Connect with us

News

SpaceX urges Congress to expedite commercial spaceflight regulation reforms

Published

on

Speaking in a Congressional hearing on the morning of June 26th, SpaceX Director of Government Affairs Caryn Schenewerk reaffirmed the company’s commitment to conducting “more than 25 [launches]” in 2018, a feat that will require a ~50% increase in launch frequency over the second half of the year.

Related to the focus of this particular hearing, namely regulatory reform, Representative Rick Larsen (WA-2) appeared to speak for everyone when he mirrored the four panelists’ sense of urgency for beginning the process of reforming federal space launch regulations by asking for an informal meeting outside the doors of the chamber once the session concluded, stating that “it’s that urgent.” In order for companies like SpaceX (and eventually Blue Origin) to be able to sustainably and reliably reach cadences of one launch per week in the near future, the currently cumbersome and dated launch licensing apparatus will almost invariably require significant reforms.

Pressure to remove artificial bottlenecks growing

Two primary problems were identified by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), ULA, Blue Origin, and SpaceX officials present before the Congressional committee: the extreme sluggishness of licensing and the similarly obtuse brute-force integration of launch vehicle operations with the federal systems of air traffic control tasked with safely orchestrating tens of thousands of aircraft flights daily.

Advertisement

Whereas nominal orbital rocket launches result in vehicles like SpaceX’s Falcon 9 spending less than 90 seconds of real time within the bounds of that controlled airspace, the massive and disruptive “keep-out zones” currently required by the FAA for rocket launches frequently disrupt air traffic for more than 100 times as long. According to Ms. Schenewerk, SpaceX believes it already possesses the capabilities to integrate live Falcon 9 and Heavy telemetry with air traffic control, allowing those keep out zones to be dramatically compressed and highly responsive to actual launch operations, similar to how aircraft traffic is dealt with today.

On the specific launch licensing side of this regulatory coin, SpaceX, Blue Origin, and ULA all expressed distaste for current standards, in which a worst-case scenario could see a launch provider forced to wait more than 200 days (up to eight full months) from the moment of filing to a launch license grant. Worse, even slight adjustments to a granted launch license require launch providers to resubmit themselves to that 200+ day process, effectively making timely modifications undependable exceptions to the rule.

Old rules, new rockets

The real barrier to these common-sense regulatory reforms is quite simply the extraordinary sluggishness of the FAA and those tasked with updating its guidelines and regulatory structures. Rep. Larsen was not exaggerating when he stated that he foresaw Congress choosing to delay those reforms by another 5+ years if given the opportunity, and it was thus likely a relief for the panel of witnesses (PDF) to hear him agree that these reforms must be pursued with the utmost urgency. In its current state, the FAA’s launch licensing is liable to be utterly swamped by the imminent introduction of multiple new smallsat launch providers on top of the already lofty launch cadence ambitions of SpaceX, ULA, and Blue Origin, as well as Orbital ATK to a lesser extent.

With SpaceX leading the charge, the American launch industry is already a year or more into a true renaissance of American spaceflight, and the FAA is simply not equipped to handle it. If reforms can be completed with haste rarely seen in Congress, the federal government can at a minimum ensure that it does not become a wholly artificial and preventable bottleneck for that explosion of domestic spaceflight activity.

Advertisement

 

Speaking of that activity, SpaceX is scheduled to begin its H2 2018 manifest push with as many as six Falcon 9 launches (five with Block 5 boosters) over the next ~60 days. Barring an abrupt increase in rocket booster production speeds, sources have confirmed that those 2-3 summer months will likely also feature one of the first rapid Falcon 9 Block 5 reuses, potentially seeing one of SpaceX’s highly-reusable rockets complete two orbital launches in approximately one month (30-50 days). That will, of course, depend upon both customer agreeability and the availability of rockets and launch facilities, but the goal of a rapid Block 5 reuse before summer’s end still stands, at least for now.

Up next is CRS-15, which will see the last orbital Block 4 Falcon 9 launch a flight-proven Cargo Dragon to the ISS with several thousand pounds of supplies in tow, with liftoff scheduled for NET 5:42 am EDT, June 29.

