Connect with us

News

SpaceX executive talks rocket R&D: “Nobody paid us to make Falcon Heavy”

Published

8 years ago

on

Set to give a keynote speech on October 3rd at 2018’s International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Hans Koenigsmann – SpaceX Vice President of Build and Flight Reliability – attended an impromptu talk one day prior, titled “From the University of Bremen to SpaceX”.

Speaking before a small audience, the University of Bremen graduate and fourth employee to join SpaceX discussed his opinions of Falcon Heavy, BFR, and more, frankly relating how SpaceX intentionally chose to build Falcon Heavy on its own, going so far as to turn down funding reportedly offered by one or more US government agencies.

Falcon Heavy’s first static fire, Feb. 2018. (SpaceX)

From Bremen to SpaceX (to Bremen)

Hopefully a sign of things to come for his 09:20 UTC, Oct. 3 keynote, titled “Reusability: The Key to Reliability and Affordability”, Hans’ precursor talk centered around the circuitous path that led him from University of Bremen to SpaceX, humorously describing how he “got bored of airplanes pretty quickly” after becoming an aerospace engineer. He quickly turned to space, hopping between a number of German smallsat projects that eventually led him to settle in the U.S. after flying there and back “at least 25 times”.

Once in the US, he wound up working at spaceflight startup Microcosm – alongside now-president and COO of SpaceX Gwynne Shotwell – for several years before running into Elon Musk and almost immediately accepting the eccentric entrepreneur’s SpaceX job offer in 2002. He has worked for SpaceX ever since and now spends a majority of his time managing and overseeing its BFR, Block 5, and Crew Dragon programs with a focus on systematically ensuring reliability. He touched on the company’s BFR development program and pointed to the fabrication of massive composite structures as the single most pressing challenge facing SpaceX engineers and technicians.

Asked by an audience member about the apparent difficulty of developing the heat-shield segment of BFR’s spaceship upper stage (BFS), Koenigsmann was quite confident that it would be a relatively easy aspect of the craft’s development, making the argument that what really matters to the craft is overall heat transfer per unit of its shield. From a basic comparison of the area of a given heat shield and the spacecraft’s mass at reentry, his lack of concern is probably warranted – a BFR spaceship’s worst-case LEO reentry is likely to be less stressful than an average Space Shuttle reentry.

“Try [to not] get money from the government”

Perhaps most intriguing of all Koenigsmann’s comments was an almost unprovoked segue into the US government’s involvement in Falcon Heavy development. According to the SpaceX executive, the company was actually approached by “the government”, with the unknown agency or agencies stating – in Hans’ words – that they wanted to be a part of the rocket’s development. According to Hans, SpaceX responded in an extremely unorthodox fashion: “we said, ‘Nope! We just wanna build it, you can buy it when it’s ready and we’ll charge you for the service.’” He noted in the next sentence that funding was the primary lever on the table:

“It’s a great position to do this, you gotta find the money, you gotta know people that have money and are willing to invest in your company, and [SpaceX has] been lucky enough to know some of those people.” 

In other words, when given an opportunity to either rely on government funding or some other source of capital for a given R&D project, SpaceX – or at least Hans Koenigsmann, VP of Reliability – would apparently recommend the latter option in almost all cases. Again, without being prompted, he elaborated on his feelings about funding sources, culminating in a statement that is simply profound coming from an executive in the aerospace industry. The following quote is unabridged and straight from Hans himself:

“You need to [try to not] get money from the government, otherwise the government will tell you what to build and how to build it… they will tell you how to build this and that’s just not always – I mean for some things it’s the best to do, but in others it’s actually not.”

 

Advertisement
-
-

This sentiment could suggest that SpaceX will seek to prioritize private funding sources for the development of future vehicles like BFR’s rocket and spaceship, although there is plenty of room for interpretation in Hans’ IAC 2018 comments. SpaceX currently maintains strong and productive relationships with both NASA and the USAF, primarily centered around the company’s $2.6B fixed-price contract for the development and operation of Crew Dragon.

Watch and listen to Hans Koenigsmann’s full presentation below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs2LBeLCo_s

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!

Related Topics:

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 AI lead doubles down on FSD’s speed strategy, and owners are confused

Published

1 hour ago

on

August 4, 2026

By

Credit: Tesla

Tesla’s AI lead Ashok Elluswamy doubled down on the company’s strategy regarding Full Self-Driving’s speed settings, and owners are definitely confused.

Earlier versions of Full Self-Driving allowed owners to set a max speed that the vehicle could travel while operating under the semi-autonomous driver assistance platform. This allowed more customization for the driver, giving them the ability to experience FSD’s robust performance with their own personal preferences.

Speed is massively important for obvious reasons — it’s not only a question of keeping the vehicle occupants comfortable by traveling at a safe speed, but it’s also something that could contribute to a ticket or infraction from law enforcement.

With the release of FSD v14 last year, Tesla removed the ability to set a max speed and instead opted for five Speed Profiles, ranging from “Sloth,” the most conservative, to “Mad Max,” the most aggressive and spirited. These profiles not only control speed, but also how frequently the vehicle will execute passes, perform lane changes, and other contributing factors.

The removal of the Max Speed setting was a major complaint amongst the Tesla community because it left owners scrambling for a way to experience suitable behaviors while traveling at an appropriate speed. Most felt the driving profiles would be a good indicator of the behaviors, while speed would still be left up to the discretion of the driver.

