News
Ex-SpaceX engine expert to help design rockets built for launch on world’s largest jet
Stratolaunch, an aerospace company funded by Microsoft-made billionaire Paul Allen to build the world’s largest flightworthy aircraft, has announced a decision to build its own liquid-fueled rockets, to be air-launched from the aforementioned mega-plane.
Targeting an inaugural launch of the first version of the rocket – currently nicknamed “Kraken” – as early as 2022, Stratolaunch has chosen Jeff Thornburg, formerly SpaceX’s Vice President of Propulsion Engineering and the father of the company’s Mars-focused Raptor engine, to lead its foray into in-house rocket propulsion development and manufacturing.
Stratolaunch has confirmed what most people have long speculated: it’s developing its own launch vehicles for its air-launch system, including a reusable space plane that could eventually carry people. pic.twitter.com/nF9lKVe4xk
— Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) August 20, 2018
But first: building the world’s largest aircraft
Stratolaunch’s first task at hand, however, is to begin flight-testing the largest (hopefully) operational aircraft in history, a prerequisite for the company’s longer-term orbital rocket and spaceplane aspirations. Nicknamed “Roc” after a mythical (and fictional) bird so large it could carry an elephant, the plane certainly lives up to its namesake. Featuring a full six of the same engines that power Boeing’s once-record-breaking 747 airliner and a wingspan that could easily fit three smaller 737 airliners with room to spare, it is genuinely difficult (if not impossible) to successfully convey the sheer scale of Roc outside of witnessing it in person.
Stationed in California’s Mojave Desert, the aircraft’s one and only copy is, for the most part, completed and has spent the brunt of 2018 conducting runway taxi tests, hopefully culminating in an inaugural flight test later this year or early next year. Designed to lift orbital-class rockets weighing as much as 250 metric tons (550,000 lb) to an altitude of at least 9100 meters (30,000 feet), the primary benefit of using aircraft as launch platforms derives from the simple fact that the atmospheric density at 30,000 feet is more than three times less than that at sea level. Similar to aircraft, rocket performance dramatically improves as atmospheric density decreases: less atmosphere means lower drag and pressure.
Rockets that launch from sea-level have to grapple with the difficulties of Earth’s relatively thick atmosphere at that height, with major launch events like “Max-Q” being big concerns almost solely because the dense air exerts major forces on launch vehicles and demands extreme measures like throttling down booster engines (very inefficient) and optimizing structures for aerodynamic efficiency despite the fact that rockets spend very little time operating in a significant atmosphere.
A launch pad without a rocket (sort of)
However, the simple fact of the matter is that billionaire Paul Allen’s colossal aircraft essentially does not have a single air-launched rocket in the world that can properly take advantage of its capabilities. Originally sized and designed with an air-launched version of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 in mind, that relationship folded amicably after roughly a year (2012), at which point SpaceX realized it would need to almost completely redesign a unique variant of Falcon 9. Your author will readily admit that they have admired the insanity of such a massive plane while still severely doubting its practical utility.
Thankfully, it appears that Allen is adamantly opposed to the idea that Stratolaunch is some silly whim to build the world’s largest plane. Rather, he is exceptionally reserved and pragmatic when discussing the aerial launch platform, according to a recent and extensive interview by Wired Magazine’s Steven Levy.
“Allen isn’t one to show exuberance, and when he speaks about the plane he focuses on its future utility. ‘When you see that giant plane, it’s a little nutty,’ he says. ‘And you don’t build it unless you’re very serious, not only about wanting to see the plane fly but to see it fulfill its purpose. Which is getting vehicles in orbit.’ – Paul Allen, 2018
-
- Stratolaunch’s Roc shown with a triplet of Orbital ATK Pegasus XL rockets. (Vulcan Space)
-
- Back in 2012, SpaceX briefly entertained the idea of a Falcon 9 variant optimized for air-launch, potentially including crew rating the rocket down the road. (Stratolaunch/Dynetics)
-
- The Roc is inconceivably vast. (Stratolaunch)
Currently, Orbital ATK’s (now Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems) air-launched Pegasus XL rocket is the only “customer” in the world that can realistically use Stratolaunch as a launch platform, not exactly an impressive or sustainable launch vehicle with a maximum performance of less than 450 kg (~1000 lbs) to low Earth orbit for an incredible ~$40 million per (expendable) flight.
