Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s partial Falcon 9 landing failure could delay next West Coast launch

Wait, that's not supposed to be there... (Tom Cross)

Published

on

According to statements made by the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) and media outlet CBC, the launch of the agency’s next-generation Radarsat Constellation Mission (RCM) – a trio of Earth observation satellites weighing >4200 kg (9300 lbs) – has been “postponed … indefinitely” as a consequence of SpaceX’s first failed Falcon 9 booster landing since 2016.

Offering a rare glimpse into some of the extensive planning that goes on behind the scenes to make commercial rocket launches happen, CSA has indicated that the booster it planned to launch on – Falcon 9 B1050 – suffered an untimely (partial) demise during a recovery attempt shortly after successfully launching the CRS-16 Cargo Dragon mission on December 5th, 2018. While the booster shockingly was returned to dry land mostly intact after landing in the Atlantic, SpaceX and CSA must now settle on a different Falcon 9 to launch the mission.

Goldilocks and the Falcon boosters

While it doesn’t look like there are only three possible rocket options for the Radarsat constellation and SpaceX to choose from, the situation of picking a new booster this late in the launch flow is far less simple than it might initially seem. First and foremost, SpaceX likely needs to do its best to accommodate the preferences of customers CSA and MDA (MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd.) regardless of how disruptive they may be. Originally targeted for sometime in November 2018, RCM’s launch slipped several months to the second half of February 2019 due to what CSA described as “higher priority missions [for]the US Government and a backlog of launches from…Vandenberg” late last year.

Advertisement

While that alone does not point directly towards any obvious explanations, CBC reporter Dean Beeby’s implication that the mission’s launch is now “postponed…indefinitely” offers a hint of an answer, although it could also be manufactured hyperbole where there actually is none. If CSA actually indicated that the launch is now postponed indefinitely, the only clear explanation for a launch delay greater than a month or so as a result of Falcon 9 B1050’s unplanned unavailability would lie in some unique aspect of that particular Falcon 9 booster.

Although each rocket SpaceX builds can be quite different from each other in terms of general quirks and bugs, the only obvious difference between B1050 and any other flight-proven Falcon 9 booster in SpaceX’s fleet was its low-energy CRS-16 trajectory, something that would have enabled a uniquely gentle reentry and landing shortly after launch. In other words, likely out of heaps of caution and conservatism if it is the case, customers CSA and MDA may have requested (or contractually demanded) that SpaceX launch the Radarsat constellation on a flight-proven Falcon 9 with as little wear and tear as possible, in which case B1050 would have been hard to beat.

“Unfortunately, the landing of [Falcon 9 B1050] was unsuccessful, preventing SpaceX from recuperating the reusable components for the launch of RCM. We continue to work closely with MDA and SpaceX to confirm a launch date for RCM.” – Spokesperson Audrey Barbier, Canadian Space Agency (CSA), 01/15/2019

If the customers remained steadfast in their (speculated) request for a gently-used flight-proven Falcon 9 even after B1050’s partial landing failure, the next most comparable booster would be Falcon 9 B1051 after launching the first orbital Crew Dragon mission sometime no earlier than (NET) February 2019. Aside from B1051, there will be no obvious booster alternative available for at least several months after Crew Dragon’s launch debut, unless NASA requests that its next contracted Cargo Dragon mission (CRS-17) launch on a new Falcon 9 rocket in March 2019.

Warmer…

If a less lightly-used booster becomes an option for CSA/MDA, there are immediately multiple clear options available as long as SpaceX is will to accept possible delays to subsequent launches to quickly reassign a flight-proven Falcon 9. Falcon 9 B1046 – the first SpaceX rocket ever to launch three orbital-class missions – is being refurbished at SpaceX’s Hawthorne, California facilities a few hundred miles south of Vandenberg. B1047 completed its second successful launch in November 2018 and is being refurbished – along with the twice-flown B1048 – in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Finally, Falcon 9 B1049 completed its second successful launch just days ago (January 11th) and is being processed off of drone ship Just Read The Instructions (JRTI) at this very moment.

