Connect with us

News

SpaceX teases extreme Falcon 9 launch cadence goals in Starship planning doc

Falcon 9 rolls out to Pad 39A in February 2019 for Crew Dragon's orbital launch debut, known as Demo-1. (NASA - Joel Kowsky)

Published

on

Published as part of an August 2019 environmental assessment (EA) draft for Starship’s prospective Pad 39A launch facilities, SpaceX revealed plans for a truly mindboggling number of annual Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches by 2024.

As environmental planning documents, the figures should be taken with a large grain of salt and be treated as near-absolute ceilings rather than practical goals. Nevertheless, SpaceX revealed plans for its two Florida launch sites (LC-40 and LC-39A) to ultimately support as many as 70 annual launches of Falcon 9 and Heavy by 2024, less than five years from now.

Simply put, even the most dogmatic fan would have to balk at least a little bit at the numbers SpaceX suggested in its Starship EA draft. More specifically, SpaceX apparently has plans to support as many as 20 annual Falcon 9/Heavy launches from Pad 39A and an incredible 50 annual Falcon 9 launches from LC-40 as early as 2024.

“SpaceX plans to increase the Falcon launch frequency to 20 launches per year from LC-39A and up to 50 launches per year from LC-40 by the year 2024. However, as Starship/Super Heavy launches gradually increase to 24 launches per year, the number of launches of the Falcon would decrease.

–SpaceX, Starship Environmental Assessment Draft, August 2019

SpaceX’s massive Launch Complex 39A is pictured here. (USAF – Hope Geiger, February 2019)
Falcon 9 B1047 lifts off from SpaceX’s LC-40 pad on August 6th, 2019. (SpaceX)

Two obvious options

Given just how significant of an increase a 70-launch annual cadence would be for SpaceX relative to their current record of 21 launches, it’s entirely possible that these numbers are really just a pipe dream included in a pending environmental assessment to hedge bets just in case a similar launch frequency is achieved over the next five years.

On the other hand, it’s possible that SpaceX – just now coming into the ability to reliably achieve a much higher cadence – has coincidentally become payload-constrained at almost the same time, meaning that the company’s customers’ payloads just aren’t ready for launch. This would explain, for example, why SpaceX has only launched 10 times this year when the company had already completed 15 launches by August 2018.

SpaceX completed its 10th launch of 2019 on August 6th, placing the AMOS-17 communications satellite into a healthy orbit. (SpaceX)

Additionally, it can be almost unequivocally assumed that all but 15-20 of those supposed 70 annual launches would come from SpaceX’s own internal demand for Starlink launch capacity. Assuming no improvements between now and 2024, 50 Falcon 9 launches could place as many as 3000 Starlink satellites in orbit in a single year, equivalent to more than 25% of the entire proposed ~11,800-satellite constellation.

Barring regulatory changes to US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and International Telecommunication Union (ITU) requirements, SpaceX must launch at least half of all Starlink satellites (~5900) by November 2024 and finish launching the remaining ~5900 by November 2027. If SpaceX fails to reach those deployment milestones, the company runs the risk of losing Starlink’s domestic and international licenses to operate.

SpaceX successfully launched an unprecedented set of 60 prototype Starlink satellites (internally nicknamed “v0.9”) in May 2019. (SpaceX)

This would help to explain why SpaceX says that it’s planning to reach a maximum cadence of 70 annual launches “by 2024”, given that 2024 will be a pivotal year in the eyes of regulations currently in effect for Starlink.

Starship confusion

As noted in the quote above, SpaceX plans to eventually phase out Falcon 9 and Heavy launches as the company’s next-generation Starship and Super Heavy launch vehicle gradually comes online, proves itself reliable, and begins operational launch activities. According to SpaceX, given just how much mass Starship can nominally launch relative to both Falcon 9 and Heavy, far fewer launches will be needed to accomplish the tasks that would otherwise require several times more launches of SpaceX’s smaller vehicles.

SpaceX’s initial Environmental Assessment for Starship launches from Pad 39A caps the rocket’s maximum cadence at 24 annual launches. Oddly, this directly contradicts the goals set for Starship (formerly BFR) by CEO Elon Musk and SpaceX more generally. By building a launch vehicle that is fully and rapidly reusable, the goal has long been to deliver cheap, aircraft-like access to orbit at a completely unprecedented scale.

Starship was never meant to lower SpaceX’s annual launch cadence. (SpaceX)

This would technically mean that SpaceX could actually dramatically increase its launch cadence without increasing costs, allowing the company to perform currently nonsensical missions where Starship might launch payloads weighing just 5-10% of its total payload capacity. Airline operations routinely do things of a similar nature, sometimes flying just a fraction of their maximum passenger load to destinations for a variety of reasons.

Additionally, SpaceX has consistently indicated that Starship will rely heavily on orbital refueling to accomplish its ultimate deep space ambitions. Previous presentations from Elon Musk have shown that launches to the Mars or Moon with significant payload would require no fewer than five separate tanker launches and orbital refuelings, all of which would classify as one of the 24 annual launches SpaceX has described in its August 2019 EA draft. On their own, launching two Starships to Mars with 100 tons of payload each would require no fewer than 10-12 launches.

A 2017 overview of a Starship (then BFS) mission to Mars. (SpaceX)

Ultimately, it’s unwise to draw any substantial conclusions from an Environmental Assessment like the one the above information has been taken from. This 39A-specific EA also ignores the possibility of a similar launch facility being developed in Boca Chica, Texas, which SpaceX explicitly acknowledges.

This particular draft is also the first Starship-related EA ever filed by SpaceX, and the company may thus be treating it more as a bare minimum with the intention of eventually pursuing far more ambitious launch rates once Starship has been established.

Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.

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 Cybertruck explosion probe ends with federal involvement and new questions

The 78-page document detailed a planned attack by former Green Beret Matthew Livelsberger, who died by suicide before the blast that injured six people.

Published

on

Credit: IAA Auctions

The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) has released its final investigative report into the New Year’s Day Cybertruck explosion outside the Trump International Hotel. But instead of bringing clarity, the findings have only raised more questions. 

The 78-page document detailed a planned attack by former Green Beret Matthew Livelsberger, who died by suicide before the blast that injured six people.

The perpetrator’s manifesto

According to a Fox News report, Livelsberger rented the all-electric pickup through Turo while on leave from his Special Forces unit. He filled the rented Cybertruck with fireworks, gas cans, and camping fuel before driving it to the hotel shortly after 8:40 a.m. on January 1. Surveillance footage showed him pouring accelerant into the truck bed moments before detonation, confirming premeditation.

Livelsberger left a manifesto on his phone, which was later deemed classified by the Department of War. This case was then handed over to federal authorities. Still, the LVMPD and federal investigators noted in their report that the incident was a “vehicle-borne improvised explosive device” (VBIED) attack “with the potential to cause mass casualties and extensive structural damage.” Officials, however, stopped short of labeling it terrorism.

In digital notes, Livelsberger wrote that his act was not terror-related but intended as “a wake-up call,” criticizing what he called America’s “feckless leadership.” He wrote, “Americans only pay attention to spectacles and violence. What better way to get my point across than a stunt with fireworks and explosives.”

Advertisement

The incident ironically showcased the Cybertruck’s durability

Tesla CEO Elon Musk was among the first to respond publicly after the blast, confirming through X that the company’s senior team was investigating the incident. He later stated that vehicle telemetry showed no malfunction and that the explosion was caused by “very large fireworks and/or a bomb” placed in the Cybertruck’s bed.

Ironically, footage of the incident in the Cybertruck’s bed showed that the vehicle’s durable construction actually helped contain the explosion by directing the blast upwards. The bed remained largely intact after the explosion as well. Even more surprisingly, the Cybertruck’s battery did not catch fire despite the blast.

Months later, the same Cybertruck appeared on the online auction platform IAA, marked as “not ready for sale.” The listing has stirred debate among Tesla fans about why the historic vehicle wasn’t reclaimed by the company. The vehicle, after all, could serve as a symbol of the Cybertruck’s resilience, even in extreme circumstances.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund votes against Elon Musk’s 2025 performance award

The fund is managed by Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), and it holds a 1.14% stake in Tesla valued at about $11.6 billion.

