Connect with us

News

SpaceX Dragon XL could double as a crew cabin for lunar space station

Published

on

A recent modification to SpaceX’s Dragon XL lunar cargo resupply contract with NASA suggests that the spacecraft could be used as an extra crew cabin and bathroom at a lunar space station known as Gateway.

The contract modification was made around April 1st of this year and provided SpaceX around $121,000 to complete the latest study on the potential utility of its expendable Dragon XL spacecraft beyond the primary goal of resupplying a space station orbiting the Moon. Designed to deliver at least five metric tons (~11,000 lb) of pressurized and unpressurized cargo to Gateway, Dragon XL will launch on SpaceX’s own Falcon Heavy rocket – currently the only super heavy-lift launch vehicle in operation – and meant to heavily borrow from hardware and systems already developed for Crew and Cargo Dragon.

NASA first announced its selection of SpaceX for the Gateway Logistics Services (GLS) contract back in March 2020. More than a year later, very little has been said (or visibly done) to progress from that announcement to a true contract – an unusually long period of inactivity for such a significant program.

Of note, as recently as April 2021, NASA officials made it clear that they were still in the cryptic process of “reviewing” the Artemis program, leading to such a long delay between the GLS award announcement and finalization of an actual contract with SpaceX. Of note, back when it was announced, NASA’s nominal plan was to begin Dragon XL cargo deliveries as early as 2024 to support the Artemis Program’s first crewed Moon landing attempt.

Since then, however, other crucial aspects – namely the concept of operations and Human Lander System (HLS) meant to carry astronauts to and from the Moon – have evolved significantly. Weeks after NASA’s GLS announcement, the space agency awarded approximately $1 billion to three prospective HLS providers – SpaceX, Dynetics, and a team led by Blue Origin. A little over a year later, NASA announced a shocking decision to award that initial HLS Moon landing demonstration contract to SpaceX and SpaceX alone.

More or less simultaneously, NASA it made it clear that it was seriously studying the possibility of performing Artemis-3 – the first crewed Moon landing attempt in half a century – without Gateway. Along those lines, the SLS-launched Orion spacecraft and HLS lander (a custom variant of SpaceX’s Starship) would dock directly in lunar orbit instead of separately docking to Gateway to transfer crew. NASA’s decision to solely select Starship as its future Moon lander was so surprising in large part because of how starkly the vehicle’s potential capabilities contrast with the rest of the Artemis Program.

As many have already noted, the very existence of a Starship with capabilities close to what SpaceX is working towards – now a practical inevitability for the company to complete its HLS contract – brings into question the architecture NASA has proposed for Artemis. Currently, the nominal plan is to launch astronauts into an exotic high lunar orbit with NASA’s own SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft – an inconvenient orbit only needed to make up for said spacecraft’s shortcomings. Prior to recent developments, Orion would then dock with Gateway. The HLS vehicle would follow and crew would eventually transfer to the lander, which would then carry 2+ astronauts to and from the surface of the Moon and re-dock with Gateway, followed by Orion returning those astronauts to Earth.

Advertisement

Given that Starship offers enough pressurized volume to rival even the vast International Space Station (ISS) in a single launch, the entire concept of Gateway – an almost inhumanely tiny space station – becomes dubious. If Orion also doesn’t need Gateway to transfer its astronauts to the lander, which NASA has all but confirmed, it’s difficult to see what value Gateway could offer outside of a very expensive technology demonstration. Including a planned Falcon Heavy launch of the first two Gateway segments, station production, and the possible need for expensive Dragon XL cargo deliveries, Gateway could easily end up costing NASA $4-5 billion before it hosts a single astronaut.

NASA is already deeply concerned about the apparent likelihood of Congress systematically underfunding the HLS and Artemis programs outside of SLS and Orion, going as far as selecting just a single HLS provider after clearly indicating a desire for redundancy given enough funding. NASA’s HLS contract with SpaceX is expected to cost around $2.9 billion. The next cheapest option – Blue Origin’s proposal – would reportedly cost around $6 billion. In other words, if NASA were able to stop work and Gateway and redirect that funding elsewhere, it could almost already afford two HLS providers without a larger budget.