B1047 or B1048 have likely been assigned to the imminent NET February 18th launch of Indonesian commsat PSN-6 and SpaceIL’s Beresheet Moon lander, meaning that the best possible option for Radarsat – short of swallowing months of additional delays – is a decision between B1047/B1048 or B1046, with B1049 also a candidate if a slip into March or April is an option. Still, all of those options would require Canada and MDA to fly on a Falcon 9’s third (or fourth) launch, perhaps an unacceptable compromise or perceived risk for certain customers.

 

Meanwhile, schedule pressures have meant that SpaceX is pushing as hard as possible to prepare three new Block 5 Falcon Heavy boosters for the giant rocket’s second and third launches, scheduled as early as March and April 2019. While unconfirmed, it appears that SpaceX may have chosen to manufacture all three of those boosters one after the other, meaning that the company’s Hawthorne factory would have been primarily focused on delivering those rockets for at least 2-3 months start to finish. In short, it does not appear that there is or will be an unflown Falcon 9 booster available for Radarsat anytime soon.

Advertisement

Whether the customers wait for a new booster to be produced, wait for Crew Dragon’s first launch to wrap up, or accept being the third or fourth launch of a well-scorched Falcon 9, RCM’s next published launch target should offer a hint as to how CSA, MDA, and SpaceX ultimately decided to respond to Falcon 9 B1050’s dip in the Atlantic OCean.


Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes!

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.

Comments

News

Tesla robotaxi test details shared in recent report: 300 operators, safety tests, and more

Tesla has launched an initial robotaxi service for its employees in Austin and the San Francisco Bay Area.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

During the Q1 2025 earnings call, Tesla executives reiterated the idea that the company will be launching a dedicated robotaxi service using its Full Self Driving (FSD) Unsupervised system this coming June.

A recent report from Insider, citing people reportedly familiar with the matter, has now provided a number of details about the preparations that Tesla has been making as it approaches its June target date.

Remote Operators

As noted by the publication, about 300 test operators have been driving through Austin city streets over the past few months using Teslas equipped with self-driving software. These efforts are reportedly part of “Project Rodeo.” Citing test drivers who are reportedly part of the program, Insider noted that Tesla’s tests involve accumulating critical miles. Test drivers are reportedly assigned to specific test routes, which include “critical” tracks where drivers are encouraged to avoid manual interventions, and “adversarial” tracks, which simulate tricky scenarios.

Tesla has launched an initial robotaxi service for its employees in Austin and the San Francisco Bay Area, though the vehicles only operate in limited areas. The vehicles also use safety drivers for now. However, Tesla has reportedly had discussions about using remote operators as safety drivers when the service goes live for consumers. Some test drivers have been moved into remote operator roles for this purpose, the publication’s sources claimed.

While Tesla is focusing on Austin and San Francisco for now, the company is reportedly also deploying test drivers in other key cities. These include Atlanta, GA, New York, NY, Seattle, WA, and Phoenix, AZ.

Advertisement

Safety Tests

Tesla reportedly held training events with local first responders as part of its preparations for its robotaxi service, Insider claimed, citing documents that it had obtained. As per the publication, Tesla had met with the city’s autonomous vehicle task force, which include members of the Austin Fire Department, back in December.

Back in March, Tesla reportedly participated in about six hours of testing with local first responders, which included members of the fire department and the police, at a close test track. Around 60 drivers and vehicles were reportedly used in the test to simulate real-world traffic scenarios. 

Interestingly enough, a spokesperson from the Austin Police Department stated that Tesla did hold a testing day with emergency responders from Austin, Williamson County, as well as the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Reported Deadlines

While Tesla has been pretty open about its robotaxi service launching in Austin this June, the company is reportedly pursuing an aggressive June 1 deadline, at least internally. During meetings with Elon Musk, VP of AI software Ashok Elluswamy’s team reportedly informed the CEO that the company is on track to hit its internal deadline.

One of Insider’s sources, however, noted that the June 1 deadline is more aspirational or motivational. “A June 1 deadline makes a June 30 launch more likely,” the publication’s source noted.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Atty who refused to charge six-time Tesla vandal sparks controversy

Despite the multiple offenses, Moriarty opted to enter Adams into an adult diversion program instead.

Published

on

Pilottap, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, who made the decision not to charge 33-year-old vandal Dylan Bryan Adams after he keyed six Teslas around Minneapolis last month, has found herself in the middle of controversy

The controversy came amidst her decision to press charges against a 19-year-old first-time vandal who keyed one vehicle at the White Castle in Brooklyn Park.