Instead, Tesla’s Speed Profiles determine both, and the constant tinkering of how they behave has been a major bottleneck and point of confusion for both owners and the company. From update to update, the Speed Profiles will change, sometimes more drastically than others. Some owners have complained that the “Standard” profile is too fast, while others have experienced “Mad Max” traveling below the speed limit:

These things change with each update, but the big complaint is that owners are on the hook for any tickets that come from FSD’s infractions; that’s the caveat of the suite being named FSD (Supervised). It ultimately means the driver is responsible, and the automaker has no liability when it comes to speeding tickets or general traffic infractions.

It is the driver’s responsibility to take over or adjust based on this.

Elluswamy essentially confirmed that there are no plans to bring back Max Speed control, because it is what he referred to as “an anti pattern.” He then echoed something that CEO Elon Musk has started to really push with FSD, and that’s the idea that Tesla is really honing in on the preferences of the driver.

Owners were confused by Tesla’s decision, stating that there must be a better way, especially considering disengagements for incorrect speeds are common:

From personal experience and using FSD for over 72 percent of my driving miles since v14 was released late last year, I make Speed Profile adjustments constantly. If FSD is traveling a tad too quickly, I will scale it back, and if it’s too conservative, I’ll make it more aggressive.

I don’t complain about making the Speed Profile changes too frequently, but it would certainly be nice to have it happen less frequently. There are far too many times I am concerned about getting a ticket, even in Standard mode.

The biggest issue for me, personally, which seems to be echoed throughout the community, is the fact that Tesla’s goal is to minimize disengagements. Many drivers are stating that speed is a major reason for disengagements.

However, Tesla is not willing to bring back this one level of input because it would technically be a regression.

Advertisement
-
-

Whether it’s right or wrong in your opinion, it is what Tesla is going with, and it seems like it has pivoted quite a bit from its other strategies for minimizing interventions by pushing its AI to behave in a way that would fit the occupant’s personal preferences.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla qualifies for awesome new first-time EV buyer incentive in California

Published

2 hours ago

on

August 4, 2026

By

White Tesla Model X rear bumper showing California license plate

Tesla is one of several automakers whose vehicles qualify for an awesome new first-time EV buyer incentive program in California.

The Golden State launched the MyFirstEV incentive program, which helps those buying an electric vehicle for the first time with a $3,500 incentive on new-inventory purchases of a Model 3 or Model Y.

The incentive requires an order on or after August 3, and delivery must be taken while the program is still being funded. California has set aside $135.5 million to help strengthen its SEV market and support automotive innovation.

Incentives are offered at the point of sale, and used EVs are also available for a partial incentive of $1,750. Half of the $3,500 and $1,750 incentive amounts are covered by California, with the other half being covered by participating OEMs.

Advertisement
-
-

Additionally, rules apply for MSRP and how the vehicle will qualify for the incentive. Any vehicle from a non-California headquartered OEM must have an MSRP of $50,000 or less. Used vehicles must be priced at $25,000 or less and must be at least two model years older than the year of purchase.

The cars must also be purchased from manufacturers as certified pre-owned vehicles. Private dealerships are not eligible.

In total, California expects to incentivize over 73,000 ZEVs.

Participating Manufacturers

Fourteen total automakers are participating in California’s MyFirstEV program:

  • Chevrolet – Launching August 2026
  • Ford – Launching August 2026
  • Honda – Launching September 2026
  • Hyundai – Launching August 2026
  • Kia – Launching August 2026
  • Lexus – Launching September 2026
  • Lucid – Launching August 2026
  • Mitsubishi – Launching November 2026
  • Nissan – Coming Soon
  • Rivian – Coming Soon
  • Subaru – Launching September 2026
  • Tesla – Launching August 2026
  • Toyota – Launching September 2026
  • Volvo – Coming Soon

 

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

SpaceX to report first-ever earnings today: here’s what to expect

Published

3 hours ago

on

August 4, 2026

By

Credit: SpaceX

Elon Musk’s space exploration company, SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX), is set to report its earnings for the second quarter today in what will be its first-ever earnings call since going public in July.

SpaceX is trading down roughly 25 percent from its IPO. These early stock signals are usually a bit tumultuous, and considering this is the first company actively launching rockets that is available on the stock exchange, investors might have a tendency to be a bit skittish.

However, there are going to be some details that investors will hear for the first time today on the earnings call. Here’s what to look for:

Wall Street Expectations

Revenue is expected to fall somewhere around $6.8 billion, and will be heavily driven by Starlink, which is SpaceX’s widely popular satellite internet platform that has been adopted by numerous airlines, cruise ships, and other maritime operations. It is also available for consumers at home or in their cars.

Earnings Per Share (EPS) expectations fall at a net loss of $0.23 per share. Wall Street sees this as a total net loss of roughly $1.9 billion.

EBITDA is expected to come in between $2 billion and $2.1 billion.

What Investors Want to Know

Tesla uses the Say platform to help work with both retail and institutional investors to answer relevant and quality questions that address concerns or questions that they might have.

Advertisement
-
-

However, SpaceX is doing things differently, as the company launched its own Investor Relations website where these questions are being fielded. Just like the Tesla questions, they seem to be less focused on the operational tasks and overall progress of the company, and more novelty.

Here are the top five:

  • Has the team thought about what possibilities there are with your mascot Asteroid? Whether it’s starting additional foundations for kids in its name, helping kids learn about space, etc. Kids are our future, and Asteroid would be a fun and easy way to help.
  • Baby Asteroid is already making a difference through charity around the world. Could SpaceX take it even further with programs that inspire kids to explore space?
  • SpaceX has some legendary vehicle names. Would you ever allow the public to name a Starship, even knowing there is a 99% chance it becomes Shipy McShipface?
  • When can we expect to see more footage of the Human Landing System?
  • Will Asteroid (your mascot) go to Mars?

SpaceX will report its earnings today, August 4, at 4:30 P.M. EDT.

Continue Reading