News
NASA contracts SpaceX for a second crewed Starship Moon landing
NASA says it exercised a contract option to purchase a second crewed Starship Moon landing from SpaceX.
Aside from its general existence, though, very little else is known about the new contract. NASA has yet to discuss when it will launch or which Artemis mission it will be attached to. A step further, it’s not actually clear why two crewed “demonstrations” are needed or what the difference between those two missions is. But more importantly, a broader Artemis Program manifest overview published days later revealed that NASA has plans for a truly unusual gap in crewed Moon landings in the mid-2020s.
Mere days after the announcement, an official NASA schedule showing the agency’s plans for the Moon and Mars over the next ten years explicitly contradicted it, showing only two Starship HLS demonstrations: one uncrewed and one crewed. Assuming that was simply a matter of poor coordination, the graphic reveals another bizarre reality: NASA appears to be explicitly planning for a three-year gap between SpaceX’s first crewed Starship landing in 2025 and the next crewed Moon landing, which the graphic suggested might occur in 2028.
Every single crewed Apollo Program mission to the Moon – including one aborted circumlunar mission, two missions to lunar orbit, and six successful landings – happened in less than four years. As published, NASA’s current Artemis plan would be akin to completing Apollo 11 – the first crewed Moon landing – in 1969 and then sitting around and waiting until 1972 for the next landing attempt. It’s difficult to properly convey just how bizarre such a huge gap would be.
There are only two obvious possible explanations. First, NASA might prefer a multi-year delay between crewed Moon landings to building and launching another SLS Block 1 rocket, in which case the three-year landing gap is explicitly the fault of years of SLS Block 1B delays – specifically NASA and Boeing’s work on the rocket’s larger Exploration Upper Stage (EUS). Second, it could be the case that NASA and/or SpaceX expects Starship’s first crewed landing to be delayed by one or several years. In 2018, SLS Block 1B was expected to debut as early as 2024. In 2022, NASA now says Block 1B will debut no earlier than 2027, while the last Block 1 launch is NET 2025.
The first explanation is arguably much likelier given that structuring schedules based on the assumption of delays would make very little logistical sense. If SpaceX were to be ready on or close to the original schedule, that would leave NASA’s Moon landing program sitting on its hands for a third of a decade. In an alternative scenario, if NASA was planning to take full advantage of every year it has and SpaceX’s Starship demonstration was still delayed, the space agency would simply end up with more SLS and Orion hardware on hand than it planned for – only a problem if the rocket is literally incapable of launching more than once every year or two. There are few conceivable scenarios where having a mission waiting on a rocket would be preferable to having a rocket waiting for a mission
In other words, NASA probably doesn’t want to plan for a three-year gap between crewed Moon landings. Rather, the anchor NASA has chained the Artemis Program to – SLS and Orion – is likely giving it no choice in the matter. Worse, if SLS Block 1B and EUS development are as poorly managed as SLS Block 1, it’s possible – if not likely – that Artemis IV and V will slip another year or two. As a result, even in the likely scenario that SpaceX’s crewed HLS demonstration runs into a year or so of delays, there could still be a three or even four-year gap between crewed NASA Moon landings right when the program should be getting up to speed.
SpaceX, meanwhile, is privately developing Starship with the ultimate intent of landing humans on Mars. Without NASA’s interest and support, the Moon is a distraction from SpaceX’s real goals. Additionally, through NASA’s Human Landing System (HLS) program, SpaceX will be providing Starship as a service, meaning that the company will retain full rights to and ownership of any system that results. Put simply, there’s a real possibility that NASA’s seemingly extraordinary lack of motivation will create a scenario in which SpaceX could outgrow the space agency’s usefulness in the mid-2020s.
If, for example, SpaceX privately human-rates Starship for launches and entry, descent, and landing; it could use the Starship HLS lander it’s developed with NASA to land its own astronauts on the Moon without the need for SLS, Orion, or NASA. Given that the full extent of NASA’s Artemis Program ambitions appears to be one Moon landing per year, there would be plenty of room for SpaceX to perform multiple additional landings independent of NASA while the space agency’s contractors struggle to build and launch a single SLS rocket in the same time-frame.
