularly regarding Tesla, where he has argued that persistent bearish positions underestimate transformative technologies. Critics view his optimism as overly ambitious given near-term stock fluctuations, while supporters see temporary dips as opportunities in a longer-term expansion of the space economy.
As SpaceX opens its books to public scrutiny for the first time, the high short interest and Musk’s repeated cautions set the stage for heightened market attention on the results and management’s commentary.
Tesla’s AI lead Ashok Elluswamy doubled down on the company’s strategy regarding Full Self-Driving’s speed settings, and owners are definitely confused.
Earlier versions of Full Self-Driving allowed owners to set a max speed that the vehicle could travel while operating under the semi-autonomous driver assistance platform. This allowed more customization for the driver, giving them the ability to experience FSD’s robust performance with their own personal preferences.
Speed is massively important for obvious reasons — it’s not only a question of keeping the vehicle occupants comfortable by traveling at a safe speed, but it’s also something that could contribute to a ticket or infraction from law enforcement.
With the release of FSD v14 last year, Tesla removed the ability to set a max speed and instead opted for five Speed Profiles, ranging from “Sloth,” the most conservative, to “Mad Max,” the most aggressive and spirited. These profiles not only control speed, but also how frequently the vehicle will execute passes, perform lane changes, and other contributing factors.
The removal of the Max Speed setting was a major complaint amongst the Tesla community because it left owners scrambling for a way to experience suitable behaviors while traveling at an appropriate speed. Most felt the driving profiles would be a good indicator of the behaviors, while speed would still be left up to the discretion of the driver.
Instead, Tesla’s Speed Profiles determine both, and the constant tinkering of how they behave has been a major bottleneck and point of confusion for both owners and the company. From update to update, the Speed Profiles will change, sometimes more drastically than others. Some owners have complained that the “Standard” profile is too fast, while others have experienced “Mad Max” traveling below the speed limit:
What has happened to Mad Max?
At one point it was going 32 in a 35. Traffic ahead had pulled away considerably https://t.co/bjKvaMVTNX pic.twitter.com/aaZSWmLu5v
-— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 24, 2026
These things change with each update, but the big complaint is that owners are on the hook for any tickets that come from FSD’s infractions; that’s the caveat of the suite being named FSD (Supervised). It ultimately means the driver is responsible, and the automaker has no liability when it comes to speeding tickets or general traffic infractions.
It is the driver’s responsibility to take over or adjust based on this.
Elluswamy essentially confirmed that there are no plans to bring back Max Speed control, because it is what he referred to as “an anti pattern.” He then echoed something that CEO Elon Musk has started to really push with FSD, and that’s the idea that Tesla is really honing in on the preferences of the driver.
Max speed control is an anti pattern.
We are working on better learning of user’s implied preferences.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) August 3, 2026
-
Owners were confused by Tesla’s decision, stating that there must be a better way, especially considering disengagements for incorrect speeds are common:
This…. is not the way
— Kyle Conner (@itskyleconner) August 4, 2026
😭 I appreciate this mentality ! But currently the no.1 reason I disengage in Australia is incorrect speed zones.
— Ryan’s Model Y (@ryanjaycowan) August 3, 2026
This is fine but you need to start accepting liability for speeding tickets then. https://t.co/lyCgdA83gQ
— Jeremy Judkins (@jeremyjudkins_) August 4, 2026
-
Okay https://t.co/nOvoXQkNg1 pic.twitter.com/jGRtF2xtox
— Chad Moran (@ChadMoran) August 3, 2026
From personal experience and using FSD for over 72 percent of my driving miles since v14 was released late last year, I make Speed Profile adjustments constantly. If FSD is traveling a tad too quickly, I will scale it back, and if it’s too conservative, I’ll make it more aggressive.
I don’t complain about making the Speed Profile changes too frequently, but it would certainly be nice to have it happen less frequently. There are far too many times I am concerned about getting a ticket, even in Standard mode.
The biggest issue for me, personally, which seems to be echoed throughout the community, is the fact that Tesla’s goal is to minimize disengagements. Many drivers are stating that speed is a major reason for disengagements.
However, Tesla is not willing to bring back this one level of input because it would technically be a regression.
-
Whether it’s right or wrong in your opinion, it is what Tesla is going with, and it seems like it has pivoted quite a bit from its other strategies for minimizing interventions by pushing its AI to behave in a way that would fit the occupant’s personal preferences.
SpaceX reports beat in first earnings while minimizing losses
Elon Musk sends second warning to SpaceX shorts ahead of first earnings