Follow us for live updates, peeks behind the scenes, and photos from Teslarati’s East and West Coast photographers.

Advertisement

Teslarati   –   Instagram Twitter

Tom CrossTwitter

Pauline Acalin  Twitter

Eric Ralph Twitter

Advertisement

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

Tesla confirms Full Self-Driving still isn’t garnering interest from lagging competitors

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla executive Sendil Palani confirmed in a post on social media platform X that Full Self-Driving, despite being the most robust driver assistance program in the United States, still isn’t garnering any interest from lagging competitors.

Tesla has said on several occasions in the past that it has had discussions with a competing carmaker to license its Full Self-Driving suite. While it never confirmed which company it was, many pointed toward Ford as the one Tesla was holding dialogue with.

At the time, Ford CEO Jim Farley and Tesla CEO Elon Musk had a very cordial relationship.

Despite Tesla’s confirmation, which occurred during both the Q2 2023 and Q1 2024 Earnings Calls, no deal was ever reached. Whichever “major OEM” Tesla had talked to did not see the benefit. Even now, Tesla has not found that dance partner, despite leading every company in the U.S. in self-driving efforts by a considerable margin.

Advertisement

Elon Musk says Tesla Robotaxi launch will force companies to license Full Self-Driving

Palani seemed to confirm that Tesla still has not found any company that is remotely interested in licensing FSD, as he said on X that “despite our best efforts to share the technology,” the company has found that it “has not been proven to be easy.”

Advertisement

The question came just after one Tesla fan on X asked whether Tesla would continue manufacturing vehicles.

Because Tesla continues to expand its lineup of Model Y, it has plans to build the Cybercab, and there is still an immediate need for passenger vehicles, there is no question that the company plans to continue scaling its production.

However, Palani’s response is interesting, especially considering that it was in response to the question of whether Tesla would keep building cars.

Perhaps if Tesla could license Full Self-Driving to enough companies for the right price, it could simply sell the suite to car companies that are building vehicles, eliminating the need for Tesla to build its own.

Advertisement

While it seems like a reach because of Tesla’s considerable fan base, which is one of the most loyal in the automotive industry, the company could eventually bail on manufacturing and gain an incredible valuation by simply unlocking self-driving for other manufacturers.

The big question regarding why Tesla can’t find another company to license FSD is simply, “Why?”

Do they think they can solve it themselves? Do they not find FSD as valuable or effective? Many of these same companies didn’t bat an eye when Tesla started developing EVs, only to find themselves years behind. This could be a continuing trend.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla exec pleads for federal framework of autonomy to U.S. Senate Committee

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla executive Lars Moravy appeared today in front of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee to highlight the importance of modernizing autonomy standards by establishing a federal framework that would reward innovation and keep the country on pace with foreign rivals.

Moravy, who is Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, strongly advocated for Congress to enact a national framework for autonomous vehicle development and deployment, replacing the current patchwork of state-by-state rules.

These rules have slowed progress and kept companies fighting tooth-and-nail with local legislators to operate self-driving projects in controlled areas.

Tesla already has a complete Robotaxi model, and it doesn’t depend on passenger count

Advertisement

Moravy said the new federal framework was essential for the U.S. to “maintain its position in global technological development and grow its advanced manufacturing capabilities.

He also said in a warning to the committee that outdated regulations and approval processes would “inhibit the industry’s ability to innovate,” which could potentially lead to falling behind China.

Being part of the company leading the charge in terms of autonomous vehicle development in the U.S., Moravy highlighted Tesla’s prowess through the development of the Full Self-Driving platform. Tesla vehicles with FSD engaged average 5.1 million miles before a major collision, which outpaces that of the human driver average of roughly 699,000 miles.

Moravy also highlighted the widely cited NHTSA statistic that states that roughly 94 percent of crashes stem from human error, positioning autonomous vehicles as a path to dramatically reduce fatalities and injuries.

Advertisement

Skeptics sometimes point to cybersecurity concerns within self-driving vehicles, which was something that was highlighted during the Senate Commerce Committee hearing, but Moravy said, “No one has ever been able to take over control of our vehicles.”