To answer that call and ensure Stratolaunch’s utility, the company reportedly began seriously considering its own in-house expendable and reusable rockets and propulsion systems sometime in 2016, plans that have since grown concrete and been publicly embedded into Stratolaunch’s overarching mission. Nicknamed “Kraken” after the mythical sea monster, the company hopes to develop an initially expendable rocket system capable of launching 3400 – 6000 kg (~7500 – 13250 lbs) into low Earth orbit with single booster and triple booster variants. Further down the line, Stratolaunch is eyeing the design and production of a fully and rapidly reusable orbital spaceplane, potentially including a version that would carry astronauts into space.
-
- A concept video produced by Stratolaunch shows the Roc launching a Kraken rocket. (Stratolaunch, via Wired)
-
- A concept video produced by Stratolaunch shows the Roc launching a Kraken rocket. (Stratolaunch, via Wired)
-
- A concept video produced by Stratolaunch shows the Roc launching a Kraken rocket. (Stratolaunch, via Wired)
-
- SpaceX’s subscale Raptor engine has completed more than 1200 seconds of testing in less than two years. (SpaceX)
-
- BFS (circa 2017) shows off its complement of SL and Vacuum Raptor engines. SpaceX is moving back to something similar to this. (SpaceX)
Normally, one might simply roll their eyes at yet another startup touting small(ish) expendable rockets with first launches no earlier than the early 2020s – the market is getting to be absurdly and impossibly overcrowded at this point. However, Stratolaunch differs for one fundamental and reason: they have placed ex-SpaceX propulsion executive and expert Jeff Thornburg at the helm of the company’s freshly public rocket propulsion wing. While at SpaceX, Mr. Thornburg spent all but one of his five years with the company (2011-2015) single-mindedly focused on the development and engineering of all aspects of the Raptor rocket engine, a next-generation propulsion system designed to enable SpaceX’s sustainable colonization of Mars.
Raptor is an exceptional rocket engine thanks in no small part to Thornburg’s brilliance as a propulsion engineer, and that same brilliance and half-decade of experience at the most successful rocket startup in existence could ultimately prove a massive boon for Stratolaunch’s otherwise interesting but unexceptional expendable rocket concepts.
Put simply, under Jeff Thornburg’s direction and with access to founder Paul Allen’s considerable wealth, Stratolaunch is undoubtedly worth keeping a close eye in the future, both far and near.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
News
Tesla China January wholesale sales rise 9% year-on-year
Tesla reported January wholesale sales of 69,129 China-made vehicles, as per data released by the China Passenger Car Association.
Tesla China reported January wholesale sales of 69,129 Giga Shanghai-made vehicles, as per data released by the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA). The figure includes both domestic sales and exports from Gigafactory Shanghai.
The total represented a 9.32% increase from January last year but a 28.86% decline from December’s 97,171 units.
China EV market trends
The CPCA estimated that China’s passenger new energy vehicle wholesale volume reached about 900,000 units in January, up 1% year-on-year but down 42% from December. Demand has been pressured by the start-of-year slow season, a 5% additional purchase tax cost, and uncertainty around the transition of vehicle trade-in subsidies, as noted in a report from CNEV Post.
Market leader BYD sold 210,051 NEVs in January, down 30.11% year-on-year and 50.04% month-on-month, as per data released on February 1. Tesla China’s year-over-year growth then is quite interesting, as the company’s vehicles seem to be selling very well despite headwinds in the market.
Tesla China’s strategies
To counter weaker seasonal demand, Tesla China launched a low-interest financing program on January 6, offering up to seven-year terms on select produced vehicles. The move marked the first time an automaker offered financing of that length in the Chinese market.
Several rivals, including Xiaomi, Li Auto, XPeng, and NIO, later introduced similar incentives. Tesla China then further increased promotions on January 26 by reinstating insurance subsidies for the Model 3 sedan. The CPCA is expected to release Tesla’s China retail sales and export breakdown later this month.
News
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works
For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions appeared to be dead in the water after a large amount of speculation late last year that the company would add the user interface seemed to cool down after several weeks of reports.
However, it appears that CarPlay might make its way to Tesla vehicles after all, as a recent report seems to indicate that it is still being worked on by software teams for the company.
The real question is whether it is truly needed or if it is just a want by so many owners that Tesla is listening and deciding to proceed with its development.
Back in November, Bloomberg reported that Tesla was in the process of testing Apple CarPlay within its vehicles, which was a major development considering the company had resisted adopting UIs outside of its own for many years.
Nearly one-third of car buyers considered the lack of CarPlay as a deal-breaker when buying their cars, a study from McKinsey & Co. outlined. This could be a driving decision in Tesla’s inability to abandon the development of CarPlay in its vehicles, especially as it lost a major advantage that appealed to consumers last year: the $7,500 EV tax credit.
Tesla owners propose interesting theory about Apple CarPlay and EV tax credit
Although we saw little to no movement on it since the November speculation, Tesla is now reportedly in the process of still developing the user interface. Mark Gurman, a Bloomberg writer with a weekly newsletter, stated that CarPlay is “still in the works” at Tesla and that more concrete information will be available “soon” regarding its development.
While Tesla already has a very capable and widely accepted user interface, CarPlay would still be an advantage, considering many people have used it in their vehicles for years. Just like smartphones, many people get comfortable with an operating system or style and are resistant to using a new one. This could be a big reason for Tesla attempting to get it in their own cars.
Tesla gets updated “Apple CarPlay” hack that can work on new models
For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.
It holds one distinct advantage over Tesla’s UI in my opinion, and that’s the ability to read and respond to text messages, which is something that is available within a Tesla, but is not as user-friendly.
With that being said, I would still give CarPlay a shot in my Tesla. I didn’t particularly enjoy it in my Bronco Sport, but that was because Ford’s software was a bit laggy with it. If it were as smooth as Tesla’s UI, which I think it would be, it could be a really great addition to the vehicle.
With the launch of a new trim level for the Model Y last night, something almost went unnoticed — the loss of a moniker that Tesla just recently added to a couple of its variants of the all-electric crossover.
Tesla launched the Model Y All-Wheel-Drive last night, competitively priced at $41,990, but void of the luxurious features that are available within the Premium trims.
Upon examination of the car, one thing was missing, and it was noticeable: Tesla dropped the use of the “Standard” moniker to identify its entry-level offerings of the Model Y.
The Standard Model Y vehicles were introduced late last year, primarily to lower the entry price after the U.S. EV tax credit changes were made. Tesla stripped some features like the panoramic glass roof, premium audio, ambient lighting, acoustic-lined glass, and some of the storage.
Last night, it simply switched the configurations away from “Standard” and simply as the Model Y Rear-Wheel-Drive and Model Y All-Wheel-Drive.
There are three plausible reasons for this move, and while it is minor, there must be an answer for why Tesla chose to abandon the name, yet keep the “Premium” in its upper-level offerings.
“Standard” carried a negative connotation in marketing
Words like “Standard” can subtly imply “basic,” “bare-bones,” or “cheap” to consumers, especially when directly contrasted with “Premium” on the configurator or website. Dropping it avoids making the entry-level Model Y feel inferior or low-end, even though it’s designed for affordability.
Tesla likely wanted the base trim to sound neutral and spec-focused (e.g., just “RWD” highlights drivetrain rather than feature level), while “Premium” continues to signal desirable upgrades, encouraging upsells to higher-margin variants.
Simplifying the overall naming structure for less confusion
The initial “Standard vs. Premium” split (plus Performance) created a somewhat clunky hierarchy, especially as Tesla added more variants like Standard Long Range in some markets or the new AWD base.
Removing “Standard” streamlines things to a more straightforward progression (RWD → AWD → Premium RWD/AWD → Performance), making the lineup easier to understand at a glance. This aligns with Tesla’s history of iterative naming tweaks to reduce buyer hesitation.
Elevating brand perception and protecting perceived value
Keeping “Premium” reinforces that the bulk of the Model Y lineup (especially the popular Long Range models) remains a premium product with desirable features like better noise insulation, upgraded interiors, and tech.
Eliminating “Standard” prevents any dilution of the Tesla brand’s upscale image—particularly important in a competitive EV market—while the entry-level variants can quietly exist as accessible “RWD/AWD” options without drawing attention to them being decontented versions.
You can check out the differences between the “Standard” and “Premium” Model Y vehicles below:
@teslarati There are some BIG differences between the Tesla Model Y Standard and Tesla Model Y Premium #tesla #teslamodely ♬ Sia – Xeptemper
Tesla China January wholesale sales rise 9% year-on-year
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works