The Tesla Vandal

Moriarty’s decision not to charge Adams after he keyed six Teslas was met with widespread criticism. Adams’ actions resulted in more than $20,000 worth of damages, more than $10,000 of which was to a single vehicle, as noted in a New York Post report. Yet despite the multiple offenses, Moriarty opted to enter Adams into an adult diversion program instead.

The fact that Adams is a state employee who works for the Department of Human Services as a program consultant triggered allegations that his dismissal might be partly influenced by Gov. Tim Walz. Walz is a staunch critic of Musk, previously stating that the falling price of TSLA stock gives him a “boost” in the morning.

As noted in a report from The Minnesota Star Tribune, Moriarty’s decision was so controversial that she was asked about the matter on Wednesday. In response, the attorney argued that her office made the decision outside of any political consideration. “We try to make decisions without really looking at the political consequences. Can we always predict how a story will be portrayed in the media or what people will say? No,” Moriarty stated.

Advertisement

Actually Charged

As noted by the Tribune, Moriarty has made arguments around the fact that Adams was a first-time offender, even if he opted to deface six separate Teslas. But even this argument has become controversial since Moriarty recently charged a 19-year-old Robbinsdale woman with no criminal record with first-degree felony property damage after she allegedly keyed a co-worker’s car. The damage incurred by the 19-year-old woman was $7,000, substantially less than the over $20,000 damage that Adams’ actions have caused.

Cases surrounding felony first-degree property damage are fairly common, though they require the damage to be over $1,000. The 19-year-old’s damage to her co-worker’s car met this threshold. Adams’ damage to the six Teslas he vandalized also met this requirement.

When Moriarty was asked about her seemingly conflicting decisions, she noted that her office’s primary goal was to hold the person accountable for keying the vehicle and get restitution to the people affected. She also noted that her office tries to avoid convictions when possible since they could affect a person’s life. “Should we have treated this gentleman differently because it’s a political issue? We made this decision because it is in the best interest of public safety,” she noted.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla faces emission credits tax in Washington state

House Bill 2077 taxes emissions credits, mainly hitting Tesla. Lawmakers expect $100M/year from the taxes.

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

Washington state lawmakers are advancing a bill that would tax Tesla’s emission credits, targeting profits under the state’s clean vehicle policy. Lawmakers who support the bill clarify that the Tesla credit tax is unrelated to Elon Musk.

HB 2077, introduced in mid-April, seeks to impose a 2% tax on emission credit sales and a 10% tax on banked credits. The bill primarily affects Tesla due to exemptions for companies with fewer credits.

In 2022, Washington’s Department of Ecology mandated that all new cars sold by 2035 be electric, hydrogen-fueled, or hybrids, with 35% compliance required by next year. Carmakers selling more gas-powered vehicles can buy credits from companies like Tesla, which sells only electric vehicles.

A legislative fiscal analysis projects taxes on those credits would generate $78 million in the 2025-27 biennium and $100 million annually thereafter. About 70% of the taxes will be allocated to the state’s general funds, and the rest will help expand electric car infrastructure.

Advertisement

HB 2077 passed the state House eight days after its introduction and awaits a Senate Ways and Means Committee vote on Friday. At a House Finance Committee hearing, supporters, including union and social service advocates, argued the tax would prevent cuts to state services.

House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon emphasized its necessity amid frozen federal EV infrastructure funds. “We didn’t have a budget crisis until this year. And we didn’t have the federal government revoking huge amounts of federal dollars for EV infrastructure,” he said.

Tesla’s lobbyist, Jeff Gombosky, countered that the proposal “runs counter to the intent” of the state’s zero-emission policy. Rivian’s lobbyist, Troy Nichols, noted a “modest” impact on his company but warned it could undermine the EV mandate. Kate White Tudor of the Natural Resources Defense Council expressed concerns, stating, “We worry it sets a dubious precedent.”

Fitzgibbon defended the tax, noting Tesla’s dominant credit stockpile makes it “one outlier” that is “very profitable.” “That’s the kind of thing legislators take an interest in,” he said. “Is it serving the interest of the public for this asset to be untaxed?”

With the legislative session nearing its end, the bill remains a key focus in budget talks in Washington.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending