SpaceX
SpaceX hangar packed with Falcon Heavy Block 5 boosters for early April debut
For a company that rarely reveals anything without explicit intent, a February 28th video posted by SpaceX during the lead-up to Crew Dragon’s launch debut featured a surprise cameo: two Block 5 side boosters meant to support Falcon Heavy’s commercial debut and second launch ever.
Likely a subtle nod to close observers and fans, the inclusion of Falcon Heavy is a perfect bit of foreshadowing for the next launch set to occur from Pad 39A after Crew Dragon’s flawless orbital debut. As of now, Falcon Heavy Flight 2 is settling in on a potential launch as early as the first week of April, although delays during the rocket’s critical preflight processing and static fire test are about as likely as they were during the vehicle’s inaugural mission. If the rocket’s first launch and booster recoveries are fully successful, both side boosters (and perhaps the center core) could fly for a second time as few as two months later in June 2019.
A number of photos taken by Instagram users visiting Kennedy Space Center appear to indicate that SpaceX has more or less completed the reconfiguration of Pad 39A’s transporter/erector (T/E), modifying the base with additional hold-down clamps to account for three Falcon boosters instead of the usual one. Ten days after the successful launch of Falcon 9 B1051 in support of Crew Dragon’s first mission to orbit, it’s likely that additional work remains to ensure that 39A is fully refurbished and reconfigured for Falcon Heavy.
For the heavy-lift rocket’s commercial debut and second flight ever, SpaceX is likely to be exceptionally cautious and methodical in their preflight preparations. This is especially necessary due to the fact that Falcon Heavy Flight 2 differs dramatically from Falcon Heavy’s demo configuration, degrading the applicability of some aspects of the data gathered during the rocket’s largely successful test flight.
Most notably, all three first stage boosters will be Block 5 variants on their first flights, whereas Flight 1’s first stage featured two flight-proven Block 2 boosters (B1023 and B1025) and one new Block 3 booster (B1033). Additionally, the center core – B1033 – was lost during a landing anomaly that prevented the booster from reigniting its engine for a landing burn, cutting off another valuable source of data that would have served to better inform engineers on the performance of Falcon Heavy’s complex and previously unproven mechanical stage separation mechanisms.
Falcon 9 Block 5 is a fairly radical departure from the Block 2 and 3 variants SpaceX based Falcon Heavy’s initial design on. It’s possible that the rocket’s engineers were able to at least set up that design and manufacturing work on a safe path to forward compatibility, but it’s equally possible that so much work was focused on simply getting the vehicle past its launch debut that compatibility with Falcon 9 Block 4 and 5 was pushed well into the periphery. Considering the fact that it has now been more than a year since Falcon Heavy’s February 6th, 2018 debut, the latter eventuality offers a much better fit. Nevertheless, with a solid 13-14 additional months of redesign and testing complete, it seems that SpaceX is keen to get its super heavy-lift launch vehicle back on the horse, so to speak.
The specific changes made in Falcon 9 Block 4 is unclear aside from a general improvement in Merlin 1D and MVac performance, as well as significant upgrades to Falcon 9’s upper stage, likely focused on US military and NASA requirements for long-coast capabilities on unique mission profiles. Most significantly, Falcon 9 Block 5 transitioned the SpaceX rocket to a radically different primary thrust structure (also known as the octaweb), replacing welded assemblies with bolted assemblies wherever possible. This simultaneously allows for easier repairs and modifications, improves ease of manufacture, and increases the structure’s overall strength, a critical benefit for Falcon Heavy’s heavily-stressed center core. Meanwhile, Falcon 9 Block 5 moved from Full Thrust’s (Block 3/4) maximum 6800 kN (1,530,000 lbf) of thrust to more than 7600 kN (1,710,000 lbf), an increase of roughly 12%. Combined with Block 5’s focus on extreme reusability, SpaceX engineers and technicians likely had to do a huge amount of work to leap from Falcon Heavy Flight 1 to Flight 2.
Aside from the presence of both Falcon Heavy side boosters, both of which were spotted arriving in Florida by local observers, the first Block 5 Falcon Heavy center core also very likely arrived within the last few months, followed rapidly by can be assumed to be the mission’s fairing and Falcon upper stage. Falcon Heavy’s commercial debut will see the rocket attempt to place communications satellite Arabsat 6A – weighing around 6000 kg (13,200 lb) – into a high-energy geostationary orbit, either direct-to-GEO or a transfer (GTO) variety.
If all goes according to plan, SpaceX will attempt to turn around Falcon Heavy’s Block 5 side boosters (B1052 and B1053) for Falcon Heavy’s third launch – the USAF’s STP-2 mission – as few as 60-80 days later, June 2019. According to NASASpaceflight, STP-2 will fly with a new center core (presumed to be B1057) instead of reusing Arabsat 6A’s well-cooked B1055 booster.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Ukraine is exploring EU satellite alternatives to Starlink, driven by concerns over Elon Musk’s unpredictability. Starlink remains vital for Ukraine’s battlefield connectivity and cannot be easily replaced. While the European Union has started developing Starlink alternatives, they have not quite reached SpaceX’s capacity to provide internet connection.
Starlink’s Critical Role and Vulnerabilities
Starlink’s 7,000+ satellite network provides essential connectivity for Ukraine’s military. However, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk’s influence has raised strategic concerns.
“Elon Musk is, in fact, the guardian of Ukraine’s connectivity on the battlefield. And that’s a strategic vulnerability,” warns Arthur De Liedekerke, Senior Director of European Affairs for Rasmussen Global.
Opinions of Musk have started to influence dealings with any of his companies, including SpaceX and Tesla. Starlink has not escaped criticism due to its relationship with Musk, resulting in a few governments seeking alternatives to SpaceX’s internet services.
For instance, the German military has announced plans to develop a Starlink alternative. Kyiv and the EU are also seeking options to reduce reliance on Starlink.
EU’s Govsatcom as a Near-Term Option
Member of the EU Parliament (MEP) Christophe Grudler pitched the European Union’s Govsatcom system as a viable alternative to Starlink for Ukraine.
“It is clear that if Starlink decides to cut the signal today, we have options, in particular with Govsatcom, which is the European network that we have brought into service and which, from June, will make it possible to supplement Starlink’s missing signal in Ukraine, if necessary,” he said.
Grudler affirmed: “The European Union is very committed to helping Ukraine, so there would certainly be agreement from all the Member States to come to Ukraine’s aid if it no longer had a Starlink signal in the future.”
However, De Liedekerke pointed out that GovSatcom was made for government use. He noted that “GoveSatcom is a governmental secure satellite communications and it’s essentially to provide reliable, secure, strategically autonomous networks for communication services between governments in the EU. It couldn’t replace the kind of battlefield connectivity that we’re discussing for Ukraine. So it’s not a silver bullet at the moment.”
Eutelsat’s Competitive Edge
Eutelsat, a Franco-British operator, offers a low-Earth orbit network with 630 satellites and 35 geostationary ones, though it trails Starlink’s scale. It has 2,000 terminals deployed in Ukraine and 14,000 more planned to deploy. Starlink has 40,000 terminals in Ukraine, used by the military and civilians.
Price is another factor to consider when seeking a Starlink alternative. Eutelsat’s €9,000 terminals are pricier than Starlink’s €500 units.
“Eutelsat is our European champion, one that has convincing functioning solutions. And one that we need to be able to support through funding and political will,” De Liedekerke said, noting its political independence from the U.S.
Iris2 as a Future Solution
The EU’s Iris2 project is another Starlink alternative Ukraine might consider. The Iris2 project is a 290-satellite constellation, promising secure, low-latency connectivity by 2030, with partial operations by 2028.
“From 2028, we will have an operational Iris2 constellation that will be able to provide telecommunications services to all the Member States that so wish. I would add that this will be the first time we have had a constellation secured with post-quantum cryptography, so cyber-attacks will not be possible on this constellation. It will be a world first with an ultra-secure signal, which is not the case with the Starlink signal either,” Grudler said. ‘
Led by the SpaceRISE consortium, Iris2 offers a long-term alternative, though its timeline limits immediate impact.
Strategic Diversification
De Liedekerke has stressed the need for options aside from Starlink.
“It’s about having options. It’s about not having a single point of failure. It’s being able to say no to one and still be online. And today, we’re not in a situation where we can do that. We’ve let Ukraine’s war zone connectivity be in the hands of one man…that’s a strategic vulnerability.
By having options, by having alternatives, by diversifying our partnerships, we avoid that single point of failure.”
Ukraine’s pursuit of EU solutions aims to ensure battlefield resilience. However, the EU has some way to go before it can match Starlink’s reach.
SpaceX
SpaceX pitches subscription model for Trump’s Golden Dome
SpaceX pitched a subscription model for Trump’s Golden Dome. Faster deployment, but at the cost of gov control & steady bills.
SpaceX pitched a subscription model for U.S. President Donald Trump’s Golden Dome for America.
SpaceX is a frontrunner to build key components of President Trump’s Golden Dome–formerly known as the Iron Dome. In January, President Trump signed an Executive Order to build an Iron Dome missile defense shield to protect America.
The ambitious project has drawn intense interest from defense startups, including Epirus, Ursa Major, and Armada. Companies with long-standing contracts with the U.S. government are also vying to build Trump’s Golden Dome, like Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
According to six Reuters sources, SpaceX is partnering with Palantir and Anduril on a Golden Dome proposal for the U.S. government.
The trio is pitching a plan to deploy 400 to 1,000+ satellites for missile detection and tracking, with a separate fleet of 200 attack satellites armed with missiles or lasers to neutralize threats. SpaceX will mainly focus on the sensing satellites, not weaponization.
SpaceX reportedly proposed a subscription service model for Trump’s Golden Dome, where the government pays for access rather than owning the system outright. This approach could bypass some Pentagon procurement protocols, enabling faster deployment. However, it risks locking the government into ongoing costs and reduced control over development and pricing.
A few Pentagon officials are concerned about SpaceX’s subscription model for the Golden Dome because it is a rare approach for major defense programs. U.S. Space Force General Michael Guetlein is exploring whether SpaceX should own and operate its segment or if the U.S. should retain ownership with contractors managing operations.
The Golden Dome’s innovative scope and SpaceX’s subscription model signal a new era for defense contracting. However, Trump’s Golden Dome program is in its early stages, giving the Pentagon time to consider SpaceX’s subscription model proposal. As the Pentagon weighs options, SpaceX’s technical prowess and unconventional approach position it as a key player in Trump’s vision for a robust missile shield.
News
Bell Canada takes aim at potential Starlink subsidies
Details of Bell Canada’s anti-Starlink efforts were shared by the Financial Times (FT).
Tensions are rising in Canada’s telecommunications landscape as the nation’s leading telecom provider, Bell Canada, seeks to block Elon Musk’s Starlink from accessing potential subsidies.
Details of Bell Canada’s anti-Starlink efforts were shared by the Financial Times (FT).
Bell’s Push to Block Starlink Subsidies
As noted by the FT, Bell Canada and its subsidiary Northwestel are lobbying against potential subsidies that Starlink could receive for providing internet access to the country’s remote northern regions, including the Arctic. In correspondence obtained by the Times, Bell argued that Starlink’s flat pricing proves that it does not require support to operate in Canada’s remote areas.
A decision about the matter will be announced by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). That being said, the CRTC stated in January that a subsidy would help make “internet services more reliable and affordable for residents of the Far North.”
Starlink’s Defense
SpaceX, Starlink’s parent company, has fired back at Bell, stating that blocking subsidies would harm competition and leave isolated communities such as First Nations groups with fewer, more expensive, and less reliable internet options.
While Canada’s two biggest telecommunications groups, Bell and Rogers, still dominate the country’s internet and phone service market, Starlink has been making progress in its efforts to saturate the country’s remote regions. Starlink received official approval to operate in October 2022, and since then, it has grown its customer base to 400,000 active customers as of last year.
Musk’s Empire Under Fire in Canada
The subsidy clash is part of a broader Canadian backlash against Musk’s ventures, which seems to be fueled by his role in the Trump administration. Apart from Bell’s anti-Starlink efforts, Ontario also axed a $100 million Starlink contract. Quebec has noted that it would not be renewing its Starlink subsidy scheme as well.
Tesla, on the other hand, lost government EV subsidies, with Transport Minister Chrystia Freeland leading the charge. As per Geoff White of the Public Interest Advocacy Center, “We should not be giving one cent of public money to an unaccountable imperialist like Elon Musk.”
Tesla units delivered in America have 100% ‘MADE IN THE USA’ battery packs
Over 2 in 5 Tesla owners experienced intentional damage to their vehicle: study
Tesla Optimus units line up in Fremont’s pilot production line
-
News2 weeks agoI took a Tesla new Model Y Demo Drive – Here’s what I learned
-
News2 weeks agoTesla cleared of some claims in Blade Runner lawsuit
-
News2 weeks agoTesla Supercharger in Washington bombed, police and FBI step in
-
Elon Musk5 days agoTesla doubles down on Robotaxi launch date, putting a big bet on its timeline
-
News1 week agoTesla’s top investor questions ahead of the Q1 2025 earnings call
-
Investor's Corner2 weeks agoTesla bull sees company’s future clearly: Cathie Wood
-
Cybertruck2 weeks agoTesla confirms Cybertruck will make its way out of North America this year
-
News2 weeks agoTesla might benefit from Trump’s plans for Saudi Arabia