Published

on

MINISTÉRIO DAS COMUNICAÇÕES, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund has voted against Elon Musk’s 2025 performance award, which will be ultimately decided at Tesla’s upcoming annual shareholder meeting. 

The fund is managed by Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), and it holds a 1.14% stake in Tesla valued at about $11.6 billion.

NBIM’s opposition

NBIM confirmed it had already cast its vote against Musk’s pay package, citing concerns over its total size, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk, as noted in a CNBC report. The fund acknowledged Musk’s leadership of the EV maker, and it stated that it will continue to seek dialogue with Tesla about its concerns. 

“While we appreciate the significant value created under Mr. Musk’s visionary role, we are concerned about the total size of the award, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk- consistent with our views on executive compensation. We will continue to seek constructive dialogue with Tesla on this and other topics,” NBIM noted.

The upcoming Tesla annual shareholder meeting will decide whether Musk should receive his proposed 2025 performance award, which would grant him large stock options over the next decade if Tesla hits several ambitious milestones, such as a market cap of $8.5 trillion. The 2025 performance award will also increase Musk’s stake in Tesla to 25%.

Advertisement

Elon Musk and NBIM

Elon Musk’s proposed 2025 CEO performance award has proven polarizing, with large investors split on whether the executive should be given a pay package that, if fully completed, would make him a trillionaire. 

Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis have recommended that shareholders vote against the deal, and initiatives such as the “Take Back Tesla” campaign have rallied investors to oppose the proposed performance award. On the other hand, other large investors such as ARK Invest and the State Board of Administration of Florida (SBA) have urged shareholders to approve the compensation plan. 

Interestingly enough, this is not the first time that Musk and NBIM have found themselves on opposing sides. Last year, NBIM voted against reinstating Musk’s 2018 performance award, which had already been fully accomplished but was rescinded by a Delaware judge.

Later reports shared text messages between Musk and NBIM Chief Executive Nicolai Tangen, who was inviting the CEO to a dinner in Oslo. Musk declined the invitation, writing, “When I ask you for a favor, which I very rarely do, and you decline, then you should not ask me for one until you’ve done something to make amends. Friends are as friends do.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla begins production of new Model Y trim at Giga Berlin

Tesla announced on Monday that its Model Y Standard configuration was officially being built at Giga Berlin, less than one month after the company officially announced the configuration early last month.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla has begun production of the new Model Y trim at Gigafactory Berlin, the company’s production plant in Germany.

Tesla announced on Monday that its Model Y Standard configuration was officially being built at Giga Berlin, less than one month after the company officially announced the configuration early last month.

On October 7, Tesla announced the launch of the Model 3 and Model Y Standard trim levels, its answer to the call for affordable EVs within its lineup and its response to the loss of the $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit.

On October 3, Tesla started production of the vehicles in Germany:

The Standard iteration of the Model Y is void of many of the more premium features that are available in the Rear-Wheel-Drive, All-Wheel-Drive, and Performance trims of the vehicle are equipped with.

A few of the features of the Model Y Standard are:

  • Single Motor configuration
  • No rear touchscreen
  • Textile seats with vegan leather, instead of all vegan leather
  • 320-mile range
  • No glass roof

The launch of the Model Y Standard was truly a move to help Tesla get vehicles into the sub-$40,000 price point, and although many consumers were hoping to see the company get closer to $30,000 with these cars, this is a great starting point.

Deliveries in the United States have already started, and it seems it will be a vehicle that will do one of two things: either push some consumers to finally make the jump to Tesla, or it will give car buyers another reason to buy the Premium trims, as they may feel the lack of features is not a good enough deal.

This is something we saw with the Cybertruck’s Rear-Wheel-Drive configuration, which launched last year and ended up being more of the latter option listed above.

The Tesla Model Y Standard is actually a great deal in Europe

It was only a $10,000 discount from the All-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck, but it also did not have adaptive air suspension, premium interiors, or the powered tonneau cover, which many people felt was too much of a sacrifice.

The Rear-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck was discontinued only a few months later.

It does not seem as if this is the case with the Model Y Standard, which already seems to be an attractive option to some buyers.

Continue Reading

Trending