Given that NASA has selected SpaceX for HLS and GLS, it’s not impossible to imagine that the space agency is growing increasingly aware that Gateway and Dragon XL look more than a little redundant beside the Starship vehicle NASA itself is now funding SpaceX to realize. For now, though, work on all three programs continue. Most recently, NASA and SpaceX are studying the possibility of adding a toilet and using Dragon XL as an extra crew cabin and bathroom to augment the tiny habitable volume of Gateway’s lone habitat. Only time will tell where the cards ultimately fall.

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 axed one of the Model Y’s best features in ‘Standard’ trims: here’s why

Lars Moravy explains why Tesla chose to go with a glass roof in the new Standard trims, despite it not being visible.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla chose to implement a glass roof on the new Model 3 and Model Y ‘Standard’ builds, despite the fact that you won’t be able to see it from the inside.

In the new Model 3 and Model Y ‘Standard’ configurations, one of the biggest changes is the lack of a glass roof, which is one of the more unique features Tesla offers.

How Tesla’s Standard models will help deliveries despite price disappointment

The entire roof of the Model 3 and Model Y’s ‘Premium’ and Performance trims is glass, giving everyone in the car an astounding view of the sky.

However, Tesla chose to cover this up in the new ‘Standard’ trim levels. Here’s a look at it:

Credit: ItsKimJava | X

Despite it not being visible from the inside, the roof is still made of glass. It is only visible from the outside. Even if you removed the headliner in the Model 3 or Model Y ‘Standard,’ you would not be able to see the outside, because the glass is opaque:

Tesla’s Vice President of Powertrain, Lars Moravy, commented on the use of glass in the Premium models and how it differs from the glass in the Standard trims:

“All glass is NOT created equal. Remember, the Model Y Premium glass is laminated with silver IR reflective coatings to make it super comfy and reject solar load… the standard is not… plus LOTS of people wanted a closed headliner, always trying to listen (and improve road noise at the same time).”

The decision to cover up the glass while still using it was an efficiency choice. Moravy said Tesla chose to keep the glass for the new Standard models due to “cost, supply chain, and manufacturing efficiency.”

Tesla launched the Standard models on Tuesday. The cars were effectively a counter to the loss of the $7,500 EV tax credit.

Continue Reading

News

How Tesla’s Standard models will help deliveries despite price disappointment

“What a giant miss,” one person said.

“With all due respect, no way is this what y’all have been hyping for 6 quarters…” another one claimed.

“So…where are the affordable models?” another reply read.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

When Tesla unveiled its Standard versions of the Model 3 and Model Y this week, reactions were mixed. Many liked the addition of two new models, but they were also concerned about the price.

“What a giant miss,” one person said.

“With all due respect, no way is this what y’all have been hyping for 6 quarters…” another one claimed.

“So…where are the affordable models?” another reply read.

Tesla launches two new affordable models with ‘Standard’ Model 3, Y offerings

There’s no arguing it: $36,990 and $39,990 for the Model 3 Standard and Model Y Standard were not what consumers had in mind.

But, despite Tesla getting its new offerings to a price that is not necessarily as low as many expected, the two cars still have a chance to assist with quarterly deliveries.

Here’s how:

First-time Tesla buyers will lean toward Standard models

Tesla owners have become accustomed to expecting all the bells and whistles in their cars. Heated seats, ventilated seats, acoustic glass, vegan leather, industry-leading performance, world-class range, and a glass roof are all expected by current or past owners.

But what about new owners?

New owners do not have these high expectations, so to many of those who have not sat in a Tesla or driven one before, they are going to be blown away by the minimalistic looks, capabilities, and features of the Standard models.

The Premium models will feel like the high-end offerings that other automakers also have for sale, except they’ll only be a few thousand dollars more than Tesla’s base models. With other companies, the price for these higher-end trims is $10,000 or more.