Given the political power behind the SLS/Orion programs, it’s not clear if NASA will ever be willing or able to publicly support or take advantage of that logical and likely inevitable maturation of SpaceX’s Starship HLS capabilities. A crewed Moon mission – and especially a crewed Starship landing – successfully completed without the need for SLS or Orion could put NASA’s unsustainable rocket and spacecraft in a very uncomfortable position. Already, the HLS program has relegated SLS/Orion to the role of an Earth-Moon taxi service that just so happens to cost more than $4 billion per launch.
Above all else, uncertainty continues to reign over NASA’s longer-term human spaceflight plans – helped in no small part by the space agency’s lack of any obvious overarching strategy. NASA officials may religiously repeat phrases about how the Artemis Program aims to “sustainably” return humans to the Moon and pave the way to landing astronauts on Mars, but that doesn’t change the fact that the agency’s tangible, funded plans show virtually no evidence of serious preparations for either goal. Only time will tell where that rudderless ship ends up.
News
This signature Tesla feature is facing a ban in one of its biggest markets
The report indicates that Chinese government agencies have concerns “about failure rates and safety issues with the flush design.”
A signature Tesla feature is under fire in one of the company’s largest markets, as regulators in one EV hot spot are mulling the potential ban of a design the automaker implemented on some of its vehicles.
Tesla pioneered the pop-out door handle on its Model S back in 2012, and CEO Elon Musk felt the self-presenting design was a great way to feel like “you’re part of the future.”
It is something that is still present on current Model S designs, while other vehicles in the Tesla lineup have a variety of handle aesthetics.
According to Chinese media outlet Mingjing Pro, the company, along with others using similar technology, is facing scrutiny on the design as regulators consider a ban on the mechanism. These restrictions would impact other companies that have utilized pop-out handles on their own designs; Tesla would not be the only company forced to make changes.
The report indicates that Chinese government agencies have concerns “about failure rates and safety issues with the flush design.”
However, EVs are designed to be as aerodynamically efficient as possible, which is the main reason for this design. It is also the reason that many EVs utilize wheel covers, and sleek and flowing shapes.
However, the Chinese government is not convinced, as they stated the aerodynamic improvements are “minimal,” and safety issues are “significantly elevated,” according to The Independent.
The issue also seems to be focused on how effective the handle design is. According to data, one EV manufacturer, which was not specified in the report, has 12 percent of its total repairs are door handle failure fixes.
There are also concerns about the handles short-circuiting, leaving passengers trapped within cars. Tesla has implemented emergency latch releases in its vehicles that would prevent passengers from getting stuck in their cars in cases of electric malfunctions or failures.
However, evidence from the Chinese Insurance Automotive Technology Research Institute (C-IASI) suggests that 33 percent of door handles using this design fail to function after a side impact.
Obviously, Tesla and other automakers could introduce an alternative design to those vehicles that are affected by the potential restrictions China intends to impose. The regulation would take effect in July 2027.
Tesla is bailing out Canadian automakers once again, as some companies in the country are consistently failing to reach mandated minimum sales targets for emission-free vehicles.
Many countries and regions across the world have enacted mandates that require car companies to sell a certain percentage of electric powertrains each year in an effort to make sustainable transportation more popular.
These mandates are specifically to help reduce the environmental impacts of gas-powered cars. In Canada, 20 percent of new car sales in the 2026 model year must be of an emissions-free powertrain. This number will eventually increase to 100 percent of sales by 2030, or else automakers will pay a substantial fine — $20,000 per vehicle.
There is a way companies can avoid fines, and it involves purchasing credits from companies that have a surplus of emissions-free sales.
Tesla is the only company with this surplus, so it will be bailing out a significant number of other automakers that have fallen short of reaching their emissions targets.
Brian Kingston, CEO of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association, said (via Yahoo):
“The only manufacturer that would have a surplus of credits is Tesla, because all they do is sell electric vehicles. A manufacturer has to enter into an agreement with them to purchase credits to help them meet the mandate.”
Tesla has made just over $1 billion this year alone in automotive regulatory credits, which is revenue acquired from selling these to lagging car companies. Kingstone believes Tesla could be looking at roughly $3 billion in credit purchases to comply with the global regulations.
Tesla still poised to earn $3B in ZEV credits this year: Piper Sandler
Automakers operating in Canada are not putting in a lack of effort, but their slow pace in gaining traction in the EV space is a more relevant issue. Execution is where these companies are falling short, and Tesla is a beneficiary of their slow progress.
Kingston doesn’t believe the mandates are necessarily constructive:
“We’ve seen over $40 billion in new investment into Canada since 2020 and all signs were pointing to the automotive industry thriving. Now the federal government has regulations that specifically punishes companies that have a footprint here, requiring them to purchase credits from a company that has a minimal (Canadian) footprint and an almost nonexistent employee base.”
Kingston raises a valid point, but it is hard to see how Tesla is to blame for the issue of other car companies struggling to bring attractive, high-tech, and effective electric powertrains to market.
Tesla has continued to establish itself as the most technologically advanced company in terms of EVs and its tech, as it still offers the best product and has also established the most widespread charging infrastructure globally.
This is not to say other companies do not have good products. In my personal experience, Teslas are just more user-friendly, intuitive, and convenient.
Cybertruck
Tesla ditches key Cybertruck charging feature for very obvious reason
“Wireless charging something as far off the ground as the [Cybertruck] is silly.”
Tesla is officially ditching the development of a key Cybertruck charging feature, and the reason is very obvious, all things considered.
The Cybertruck is among the most unique vehicles available on the market, and, like all Tesla vehicles, it has continued to improve through Over-the-Air software updates that enhance performance, safety, and other technological features.
However, the development of some features, while great on paper, turns out to be more difficult than expected. One of these features is the presence of wireless charging on the all-electric pickup, a capability Tesla has been working to integrate across its entire vehicle lineup.
Tesla wireless charging patent revealed ahead of Robotaxi unveiling event
Most people who have used wireless charging for their phones or other devices have realized it is not as effective as plugging into a cord or cable. This is even relevant with Tesla vehicles, as the introduction of wireless charging for smartphones within the vehicles has been a nice feature, but not as impactful as many would hope.
It’s not necessarily Tesla’s fault, either. Wireless charging is a complex technology because much of the energy intended to be transferred to the phone is lost through heat.
Instead of the energy being stored in the battery, it is lost on the outside of the phone, which is why it becomes warm to the touch after sitting on a charging mat.
This is something that Tesla is likely trying to resolve with its vehicles before rolling out inductive charging to owners. The company has confirmed that it is working on a wireless charging solution, but it has yet to be released.
However, this feature will not be coming to the Cybertruck. Wes Morrill, the Cybertruck’s lead engineer, said that the vehicle’s height makes wireless charging “silly,” according to Not a Tesla App:
“Wireless charging something as far off the ground as the CT is silly.”
This is something that could impact future vehicle designs; the Cybertruck might not be the only higher-ground clearance vehicle Tesla plans to offer to customers. Therefore, being transparent about a design’s capabilities, or even developing technology that would enable this, would be useful to potential buyers.
At this point, wireless charging seems like it would be more advantageous for home charging than anything.
Due to its current inefficiency, it would likely be a great way to enable seamless charging in a garage or residential parking space, rather than something like a public charger where people are looking to plug and go in as little time as possible.
This signature Tesla feature is facing a ban in one of its biggest markets
Tesla is bailing out Canadian automakers once again: here’s how
Tesla ditches key Cybertruck charging feature for very obvious reason
-
News2 weeks agoTesla is overhauling its Full Self-Driving subscription for easier access
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoElon Musk shares unbelievable Starship Flight 10 landing feat
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoElon Musk reveals when SpaceX will perform first-ever Starship catch
-
Elon Musk1 week agoTesla’s next-gen Optimus prototype with Grok revealed
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoSpaceX Starship Flight 10 was so successful, it’s breaking the anti-Musk narrative
-
News5 days agoTesla launches new Supercharger program that business owners will love
-
Elon Musk5 days agoTesla Board takes firm stance on Elon Musk’s political involvement in pay package proxy
-
News1 week agoTesla appears to be mulling a Cyber SUV design