Connect with us
Merlin 1D's kerolox exhaust is a blindingly bright, opaque yellow-orange. (Tom Cross) Merlin 1D's kerolox exhaust is a blindingly bright, opaque yellow-orange. (Tom Cross)

News

SpaceX static fires Falcon 9 with satellites on board for the first time in years

Falcon 9 B1049 lifts off for the first time in September 2018. The same booster has been assigned to Starlink v0.9. (Tom Cross)

Published

on

SpaceX has successfully completed a Falcon 9 static fire ahead of Starlink’s first dedicated launch, breaking a practice that dates back to Falcon 9’s last catastrophic failure to date.

That failure occurred in September 2016 around nine minutes before a planned Falcon 9 static fire test, completely destroying the rocket and the Amos-6 communications satellite payload and severely damaging Launch Complex 40 (LC-40). Since that fateful failure, all 42 subsequent Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy satellite launches have been preceded by static fire tests without a payload fairing attached. This process typically adds 24-48 hours of work to launch operations, an admittedly tiny price to pay to reduce the chances of a rocket failure completely destroying valuable payloads. With Starlink v0.9, SpaceX is making different choices.

When supercool liquid oxygen ruptured a composite overwrapped pressure vessel (COPV) in Falcon 9’s upper stage, the resultant explosion and fire destroyed Falcon 9. Perhaps more importantly, the ~$200M Amos-6 satellite installed atop the rocket effectively ceased to exist, a loss that posed a serious threat to the livelihood of its owner, Spacecom. Posed with a question of whether saving a day or two of schedule was worth the potential destruction of customer payloads, both customers, SpaceX, and their insurers obviously concluded that static fires should be done without payloads aboard the rocket.

The only exceptions since Amos-6 are the launch debuts of Falcon Heavy – with a payload that was effectively disposable and SpaceX-built – and Crew Dragon DM-1, in which Falcon 9’s integration with Dragon’s launch abort system had to be tested as part of the static fire. Every other SpaceX rocket launch since September 2016 has excluded payloads during each routine pre-flight static fire.

Falcon Heavy ignites all 27 Merlin 1D engines for the first time ahead of its inaugural launch, January 2018. (SpaceX)
SpaceX completed a successful static fire of the first Falcon 9 rated for human flight on January 24th, 2019. (SpaceX)

SpaceX’s Spacecraft Emporium

Why the change of pace on this launch, then? The answer is simple: for the first time ever, SpaceX is both the sole payload/satellite stakeholder and launch provider, meaning that nearly all of the mission’s risk – and the consequences of failure – rest solely on SpaceX’s shoulders. In other words, SpaceX built and owns the Falcon 9 assigned to the mission, the 60 Starlink test satellites that make up its payload, and the launch complex supporting the mission.

Even then, if Falcon 9 were to fail during an internal SpaceX mission, customer launches could be seriously delayed by both the subsequent failure investigation failure and any potential damage to the launch complex. In short, although an internal mission does offer SpaceX some unique freedoms, it is still in the company’s best interest to treat the launch like any other, even if some customer-oriented corners are likely begging to be cut. Additionally, the loss of SpaceX’s first dedicated payload of 60 Starlink satellites could be a significant setback for the constellation, although it may be less significant than most would assume.

The same pad will host GovSat-1 in just over 24 hours.
A December 2017 panorama of SpaceX’s LC-40 facilities, CRS-13’s Cargo Dragon and Falcon 9. (Tom Cross/Teslarati)

This is not to say that SpaceX won’t take advantage of some of the newfound freedom permitted by Starlink launches. In fact, CEO Elon Musk has stated that one of SpaceX’s 2019 Starlink missions will become the first to reuse a Falcon fairing. Additionally, SpaceX is free to do things that customers might be opposed to but that the company’s own engineers believe to be low-risk. Notably, Starlink missions will be an almost perfect opportunity for SpaceX to flight-prove reusability milestones without having to ask customers to tread outside of their comfort zones.

The sheer scale of SpaceX proposed Starlink constellation – two phases of ~4400 and ~12,000 satellites – means that the company will need all the latent launch capacity it can get over the next 5-10 years, at least until Starship/Super Heavy is able to support internal missions. Extraordinary packing density will help to minimize the number of launches needed, but the fact remains that even an absurd 120 satellites per launch (double Starlink v0.9’s 60) would still require an average of 12 launches per year to finish Starlink before 2030.

One of the first two prototype Starlink satellites separates from Falcon 9’s upper stage in February 2018. (SpaceX)
OneWeb deployed six development satellites in February 2019, the company’s first hardware to reach orbit. (Arianespace)

In the meantime, thoughts of a dozen or more annual Starlink launches are somewhat premature. SpaceX’s first dedicated Starlink launch (deemed Starlink v0.9) is scheduled to lift off no earlier than 10:30 pm EDT (02:30 UTC), May 15th, and is being treated as an advanced but still intermediary step between the Tintin prototypes and a finalized spacecraft design. Still, in an unprecedented step, SpaceX has built sixty Starlink satellites for the development-focused mission, in stark contrast to the six satellites (still a respectable achievement) competitor OneWeb launched in February 2019 as part of its own flight-test program.

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

NHTSA probes 2.9 million Tesla vehicles over reports of FSD traffic violations

The agency said FSD may have “induced vehicle behavior that violated traffic safety laws.”

Published

on

Credit: Whole Mars Catalog/YouTube

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has opened an investigation into nearly 2.9 million Tesla vehicles over potential traffic-safety violations linked to the use of the company’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.

The agency said FSD may have “induced vehicle behavior that violated traffic safety laws,” citing reports of Teslas running red lights or traveling in the wrong direction during lane changes.

As per the NHTSA, it has six reports in which a Tesla with FSD engaged “approached an intersection with a red traffic signal, continued to travel into the intersection against the red light and was subsequently involved in a crash with other motor vehicles in the intersection.” Four of these crashes reportedly resulted in one or more major injuries. 

The agency also listed 18 complaints and one media report which alleged that a Tesla operating with FSD engaged “failed to remain stopped for the duration of a red traffic signal, failed to stop fully, or failed to accurately detect and display the correct traffic signal state in the vehicle interface.”

Some complainants also alleged that FSD “did not provide warnings of the system’s intended behavior as the vehicle was approaching a red traffic signal,” as noted in a Reuters report.

Advertisement

Tesla has not commented on the investigation, which remains in the preliminary phase. However, any potential recall could prove complicated since the reported incidents likely involved the use of older FSD (Supervised) versions that have already been updated. 

Tesla’s recent FSD (Supervised) V14.1 update, which is currently rolling out to drivers, is expected to feature significantly improved lane management, intersection handling, and overall driving accuracy, reducing the chances of similar violations. It should also be noted that Tesla maintains that FSD is a supervised system for now, and thus, is not autonomous yet.

While autonomous systems face scrutiny, NHTSA’s own data highlights a much larger danger on the road from human error. The agency recorded 3,275 deaths in 2023 caused by distracted driving due to activities like texting, talking, or adjusting navigation while operating a vehicle manually. It is also widely believed that a good number of traffic violations are unreported due to their frequency and ubiquity.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla quietly files for Model Y+ in China, and its range numbers could be wild

The upcoming variant was listed in the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology’s (MIIT) public catalog.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla has filed for regulatory approval of a new Model Y+ in China, hinting at a long-range update to its best-selling crossover SUV. 

The upcoming variant was listed in the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology’s (MIIT) public catalog.

Mirroring Model 3+ Range

Based on the MIIT’s catalog, the Model Y+ will feature a 225 kW/302 horsepower single-motor setup. It will also feature ternary LG Energy Solution batteries, similar to the long-range Model 3+, which was launched earlier this year. The vehicle is expected to offer around 800 kilometers of CLTC range, potentially making it the longest range Model Y in Tesla China’s lineup.

The new Model Y+, identified under model number TSL6480BEVBR0, retains the same five-seat configuration and dimensions as the current Model Y. Though Tesla has not yet confirmed official range figures, industry observers expect it to be quite similar to the Model 3+’s 830-kilometer CLTC performance, as noted in a CNEV Post report.

Intensifying Competition

Tesla’s filing comes amid intensifying domestic competition in China. The U.S. EV maker sold 57,152 vehicles in August, down nearly 10% year-on-year, though up almost 41% from July’s 40,617 units, as noted by data from the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA). Still, the Model Y+ could help Tesla regain traction against strong local players by offering class-leading range and improved efficiency, two factors that have become a trademark of the electric vehicle maker in China. 

Advertisement

Tesla’s experience with the Model 3+, which received a RMB 10,000 price cut within a month of launch, suggests that raw range numbers alone may not guarantee stronger sales. With this in mind, the rollout of features such as FSD could prove beneficial in boosting the company’s sales in the country. 

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

‘I don’t understand TSLAQ:’ notable investor backs Tesla, Elon Musk

Published

on

tesla showroom
(Credit: Tesla)

One notable investor that many people will recognize said today on X that he does not understand Tesla shorts, otherwise known as $TSLAQ, and he’s giving some interesting reasons.

Martin Shkreli was long known as “Pharmabro.” For years, he was known as the guy who bought the rights to a drug called Daraprim, hiked the prices, and spent a few years in Federal prison for securities fraud and conspiracy.

Shkreli is now an investor who co-founded several hedge funds, including Elea Capital, MSMB Capital Management, and MSMB Healthcare. He is also known for his frank, blunt, and straightforward responses on X.

His LinkedIn currently shows he is the Co-Founder of DL Software Inc.

One of his most recent posts on X criticized those who choose to short Tesla stock, stating he does not understand their perspective. He gave a list of reasons, which I’ll link here, as they’re not necessarily PG. I’ll list a few:

  • Fundamentals always have and will always matter
  • TSLAQ was beaten by Tesla because it’s “a great company with great management,” and they made a mistake “by betting against Elon.”
  • When Shkreli shorts stocks, he is “shorting FRAUDS and pipe dreams”

After Shkreli continued to question the idea behind shorting Tesla, he continued as he pondered the mentality behind those who choose to bet against the stock:

“I don’t understand ‘TSLAQ.’ Guy is the richest man in the world. He won. It’s over. He’s more successful with his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th largest companies than you will ever be, x100.

You can admit you are wrong, it’s just a feeling which will dissipate with time, trust me.”

According to reports from both Fortune and Business Insider, Tesla short sellers have lost a cumulative $64.5 billion since Tesla’s IPO in 2010.

Elon Musk issues dire warning to Tesla (TSLA) shorts

Shorts did accumulate a temporary profit of $16.2 billion earlier this year.

Continue Reading

Trending