The more affordable Standard models will be there, but if buyers want the extra features, they’ll likely be able to justify the extra few thousand dollars.

Tesla’s Standard Models fall under the U.S. Average Transaction Price

Kelley Blue Book releases a new report each month showing the average transaction price (ATP) of all vehicles sold in the U.S. for that month.

The latest report, released on September 10 for the month of August, revealed an ATP of $49,077. This was up 0.5% from July ($48,841) and higher year over year by 2.6%.

Technically, Tesla’s new Standard models fall well under that ATP, meaning they technically do qualify as “affordable.” However, realistically speaking, affordable does not mean “under the national average.”

It means accessible for low-income families, single-parent households, and other groups. This would likely be under $30,000.

Déjà Vu with the Cybertruck Rear-Wheel-Drive

When Tesla offered the Cybertruck RWD, it stripped out many of the best features of the Cybertruck, such as the adjustable air suspension, powered tonneau cover, and interior materials, just to name a few.

It was $10,000 less than the Cybertruck AWD, but many people essentially viewed it as a way to push consumers toward the more expensive variants, since the discount was a better value than missing out on features.

Tesla released the Cybertruck RWD to make the AWD look like a deal

Something similar could happen with the Standard models. With it only being a few thousand dollars less than the Premium Model 3 and Model Y, some consumers will see it as a better option to go with the more expensive trim levels.

Even if they don’t, many car buyers will see it as a deal to grab the Standard versions.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla bull sees a new path to 600,000 deliveries per quarter

“We believe the launch of a lower cost model represents the first step to getting back to a ~500k quarterly delivery run-rate, which will be important to stimulate demand for its fleet with the EV tax credit expiring at the end of September.”

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) bull Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities published a new note to investors on Thursday evening, which seemed to open up the possibility of the automaker returning to a growth rate in terms of deliveries.

After nearly two years of leveling off with deliveries, which was expected, Tesla is now slated to potentially return to growth, Ives says, as it has introduced new, more affordable models. It launched its Standard offerings for the Model 3 and Model Y this week, a strategy to bring cheaper cars to customers amid the loss of the $7,500 tax credit.

In his note to investors, Ives said:

“We believe the launch of a lower cost model represents the first step to getting back to a ~500k quarterly delivery run-rate, which will be important to stimulate demand for its fleet with the EV tax credit expiring at the end of September.”

Although these cars come in only slightly under $40,000, there is some belief that they will do two things: attract car buyers looking for an under-$40k EV with Tesla’s technology and infrastructure, or push those on the fence to the now-Premium models, which are simply the Long Range Rear-Wheel-Drive and Long Range All-Wheel-Drive.

Ives said in the note that Tesla’s plans for a $25,000 car are “on hold,” but it seems as if that vehicle will be the Cybercab, which the company unveiled a year ago today.

That project seems to be moving forward as well, based on what we saw at both Fremont and Gigafactory Texas yesterday. At Fremont, the Cybercab was spotted on the Test Track, while crash-tested units were spotted at the factory in Austin.

After the Standard models were rolled out and the Cybercab or another $25,000 unit arrives, Ives believes Tesla could actually get closer to 600,000 deliveries per quarter, he said on CNBC this morning:

Moving forward, Tesla has much more going for it than its potential growth in quarterly deliveries. Ives recognizes that a majority of what Tesla’s value will come from in the future: AI and autonomy.

Ives said:

“The AI valuation will start to get unlocked in the Tesla story and we believe the march to an AI driven valuation for TSLA over the next 6-9 months has now begun in our view with FSD and autonomous penetration of Tesla’s installed base and the acceleration of Cybercab in the US representing the golden goose for Musk & Co. We believe Tesla could reach a $2 trillion market cap early 2026 in a bull case scenario and $3 trillion by the end of 2026 as full scale volume production begins of the autonomous and robotics roadmap.”

Ives and Wedbush maintained their $600 price target and ‘Outperform’ rating on Tesla stock.

Continue Reading

Trending