Connect with us

SpaceX

NASA and SpaceX will determine fate of Crew Dragon launch debut this Friday

Crew Dragon and Falcon 9 are ready for the spacecraft's orbital launch debut, NET March 2nd. (SpaceX)

Published

on

Although the chances of additional delays are high, the orbital launch debut of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft remains stoically targeted for 2:47 am EDT (07:47 UTC) on March 2nd, less than ten days from today.

Known as DM-1, the unproven SpaceX vehicle’s autonomous demonstration mission is a critical milestone along the road to assured US access to the International Space Station (ISS), without which NASA will be forced to continue procuring seats on Russian Soyuz missions with aggressively inflated price tags. If everything goes exactly as planned, a successful DM-1 could translate into the company’s first crewed launch as early as July 2019.

Following a nominal mission plan, the first spaceworthy Crew Dragon will dock with the ISS a little over 24 hours after launch (March 3rd) with around 180 kg (400 lb) of cargo for the station’s six-astronaut crew. Five days later (March 8th), Crew Dragon will depart from the ISS, detach its expendable trunk, and reenter Earth’s atmosphere for a soft landing in the Atlantic Ocean. Throughout these operations, ISS astronauts, NASA technicians and operators, and a range of SpaceX employees will conduct extensive observations and tests of the new spacecraft’s performance during all mission phases, ranging from on-orbit docking (a new technology for SpaceX) to Atlantic Ocean recovery operations.

Once the capsule has been extricated from the ocean, SpaceX’s spacecraft refurbishment technicians will be faced with an extraordinary challenge, upon which the date of Crew Dragon’s first crewed launch will directly hinge. Assuming splashdown ops are nominal and Dragon is returned safely to Florida, it’s safe to assume that SpaceX will transport the spacecraft to its Hawthorne factory, at which point its engineers and technicians will have roughly two months to prepare it for another launch. Known as an in-flight abort (IFA) test, SpaceX specifically opted to perform the spacecraft safety check despite the fact that NASA did not explicitly require its commercial providers (Boeing and SpaceX) to do so. SpaceX completed Crew Dragon’s pad abort test – required by NASA – almost four years ago, while Boeing will not perform an in-flight abort before launching astronauts and has its pad abort scheduled no earlier than (NET) May 2019.

Advertisement
-

 

SpaceX’s IFA test is designed to verify that Crew Dragon is capable of safely extricating its astronaut passengers from a failing rocket at the point of peak aerodynamic (and thus mechanical) stress during launch, known as Max Q. Combined with a pad abort demonstration, where the above situation is replicated but with the rocket and spacecraft motionless on the launch pad, the engineering assumption is that successful aborts at both standstill and Max Q verify that a given spacecraft has proven that it can essentially abort and carry astronauts to safety at any point during launch.

“The launch scenario where an abort is initiated during the ascent trajectory at the maximum dynamic pressure (known as max Q) is a design driver for the launch abort system. It dictates the highest thrust and minimum relative acceleration required between Falcon 9 and the aborting Dragon … Dragon would separate from Falcon 9 at the interface between the trunk and the second stage… Under these conditions, the Falcon 9 vehicle would become uncontrollable and would break apart.” – SpaceX FAA permit, 2018

Aside from a boilerplate Merlin Vacuum engine on the second stage, SpaceX’s IFA test is set to fly on real Falcon 9 hardware that will almost certainly be consigned to total destruction at the point of abort, around 90 seconds after launch. SpaceX’s decision to expend an entirely flightworthy Falcon 9 Block 5 rocket – featuring a booster capable of supporting anywhere from 5-100 lifetime missions – is a tangible demonstration of the company’s commitment to crew safety above all else, although NASA will either partially or fully compensate SpaceX for the milestone. Set to occur no earlier than June 2019, the IFA schedule is explicitly constrained by the successful launch and recovery of Crew Dragon after DM-1 – any delays to that mission will likely translate into IFA delays, which will translate into delays for the first crewed mission (DM-2).

An official SpaceX render showing Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon lifting off from Pad 39A. (SpaceX)

SpaceX’s Cargo Dragon engineers and technicians have a solid amount of experience refurbishing the spacecraft for cargo missions to the ISS, although the average turnaround for flight-proven capsules currently stands around 18-24 months, not exactly on the heels of the 2-3 months currently alotted for the first Crew Dragon. Thanks to the fact that the IFA Crew Dragon does not need to be refurbished to the standards of orbital flight for its second launch, it’s at least conceivable that that aspirational schedule is within reach. SpaceX’s first crewed demonstration mission (DM-2) could occur as early as one month after a successful IFA (July 2019), pending the completion of joint NASA-SpaceX readiness reviews.

Known as flight readiness reviews (FRRs), those joint reviews are no less significant for DM-1, even if they likely are underwhelmingly marked by a copious amount of slideshow presentations and sitting around tables in meeting rooms. The purpose of the reviews (at least nominally) is to essentially have SpaceX attempt to convince NASA (as empirically as possible) that they are ready to launch Crew Dragon. According to NASA, that review will end NET 6pm EDT (23:00 UTC) on February 22nd, followed one hour later by an official press conference featuring NASA and SpaceX officials.


Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes!

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

SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit

SpaceX filed with the FCC for Starship Flight 14, its first true orbital launch attempt.

Published

on

By

SpaceX has asked the Federal Communications Commission for permission to fly Starlink terminals during Starship’s fourteenth flight test, and the filing lays out a genuine trip to orbit, something the program has never attempted.

Every Starship flight so far, including Flight 13’s successful splashdown in the Indian Ocean on July 24, has flown a suborbital arc that ends with the ship reentering the atmosphere within the same hour it launches. The FCC paperwork describes a mission profile built around an actual orbital insertion instead.

The payload is the other half of the story. Flight 13 carried 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, but because that mission never reached orbit, the satellites reentered along with the ship rather than joining the constellation, something Teslarati covered in detail after SpaceX released footage shot from one of those satellites as it drifted away from Starship in space. Flight 14 is designed to close that gap. If the orbital insertion holds, the roughly 20 V3 satellites onboard would separate into an operational orbit and could eventually go into service, each one rated for about 1 terabit per second of downlink capacity by SpaceX’s own account.

SpaceX announces new Starbase for ‘thousands of Starship launches annually’

Elon Musk first flagged the orbital attempt during SpaceX’s August 4 earnings call, the company’s first as a public entity following its June IPO under the ticker SPCX. He also floated catching the ship with the Starbase tower on the same flight, an idea he walked back on August 20, saying the catch attempt would more likely come “in a few months,” as Teslarati reported at the time. Flight 14 will instead target a splashdown for the ship in the Indian Ocean, the same recovery method used since Flight 12.

Hardware has been catching up to the ambition. Booster 21 completed a full 33-engine static fire on August 28, and Ship 41 finished its own six-engine test the week before. An airspace briefing circulated to pilots on August 20 listed September 15 as the target date, later than the end of August window Musk mentioned on the earnings call, though SpaceX has not confirmed a launch date publicly and Starship schedules routinely slip while hardware and FAA paperwork line up.

Advertisement
-

The FCC filing itself does not guarantee a launch date. It covers communications authority, and not flight readiness, considering SpaceX still needs Ship 41 fully stacked and cleared by the FAA before Flight 14 can fly. But the filing is a real marker of intent and it puts a specific regulatory process behind what had so far only been Musk’s word on the earnings call.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX would not exist if this crucial early launch failed, Musk says

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX

Elon Musk recently restated a fact that still defines SpaceX’s origin story: if Falcon 1’s fourth launch had failed, the company would not exist. The comment answered a reminder that after three consecutive losses, SpaceX had money for only one more attempt.

On X, Peter Diamandis said that the present-day acknowledgement of SpaceX’s success does not discount the rough start the company had. “Almost nobody remembers that Elon’s first rocket failed three times, and there was money for exactly only one more attempt.”

Musk said, “If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist.”

In late 2008, the firm was nearly out of cash. Another failure would have ended payroll, closed the Hawthorne factory, and left the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as unfinished drawings.

Advertisement
-

The first flight lifted off from Omelek Island on 24 March 2006. Thirty-three seconds later, a corroded aluminum fitting on a fuel line leaked. Kerosene ignited around the Merlin engine, control was lost, and the vehicle came apart. The small DARPA payload, FalconSAT-2, survived the short flight only to land on a storage shed near the pad. Investigators later traced the fitting to a materials mix-up that should never have reached the rocket.

Flight 2, on 21 March 2007, looked far better at first. The first stage burned cleanly and handed off to the Kestrel-powered upper stage. The vehicle crossed 100 kilometers and reached a peak of about 289 kilometers. Then propellant slosh in the second-stage tank started a circular coning motion that grew until the engine shut down. Telemetry faded as the stage tumbled, and SpaceX had reached space but not orbit. Over the next year, the team redesigned everything from the ground up, including tanks, baffles, and the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C.

