News
SpaceX Falcon 9 rideshare launch to send a commercial lander to the Moon in 2019
According to a press release published on September 11 in conjunction with the 2018 World Satellite Business Week conference, satellite rideshare organizer Spaceflight Industries and SpaceX are on track for the first functionally dedicated rideshare mission to a relatively high-energy geostationary transfer orbit.
Expected to occur as soon as early 2019, Spaceflight has arranged the addition of “several undisclosed payloads” but was able to confirm that Israel-based company SpaceIL’s lunar lander spacecraft – deemed Sparrow – will be onboard Falcon 9 come launch, potentially paving the way for the first-ever commercial spacecraft landing on an extraterrestrial planet (or moon).
Did you hear? We're offering rideshare to GTO/GSO now. https://t.co/s5i9brlSqz
— Spaceflight (@SpaceflightInc) September 11, 2018
A bit more than “Uber for space”
Although any rocket or satellite launch on its own is already a sort of wildly complex symphony, rideshare missions – potentially carrying dozens of individual satellites – up the intensity by a significant degree, demanding magnitudes more separation events (i.e. satellite deployments), a labyrinth-like hell for the payload organizer tasked with herding dozens of distinct spacecraft into one payload fairing come launch time, and often multiple orbit drop-off points.
Still, at the cost of some amount of added risk (of both failures and launch delays) and less flexibility to pick and choose orbits, rideshare customers are granted launch prices that should – in theory – be fundamentally unbeatable with dedicated launches, using an entire rocket for no more than a handful of payloads. Intriguingly, at least in the case of Spaceflight Industry’s first organized rideshare to geostationary orbit, Falcon 9’s capabilities are truly unbeatable at SI’s cost per customer, thanks to the reality that such a high-energy orbit is functionally unreachable to the array of dedicated smallsat rockets with purportedly imminent commercial launch debuts (Rocket Lab, Virgin Orbit, Vector, and others).
Watch us assemble our payload stack for #SSO-A in just over a minute: pic.twitter.com/UFXAKWkNy1
— Spaceflight (@SpaceflightInc) October 4, 2017
Even more intriguingly, it appears that this rideshare will go so far as to offer a ride to a true, circular geostationary orbit for a few copassengers, versus the highly-elliptical parking orbit Falcon 9 will place the whole payload stack in. It has yet to be specifically confirmed what the primary (heaviest) payload will be for this inaugural geostationary rideshare, but nearly all available signs are pointing towards a fairly large (5000 kilogram) communications satellite built by Space Systems Loral (SSL). Further, the satellite itself will serve as the mode of transportation to carry a number of copassenger spacecraft from SpaceX’s geostationary transfer orbit to the final circular orbit roughly 22,500 mi (~36,000 km) above Earth’s surface.
Satellite rideshares, brought to you by the US military?
The story deepens further still. All available signs also suggest a high probability that this launch will become one of SSL’s first operational uses of a currently-experimental rideshare plan known as PODS, in which fairly small satellites would quite literally piggyback on large, commercial satellites into exotic and high-energy orbits, far beyond the low Earth orbits primarily available to rideshare payloads. This could open a whole new world of affordable, cubesat-style exploration, ranging from student-led missions with unprecedented reach to fleets of NASA-funded scientific smallsats, and perhaps even self-propelled interplanetary cubesats once miniature propulsion is available.
-
- An SSL graphic explains the company’s PODS technology. (SSL)
-
- This condensed User’s Guide lists the basics of PODS ridesharing. (SSL)
-
- Falcon 9 B1049 lifts off from SpaceX’s LC-40 pad on September 10, producing more than 1.7 million pounds of thrust.(Tom Cross)
-
- Falcon 9 Block 5 will be absolutely critical to the success (and even the basic completion) of Starlink. (Tom Cross)
Funded and sponsored to some extent by US military research agency DARPA, it just so happens that an SSL-built satellite launched by SpaceX six months ago – Hispasat 30W-6, March 2018 – successfully debuted that PODS rideshare technology in an experimental test, deploying a secret secondary satellite funded by DARPA. That success has apparently paved the way for future PODS rideshares, and it looks like SSL may be opting to contract out the specialized task of manifesting launches and wrangling multiple copassenger satellites to Spaceflight Industries.
The primary SSL-built spacecraft, likely Indonesia’s PSN-6 geostationary communications satellite, is expected to weigh approximately 5000 kg (~11,000 lb), while SpaceIL’s commercial Sparrow lunar lander and spacecraft is currently pegged around 600 kg (1300 lb). Aside from that duo, SSL PODS can support anywhere from one to several satellite deployer add-ons, and each copassenger spacecraft has a mass limit of 90-150 kg (~200-330 lb).
As a consequence, the final mass of those 3+ integrated satellites and their associated payload adapters could easily wind up around 6500-7000 kg, a payload SpaceX’s Falcon 9 Block 5 rocket has proven itself capable of handling (Telstar 18V and 19V), but only to a fairly low-energy geostationary transfer orbit (18,000 km vs. a full GTO’s 36,000 km apogee). It’s unclear how SpaceIL’s Sparrow lunar lander would handle a relatively low-energy insertion orbit, although the PSN-6 communications satellite would certainly be able to make up for the shortfall with its own propellant supply and rocket engines.
Prior to this geostationary rideshare, SpaceX and Spaceflight Industry’s first mission together – a rideshare of ~70 satellites to low Earth orbit – is expected to occur no earlier than October or November 2018 from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.
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!
News
Tesla China January wholesale sales rise 9% year-on-year
Tesla reported January wholesale sales of 69,129 China-made vehicles, as per data released by the China Passenger Car Association.
Tesla China reported January wholesale sales of 69,129 Giga Shanghai-made vehicles, as per data released by the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA). The figure includes both domestic sales and exports from Gigafactory Shanghai.
The total represented a 9.32% increase from January last year but a 28.86% decline from December’s 97,171 units.
China EV market trends
The CPCA estimated that China’s passenger new energy vehicle wholesale volume reached about 900,000 units in January, up 1% year-on-year but down 42% from December. Demand has been pressured by the start-of-year slow season, a 5% additional purchase tax cost, and uncertainty around the transition of vehicle trade-in subsidies, as noted in a report from CNEV Post.
Market leader BYD sold 210,051 NEVs in January, down 30.11% year-on-year and 50.04% month-on-month, as per data released on February 1. Tesla China’s year-over-year growth then is quite interesting, as the company’s vehicles seem to be selling very well despite headwinds in the market.
Tesla China’s strategies
To counter weaker seasonal demand, Tesla China launched a low-interest financing program on January 6, offering up to seven-year terms on select produced vehicles. The move marked the first time an automaker offered financing of that length in the Chinese market.
Several rivals, including Xiaomi, Li Auto, XPeng, and NIO, later introduced similar incentives. Tesla China then further increased promotions on January 26 by reinstating insurance subsidies for the Model 3 sedan. The CPCA is expected to release Tesla’s China retail sales and export breakdown later this month.
News
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works
For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions appeared to be dead in the water after a large amount of speculation late last year that the company would add the user interface seemed to cool down after several weeks of reports.
However, it appears that CarPlay might make its way to Tesla vehicles after all, as a recent report seems to indicate that it is still being worked on by software teams for the company.
The real question is whether it is truly needed or if it is just a want by so many owners that Tesla is listening and deciding to proceed with its development.
Back in November, Bloomberg reported that Tesla was in the process of testing Apple CarPlay within its vehicles, which was a major development considering the company had resisted adopting UIs outside of its own for many years.
Nearly one-third of car buyers considered the lack of CarPlay as a deal-breaker when buying their cars, a study from McKinsey & Co. outlined. This could be a driving decision in Tesla’s inability to abandon the development of CarPlay in its vehicles, especially as it lost a major advantage that appealed to consumers last year: the $7,500 EV tax credit.
Tesla owners propose interesting theory about Apple CarPlay and EV tax credit
Although we saw little to no movement on it since the November speculation, Tesla is now reportedly in the process of still developing the user interface. Mark Gurman, a Bloomberg writer with a weekly newsletter, stated that CarPlay is “still in the works” at Tesla and that more concrete information will be available “soon” regarding its development.
While Tesla already has a very capable and widely accepted user interface, CarPlay would still be an advantage, considering many people have used it in their vehicles for years. Just like smartphones, many people get comfortable with an operating system or style and are resistant to using a new one. This could be a big reason for Tesla attempting to get it in their own cars.
Tesla gets updated “Apple CarPlay” hack that can work on new models
For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.
It holds one distinct advantage over Tesla’s UI in my opinion, and that’s the ability to read and respond to text messages, which is something that is available within a Tesla, but is not as user-friendly.
With that being said, I would still give CarPlay a shot in my Tesla. I didn’t particularly enjoy it in my Bronco Sport, but that was because Ford’s software was a bit laggy with it. If it were as smooth as Tesla’s UI, which I think it would be, it could be a really great addition to the vehicle.
With the launch of a new trim level for the Model Y last night, something almost went unnoticed — the loss of a moniker that Tesla just recently added to a couple of its variants of the all-electric crossover.
Tesla launched the Model Y All-Wheel-Drive last night, competitively priced at $41,990, but void of the luxurious features that are available within the Premium trims.
Upon examination of the car, one thing was missing, and it was noticeable: Tesla dropped the use of the “Standard” moniker to identify its entry-level offerings of the Model Y.
The Standard Model Y vehicles were introduced late last year, primarily to lower the entry price after the U.S. EV tax credit changes were made. Tesla stripped some features like the panoramic glass roof, premium audio, ambient lighting, acoustic-lined glass, and some of the storage.
Last night, it simply switched the configurations away from “Standard” and simply as the Model Y Rear-Wheel-Drive and Model Y All-Wheel-Drive.
There are three plausible reasons for this move, and while it is minor, there must be an answer for why Tesla chose to abandon the name, yet keep the “Premium” in its upper-level offerings.
“Standard” carried a negative connotation in marketing
Words like “Standard” can subtly imply “basic,” “bare-bones,” or “cheap” to consumers, especially when directly contrasted with “Premium” on the configurator or website. Dropping it avoids making the entry-level Model Y feel inferior or low-end, even though it’s designed for affordability.
Tesla likely wanted the base trim to sound neutral and spec-focused (e.g., just “RWD” highlights drivetrain rather than feature level), while “Premium” continues to signal desirable upgrades, encouraging upsells to higher-margin variants.
Simplifying the overall naming structure for less confusion
The initial “Standard vs. Premium” split (plus Performance) created a somewhat clunky hierarchy, especially as Tesla added more variants like Standard Long Range in some markets or the new AWD base.
Removing “Standard” streamlines things to a more straightforward progression (RWD → AWD → Premium RWD/AWD → Performance), making the lineup easier to understand at a glance. This aligns with Tesla’s history of iterative naming tweaks to reduce buyer hesitation.
Elevating brand perception and protecting perceived value
Keeping “Premium” reinforces that the bulk of the Model Y lineup (especially the popular Long Range models) remains a premium product with desirable features like better noise insulation, upgraded interiors, and tech.
Eliminating “Standard” prevents any dilution of the Tesla brand’s upscale image—particularly important in a competitive EV market—while the entry-level variants can quietly exist as accessible “RWD/AWD” options without drawing attention to them being decontented versions.
You can check out the differences between the “Standard” and “Premium” Model Y vehicles below:
@teslarati There are some BIG differences between the Tesla Model Y Standard and Tesla Model Y Premium #tesla #teslamodely ♬ Sia – Xeptemper
Tesla China January wholesale sales rise 9% year-on-year
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works