Advertisement

This level of security is thanks to a core-embedded central layer, which is inaccessible from external connections. Additionally, Tesla utilizes a dual cryptographic signature from two separate individuals, keeping security high.

Moravy also dove into Tesla’s commitment to inclusive mobility by stating, “We are committed with our future products and Robotaxis to provide accessible transportation to everyone.” This has been a major point of optimism for AVs because it could help the disabled, physically incapable, the elderly, and the blind have consistent transportation.

Overall, Moravy’s testimony blended urgency about geopolitical competition, especially China, with concrete safety statistics and a vision of the advantages autonomy could bring for everyone, not only in the U.S., but around the world, as well.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla Model Y lineup expansion signals an uncomfortable reality for consumers

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla launched a new configuration of the Model Y this week, bringing more complexity to its lineup of the vehicle and adding a new, lower entry point for those who require an All-Wheel-Drive car.

However, the broadening of the Model Y lineup in the United States could signal a somewhat uncomfortable reality for Tesla fans and car buyers, who have been vocal about their desire for a larger, full-size SUV.

Tesla has essentially moved in the opposite direction through its closure of the Model X and its continuing expansion of a vehicle that fits the bill for many, but not all.

Tesla brings closure to Model Y moniker with launch of new trim level

Advertisement

While CEO Elon Musk has said that there is the potential for the Model Y L, a longer wheelbase configuration of the vehicle, to enter the U.S. market late this year, it is not a guarantee.

Instead, Tesla has prioritized the need to develop vehicles and trim levels that cater to the future rollout of the Robotaxi ride-hailing service and a fully autonomous future.

But the company could be missing out on a massive opportunity, as SUVs are a widely popular body style in the U.S., especially for families, as the tighter confines of compact SUVs do not support the needs of a large family.

Although there are other companies out there that manufacture this body style, many are interested in sticking with Tesla because of the excellent self-driving platform, expansive charging infrastructure, and software performance the vehicles offer.

Advertisement

Additionally, the lack of variety from an aesthetic and feature standpoint has caused a bit of monotony throughout the Model Y lineup. Although Premium options are available, those three configurations only differ in terms of range and performance, at least for the most part, and the differences are not substantial.

Minor Expansions of the Model Y Fail to Address Family Needs for Space

Offering similar trim levels with slight differences to cater to each consumer’s needs is important. However, these vehicles keep a constant: cargo space and seating capacity.

Larger families need something that would compete with vehicles like the Chevrolet Tahoe, Ford Expedition, or Cadillac Escalade, and while the Model X was its largest offering, that is going away.

Tesla could fix this issue partially with the rollout of the Model Y L in the U.S., but only if it plans to continue offering various Model Y vehicles and expanding on its offerings with that car specifically. There have been hints toward a Cyber-inspired SUV in the past, but those hints do not seem to be a drastic focus of the company, given its autonomy mission.

Advertisement

Tesla appears to be mulling a Cyber SUV design

Model Y Expansion Doesn’t Boost Performance, Value, or Space

You can throw all the different badges, powertrains, and range ratings on the same vehicle, it does not mean it’s going to sell better. The Model Y was already the best-selling vehicle in the world on several occasions. Adding more configurations seems to be milking it.

The true need of people, especially now that the Model X is going away, is going to be space. What vehicle fits the bill of a growing family, or one that has already outgrown the Model Y?

Not Expanding the Lineup with a New Vehicle Could Be a Missed Opportunity

The U.S. is the world’s largest market for three-row SUVs, yet Tesla’s focus on tweaking the existing Model Y ignores this. This could potentially result in the Osborne Effect, as sales of current models without capturing new customers who need more seating and versatility.

Advertisement

Expansions of the current Model Y offerings risk adding production complexity without addressing core demands, and given that the Model Y L is already being produced in China, it seems like it would be a reasonable decision to build a similar line in Texas.

Listening to consumers means introducing either the Model Y L here, or bringing a new, modern design to the lineup in the form of a full-size SUV.

Continue Reading