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’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.

Published

on

Credit: Michał Gapiński/YouTube

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 NovemberBloomberg 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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

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

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla bull sees odds rising of Tesla merger after Musk confirms SpaceX-xAI deal

Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities wrote on Tuesday that there is a growing chance Tesla could be merged in some form with SpaceX and xAI over the next 12 to 18 months.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla China

A prominent Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) bull has stated that the odds are rising that Tesla could eventually merge with SpaceX and xAI, following Elon Musk’s confirmation that the private space company has combined with his artificial intelligence startup. 

Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities wrote on Tuesday that there is a growing chance Tesla could be merged in some form with SpaceX and xAI over the next 12 to 18 months.

“In our view there is a growing chance that Tesla will eventually be merged in some form into SpaceX/xAI over time. The view is this growing AI ecosystem will focus on Space and Earth together…..and Musk will look to combine forces,” Ives wrote in a post on X.

Ives’ comments followed confirmation from Elon Musk late Monday that SpaceX has merged with xAI. Musk stated that the merger creates a vertically integrated platform that combines AI, rockets, satellite internet, communications, and real-time data.

Advertisement

In a post on SpaceX’s official website, Elon Musk added that the combined company is aimed at enabling space-based AI compute, stating that within two to three years, space could become the lowest-cost environment for generating AI processing power. The transaction reportedly values the combined SpaceX-xAI entity at roughly $1.25 trillion.

Tesla, for its part, has already increased its exposure to xAI, announcing a $2 billion investment in the startup last week in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter.

While merger speculation has intensified, notable complications could emerge if SpaceX/xAI does merge with Tesla, as noted in a report from Investors Business Daily.

SpaceX holds major U.S. government contracts, including with the Department of Defense and NASA, and xAI’s Grok is being used by the U.S. Department of War. Tesla, for its part, maintains extensive operations in China through Gigafactory Shanghai and its Megapack facility. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading