Connect with us

SpaceX

SpaceX’s Falcon 9 Block 5 rocket gets its first public launch date on April 24

Published

on

After an unusually extended period of testing in McGregor, Texas, SpaceX’s next-generation Falcon 9 Block 5 booster (B1046) appears to be scheduled for an inaugural flight as early as April 24, a three-week recalibration from the original April 5 launch date.

New hardware, new bugs

A fairly significant leap from the current Block 3 and 4 iterations of Falcon 9, it should come as no surprise that the first Block 5 booster has taken a bit longer than anticipated to pass through its first integrated static fire testing and inaugural launch preparations. Put simply, new hardware takes time and safety and reliability take near-complete precedence over expediency.

Arguably, the better part of half of all of SpaceX’s planned 2018 launches will depend heavily on the Block 5 upgrade of Falcon 9 (and Heavy), especially if the company still intends to complete 20-25 launches between now and the end of the year. Per a relatively new strategy of intentional expending recoverable, flight-proven Falcon 9 boosters after their second launches, SpaceX is on track to effectively deplete their stock of non-Block 5 hardware well before the second half of 2018. As such, approaching Block 5’s introduction with extreme caution (as with most things in rocketry) is undoubtedly in SpaceX’s best interest. The gradual march to B1046’s first flight will thus continue forth to NET April 24 – subject to change, of course.

Thales-Alenia’s confirmation lends credence to the argument that the relatively lengthy period B1046 spent in Texas was simply SpaceX giving a complex and new technological system its due diligence – better to test cautiously and fix bugs than to rush complex procedures and damage the rocket, an eventuality likely to push any tentative launch date back to a much greater extent.

SpaceX continues a cautious regiment of tests for the newest Falcon 9 upgrade, Block 5. (Reddit /u/HollywoodSX)

Launches abound

With Bangabandhu-1 now officially scheduled NET April 24, the SpaceX focal point can return to a flurry of upcoming launches – Iridium-5 (NET Mar 30), CRS-14 (NET April 2), and TESS (NET April 16). Teslarati photographers Pauline Acalin (West Coast) and Tom Cross (East Coast) will be on the ground for all upcoming launches to capture some of the final swan songs of SpaceX’s rapidly diminishing stock of flight-proven Falcon 9s.

Teslarati   –   Instagram Twitter

Tom CrossTwitter

Pauline Acalin  Twitter

Advertisement

Eric Ralph Twitter

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

Elon Musk

Musk company boycott proposal at City Council meeting gets weird and ironic

The City of Davis in California held a weekly city council meeting on Tuesday, where it voted on a proposal to ban Musk-operated companies. It got weird and ironic.

Published

on

Credit: Grok

A city council meeting in California that proposed banning the entry of new contracts with companies controlled by Elon Musk got weird and ironic on Tuesday night after councilmembers were forced to admit some of the entities would benefit the community.

The City of Davis in California held a weekly city council meeting on Tuesday, where it voted on a proposal called “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies.”

The proposal claimed that Musk ” has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”

We reported on it on Tuesday before the meeting:

Advertisement

California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX

However, the meeting is now published online, and it truly got strange.

While it was supported by various members of the community, you could truly tell who was completely misinformed about the influence of Musk’s companies, their current status from an economic and competitive standpoint, and how much some of Musk’s companies’ projects benefit the community.

City Council Member Admits Starlink is Helpful

One City Council member was forced to admit that Starlink, the satellite internet project established by Musk’s SpaceX, was beneficial to the community because the emergency response system utilized it for EMS, Fire, and Police communications in the event of a power outage.

Advertisement

After public comments were heard, councilmembers amended some of the language in the proposal to not include Starlink because of its benefits to public safety.

One community member even said, “There should be exceptions to the rule.”

Advertisement

Community Members Report Out of Touch Mainstream Media Narratives

Many community members very obviously read big bold headlines about how horribly Tesla is performing in terms of electric vehicles. Many pointed to “labor intimidation” tactics being used at the company’s Fremont Factory, racial discrimination lawsuits, and Musk’s political involvement as clear-cut reasons why Davis should not consider his companies for future contracts.

However, it was interesting to hear some of them speak, very obviously out of touch with reality.

Musk has encouraged unions to propose organizing at the Fremont Factory, stating that many employees would not be on board because they are already treated very well. In 2022, he invited Union leaders to come to Fremont “at their convenience.”

The UAW never took the opportunity.

Advertisement

Some have argued that Tesla prevented pro-union clothing at Fremont, which it did for safety reasons. An appeals court sided with Tesla, stating that the company had a right to enforce work uniforms to ensure employee safety.

Another community member said that Tesla was losing market share in the U.S. due to growing competition from legacy automakers.

“Plus, these existing auto companies have learned a lot from what Tesla has done,” she said. Interestingly, Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis have all pulled back from their EV ambitions significantly. All three took billions in financial hits.

One Resident Crosses a Line

One resident’s time at the podium included this:

Advertisement

He was admonished by City Council member Bapu Vaitla, who said his actions were offensive. The two sparred verbally for a few seconds before their argument ended.

City Council Vote Result

Ultimately, the City of Davis chose to pass the motion, but they also amended it to exclude Starlink because of its emergency system benefits.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX

A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”

Published

on

tesla supercharger
Credit: Tesla

A California City Council is planning to weigh whether it would adopt a resolution that would place a ban on its engagement with Elon Musk companies, like Tesla and SpaceX.

The City of Davis, California, will have its City Council weigh a new proposal that would adopt a resolution “to divest from companies owned and/or controlled by Elon Musk.”

This would include a divestment proposal to encourage CalPERS, the California Public Employees Retirement System, to divest from stock in any Musk company.

A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”

Advertisement

It claims that Musk “has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”

If adopted, Davis would bar the city from entering into any new contracts or purchasing agreements with any company owned or controlled by Elon Musk. It also says it will not consider utilizing Tesla Robotaxis.

Hotel owner tears down Tesla chargers in frustration over Musk’s politics

A staff report on the proposal claims there is “no immediate budgetary impact.” However, a move like this would only impact its residents, especially with Tesla, as the Supercharger Network is open to all electric vehicle manufacturers. It is also extremely reliable and widespread.

Advertisement

Regarding the divestment request to CalPERS, it would not be surprising to see the firm make the move. Although it voted against Musk’s compensation package last year, the firm has no issue continuing to make money off of Tesla’s performance on Wall Street.

The decision to avoid Musk companies will be considered this evening at the City Council meeting.

The report comes from Davis Vanguard.

It is no secret that Musk’s political involvement, especially during the most recent Presidential Election, ruffled some feathers. Other cities considered similar options, like the City of Baltimore, which “decided to go in another direction” after awarding Tesla a $5 million contract for a fleet of EVs for city employees.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Starlink restrictions are hitting Russian battlefield comms: report

The restrictions have reportedly disrupted Moscow’s drone coordination and frontline communications.

Published

on

A truckload of Starlink dishes has arrived in Ukraine. (Credit: Mykhailo Fedorov/Twitter)

SpaceX’s decision to disable unauthorized Starlink terminals in Ukraine is now being felt on the battlefield, with Ukrainian commanders reporting that Russian troops have struggled to maintain assault operations without access to the satellite network. 

The restrictions have reportedly disrupted Moscow’s drone coordination and frontline communications.

Lt. Denis Yaroslavsky, who commands a special reconnaissance unit, stated that Russian assault activity noticeably declined for several days after the shutdown. “For three to four days after the shutdown, they really reduced the assault operations,” Yaroslavsky said.

Russian units had allegedly obtained Starlink terminals through black market channels and mounted them on drones and weapons systems, despite service terms prohibiting offensive military use. Once those terminals were blocked, commanders on the Ukrainian side reported improved battlefield ratios, as noted in a New York Post report.

Advertisement

A Ukrainian unit commander stated that casualty imbalances widened after the cutoff. “On any given day, depending on your scale of analysis, my sector was already achieving 20:1 (casuality rate) before the shutdown, and we are an elite unit. Regular units have no problem going 5:1 or 8:1. With Starlink down, 13:1 (casualty rate) for a regular unit is easy,” the unit commander said.

The restrictions come as Russia faces heavy challenges across multiple fronts. A late January report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that more than 1.2 million Russian troops have been killed, wounded, or gone missing since February 2022.

The Washington-based Institute for the Study of War also noted that activity from Russia’s Rubikon drone unit declined after Feb. 1, suggesting communications constraints from Starlink’s restrictions may be limiting operations. “I’m sure the Russians have (alternative options), but it takes time to maximize their implementation and this (would take) at least four to six months,” Yaroslavsky noted. 

Continue Reading