News
Why does SpaceX market space better than NASA?
NASA may be truly making progress, but when compared to SpaceX, it seems more like thus far, they just have a guitar amp that “goes to 11”.
Unless you live under a rock (where exactly are these rocks, anyhow?), you’ve heard the news that SpaceX completed the 4th successful first stage landing of its Falcon 9 rocket after launching to a very high orbit. This was the third one in a row to land on an oceangoing droneship, setting the event up for a pathway to becoming routine business.
Waiting for Falcon 9 at the Park
I was in Florida last week and had the opportunity to go to Jetty Park in Cape Canaveral to watch the launch on its first scheduled date of Thursday, May 26th.
Unfortunately, I had to catch a flight before the next launch window opened after the first one was scrubbed, and I ended up catching the live stream from home on Friday; however, I still don’t regret having rearranged my flights to be there Thursday. Seeing the enthusiasm for the launch first-hand isn’t something I could have fully appreciated from a webcast.
Cars were piled in all over the park by the time the original launch time arrived. People were under sun shades, having picnics, and there were even a few tailgaters – an awesome concept in itself. The only damper is the inability to guarantee the launch will actually happen as scheduled, but since when has that impeded a viable tailgating excuse?
I’m not sure whether this type of activity happens for all launches, but it made me think about some of the discussions and my observations from earlier in the week.
SpaceX at the Space Congress
I also attended the first day’s events for the 44th Space Congress wherein commercial space technology was the primary topic. Bob Cabana, former space shuttle astronaut and current director of the John F. Kennedy Space Center, was the keynote speaker to kick off the event.
While taking questions, an audience member mentioned that her neighbor thought NASA had been “shut down”, and more audience members concurred that they’d had similar discussions with others. The purpose of the question was to gather Cabana’s opinion on why people weren’t more aware of NASA’s activities, but he didn’t entirely have an answer. I later overheard him speaking to someone else about how they were doing so many “great things” and didn’t understand why people weren’t more aware of them. As a SpaceX enthusiast, of course, I found the problem amusing. I mean, rockets involve at least 99 problems, but SpaceX does not have one with publicity. [Sorry, I had to.]
However, I still questioned why SpaceX was having an awareness impact on space travel that NASA, in all its social media, outreach efforts, and resources couldn’t seem to mirror. Was it that the technology SpaceX was developing more reminiscent of Hollywood and science fiction? Was it all just better marketing overall? Better video music?
Cue the First Panel
After more questions and a short break, the panel on the progress being made in NASA’s Commercial Crew program began with guests Danom Buck from Boeing and Benji Reed from SpaceX.
Boeing’s Commercial Crew capsule, CST-100 Starliner. Credit: BLM Nevada under CC by 2.0.
The Commercial Crew program involves the development of the next generation of transport technology for human space travel to and from the International Space Station (and eventually beyond). Or in other words, it’s the program to get America launching people from American soil again rather than buying rocket seats from the Russians.
The overall panel discussion was interesting, but I will admit that I kept waiting for Boeing to get to the “good” part. 
As a member of the general public, my interpretation of their technology was that it was a reworked version of the capsules used on the Apollo program and not much else. Their landing system consisted of high-speed-impact capable air bags versus SpaceX’s propulsive landing, i.e., “hovering”, Dragon capsule.
While I understand that there are significant improvements in the works with Boeing’s craft, I know I’m not the only one to be unmoved by the lack of apparent novelty in the landing system, particularly because I had recently seen this video of Elon Musk responding to an MIT student’s question comparing SpaceX’s system to Boeing’s:
https://youtu.be/PULkWGHeIQQ?t=48m7s
I kept waiting for the right question to break down the professionalism between the two company representatives (“Fight! Fight! Fight!”), but alas, nothing of the sort happened. I wasn’t entirely convinced that Danum was very excited about Boeing’s technology, either. Maybe I wasn’t being fair to Boeing. After all, Benji’s presentation began with this familiar SpaceX recap video:
Crossover Landing Technology Between Dragon and Falcon 9
Credit: SpaceX
I did get a chance to ask Benji my own question wherein I inquired about how much technology crosses over between the Dragon capsule’s propulsive landing system and the Falcon 9’s first stage landing system. I was curious whether it was mostly just software sharing since landing the crafts were likely to use similar calculations, but the equipment involved was too different to be relatable.
His response consisted of an explanation about how the development environment at SpaceX is set up to encourage collaboration among systems engineers (open floor layout, connected teams next to one another). Implied answer: He either wasn’t sure specifically but assumed there was some crossover, or he knew some specifics, but wasn’t going to give them for one reason or another. Or perhaps it was some mix of the two.
Cue Lunch and the Next Panel
The speaker during lunch was Col. Eric Krystkowiak, the 45th Space Wing Launch Group Commander. The 45th Space Wing Launch Group is located at Patrick Air Force Base in Cape Canaveral, Florida where the May 27th Falcon 9 lifted off from. The first Falcon 9 ground landing also took place there, something Col. Krystkowiak spoke about during his presentation: “They’re thinking…still can’t believe the Air Force let us do that.”
The Air Force’s customer service considerations.
As a lifelong Air Force brat, I may have been partial in my reception to the talk due to the familiar social gathering “zone” it reminded me of.
The presentation format and overall humor were very good (isn’t anything that quotes Seinfeld?), and although they have to remain impartial as government representatives, it certainly felt as though the Air Force genuinely liked the SpaceX team and was leaning towards their business model to support in their commercial spaceflight customer service role moving forward. Perhaps they just appreciate SpaceX’s wherewithal and determination to push through bureaucracy to really enable innovation.
Oh, and I think someone asked about the lawsuit SpaceX filed against the Air Force, but I don’t remember the specifics of either the question or the answer. Hey, it was lunch time!
The Journey Ends
Jumping forward again to the original Thursday launch date, once it was clear the launch was not happening before my flight home (shout out to the very nice lady listening to the AM radio updates), I had to book it to the airport. Then, ironically, it turned out my Uber driver had spent seventeen years as a defense contractor with Raytheon working on satellite technologies.
It really was a space kind of week!
Space geek that I am, I took the opportunity to have him provide first hand insight into what that type of job was like. I was particularly interested in why contract work like that always went over time and over budget. His answer was that essentially, when NASA approaches its contractors, they are asking for things to be done that have never been done before, thus it’s hard to predict exactly what the future will hold as far as the development of the technology.
Fair enough, but once again, SpaceX shines here. There’s never been a company quite like them before, doing quite the things they’re doing in quite the way they’re doing them.
Maybe just being first has its merits? After all, history tends to reward the winners. Most Americans don’t know who the first American in space was, but they know the Russians beat us there to begin with, and they know we beat everyone to the Moon. Then again, Sally Ride tends to be mistaken by Americans as the first woman in space, but Russian Valentina Tereshkova was actually first.
The question of what makes SpaceX so different in marketing space technology is still a difficult one for me as my personal reasons for admiring their progress has little to do with the aesthetics of the achievements. I admire the true progress they’re making and the relatability of what they’re developing to what their larger goals are.
NASA may be truly making progress towards a “Journey to Mars”, but when compared to the advancements SpaceX has achieved, it seems more like thus far, they just have a guitar amp that “goes to 11”.
Thoughts, anyone?
Author’s Note: I’ve uploaded more pics of the Space Congress and the park on launch day to my Flickr account. Nothing spectacular – just FYI.
Elon Musk
Tesla shows what Roadster drivers will see on screen before thruster activation
Tesla’s Roadster video reveals a fighter jet inspired cockpit with a 5,500 PSI thruster gauge.
Tesla has given future owners their clearest look yet at the cockpit of its next generation Roadster. In a 34 second video posted to X on Friday afternoon, the company walked through the car’s touchscreen with a caption: “Inspired by fighter jet cockpits, Roadster’s interface was designed around the pilot.”
The clip opens on a black screen with red graphics and a 3D wireframe of the car, which sits beside the Roadster’s squared off yoke. Tapping parts of the model brings up controls for the rear wing, including low drag and high downforce positions, along with a charging page with a charge limit bar and a small music player. A row of tabs along the bottom reads Home, Vehicle, Listen, Climate and Navigate.
Most of the video is spent in Track Mode. The dashboard shows a live circuit map, a list of session lap times, brake and motor temperatures, and pressure and temperature readouts for each tire. A setup page lets the driver pick Auto, Low Drag, High Downforce or Custom aero modes, adjust aero balance and brake balance, and switch stability and traction control off. Along the bottom, a status bar reads “Thruster · 5,500 PSI” next to a “Boost Ready” indicator.
That gauge ties the software to the hardware Tesla showed off near Waco, Texas on October 15. The Thrust and Rocket versions use cold gas thrusters fed by carbon overwrapped pressure vessels, and Tesla lists 0 to 60 mph times of under 0.9 seconds and under 0.59 seconds for them, as Teslarati detailed in its breakdown of the three Roadster configurations. The base Performance car relies on a fan and ground sealing system for grip, and the aero settings on screen match the active wings and suction setup covered in our look at how the Roadster generates downforce.
The Roadster layout is a departure from the rest of Tesla’s lineup. Instead of a map centered screen, the Roadster puts the car itself at the center of the home page, and Tesla’s Roadster page lists two smaller forward displays alongside the main touchscreen. Tesla has not said whether any of the Track Mode telemetry will make its way to the Model 3 Performance or other vehicles.
The interface could still change before deliveries. Elon Musk said at the event that Roadster production will begin in 2028, and Tesla says the flagship Rocket version is not approved for public road use. Reservations are open with a $50,000 payment, while Thrust is listed as a limited release and Rocket is invite only.
Those who want to see the car in person will get their first chance this weekend. The Roadster goes on display in the lobby of the Petersen Automotive Museum in Los Angeles from October 24 to 27, according to Sawyer Merritt, the first time the public will be able to view it up close.
Elon Musk
Tesla reveals Optimus Academy, where robots teach themselves
Tesla has begun building production quality Optimus robots in Fremont and revealed its training plan.
Tesla has started building Optimus on the high volume line it set up inside its Fremont factory, and the company says the robots coming off it are the first that meet the bar for a real product. “The bots coming off this line are the first production-quality bots that we have manufactured,” Tesla wrote in its third quarter shareholder letter, adding that it has “proven that the current manufacturing process for Optimus is suitable for a commercial product.”
The line sits in space that built the Model S and Model X until this spring. Tesla cleared the old vehicle line in 46 days, as Teslarati reported in July, to make room for robot production sized for one million units a year. On Wednesday’s earnings call, Elon Musk said most of the equipment for that capacity is already in Fremont, with output set to climb toward roughly 20,000 robots a week as the line ramps.
Musk described the ramp as a classic S curve. “The growth of Optimus is an S curve, but the initial curve is a shallow slope,” he said. The team is now refining the robot’s AI, electromechanical design, reliability and service life, and Musk expects that work to be finished by the end of next year, when Tesla plans to start delivering Optimus to outside companies for dangerous, repetitive and around the clock jobs.
The most interesting part of the call was how Tesla plans to teach the robots. Its cars send real driving data back to the AI team from millions of vehicles, but Optimus has no fleet like that yet. “A big difference with Optimus versus the cars is we don’t have this vast fleet of cars from which we can gather training data,” Musk said. Tesla’s answer is an Optimus Academy, where 10,000 to 20,000 robots will practice a wide range of tasks and feed what they learn into the next version of the model. Every unit off the Fremont line becomes a source of that training data.
Smarter hardware is on the way too. Tesla plans to put its AI5 chip into Optimus next year, and Musk said a new Optimus video should arrive within one or two months showing the robot completing tasks driven by AI rather than preprogrammed motions. He took aim at rival humanoid demos that only run scripted routines, saying those would not hold up in the real world.
The supply chain is lining up behind the program. In September, Tesla certified Tuopu, Joyson and Sanhua as mass production partners for Optimus components. A far larger Optimus factory is also rising at Giga Texas, where drone footage from Joe Tegtmeyer showed the steel frame nearing completion, and Musk has pegged that plant’s long term target at 10 million robots a year.
Tesla executives also said Optimus production costs are trending toward the expected manufacturing cost of Cybercab, a sign the robot is being engineered for volume from the start. The hands remain the toughest piece of the design, a point Musk also made at the X Takeover event earlier this month, as Teslarati covered at the time, and that is where much of the current engineering effort is focused.
Elon Musk
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Tesla shows what Roadster drivers will see on screen before thruster activation
Tesla reveals Optimus Academy, where robots teach themselves