That engine flew on Flight 3 on 2 August 2008. The first stage performed almost perfectly and reached 217 kilometers. After main-engine cutoff, leftover fuel in the cooling channels produced a faint residual thrust, roughly 10 pounds per square inch of chamber pressure. On a Texas test stand, the effect was invisible beneath ambient air pressure. In vacuum it was enough to push the spent first stage back into the second stage after separation. The stages collided, the upper stage spun, and the mission was lost. Musk later said a slightly longer delay before staging would have saved the flight.

Six weeks later, the team assembled Flight 4 from remaining parts and flew it on 28 September 2008 at 23:15 UTC. The payload was Ratsat, a 165-kilogram aluminum mass simulator built in-house. Staging was delayed so residual thrust could decay. The Kestrel ignited, the fairing split away, and nine and a half minutes after liftoff the vehicle was in orbit. After a coast, the second stage restarted, settling into a 621-by-643-kilometer path at 9.35 degrees inclination. Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach Earth orbit. Musk called the insertion “middle of the bull’s-eye.”

SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success

That success unlocked NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services award later that year. Without it, there would have been no Falcon 9, no reusable first stages, and no Dragon cargo or crew flights to the International Space Station. Launch prices would have remained far higher. Starlink’s constellation would not exist; broadband from low Earth orbit would still be a paper concept.

Advertisement
-

Ride-share markets, high launch cadence, and the current pace of lunar and Mars hardware would be years behind. Communications, Earth observation, and the cost of putting anything into space would look more like the 2000s than the 2020s.

One extra second of residual thrust in August 2008 would have written a different decade.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

OpenAI cites distrust of SpaceX in decision to drop Cursor partnership

OpenAI will cut SpaceX-owned Cursor’s model access in November, citing Musk’s history of broken contracts.

Published

on

By

OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, announced late Friday that it is ending its partnership with Cursor, cutting off the coding tool’s access to its models on November 12. The move comes two weeks after SpaceX completed its $60 billion acquisition of Cursor’s parent company, Anysphere, folding the popular AI coding assistant into Elon Musk’s growing SpaceXAI division.

In a post on its website, OpenAI said the decision came down to trust, not technology. “We cannot be confident that SpaceX will use our technology within our terms of service, based on our experience with Elon Musk’s companies violating contracts,” the company wrote. OpenAI pointed to two specific incidents: X, now part of SpaceX, allegedly breaking the terms of an existing OpenAI contract after Musk bought Twitter.

That lawsuit is the backdrop for all of this. Musk cofounded OpenAI in 2015, left the board in 2018, and sued Sam Altman and Greg Brockman in 2024, arguing they abandoned the company’s nonprofit mission for profit. A federal jury sided with OpenAI in May, finding Musk waited too long to sue rather than ruling on the merits of his claims. Musk said at the time he would appeal to the Ninth Circuit, calling the outcome a “calendar technicality” rather than a real judgment.

Elon Musk breaks silence on OpenAI trial decision

SpaceX’s interest in Cursor predates that verdict by weeks. The company first struck a deal with Cursor in April, securing an option to acquire it for $60 billion or pay $10 billion for joint development work instead. As Teslarati reported at the time, the logic was straightforward: Cursor was paying retail prices to Anthropic and OpenAI, two of its most direct competitors, every time a developer used its product, while SpaceX had idle capacity on its Colossus supercomputer, roughly the equivalent of a million Nvidia H100 GPUs, that Cursor could use to train its own models instead. SpaceX exercised the option in June, days after its own IPO, and the deal closed in mid-August.

Once it closed, Musk moved fast. On an all-hands call with more than 1,000 Cursor employees, he reportedly told staff that SpaceXAI’s Grok was playing catchup in the AI race, unlike Tesla and SpaceX in their own markets, and singled out Anthropic as the company to catch. Cursor CEO Michael Truell now reports directly to Musk inside SpaceXAI.

Advertisement
-

Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic

Losing OpenAI’s models leaves Cursor leaning harder on Anthropic’s Claude, which has its own compute agreement with SpaceX, and on Cursor’s in-house Composer model, the one SpaceX’s compute was supposed to accelerate in the first place. OpenAI framed the November deadline as maximum notice under its contract, and said it wants to “go above and beyond” to help developers through the transition. Whether Anthropic makes the same call is now the open question in AI coding.

Continue Reading