Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s second Falcon 9 Block 5 booster reuse closes in as rocket refurb continues

Published

on

Scheduled on October 7th, SpaceX is roughly three weeks out from the next routine launch of Falcon 9, set to carry the ~2800 kg (6200 lb) Argentinian satellite SAOCOM-1A into a low polar orbit from the company’s Vandenberg Air Force Base launch facilities.

Cocooned inside Falcon 9’s payload fairing during the final days of August, the Earth observation satellite’s launch will mark a number of exciting milestones for SpaceX, including the second reuse of a Block 5 booster and the debut of a California-based rocket landing zone barely 400m (1400ft) from the launch pad.

Previously tasked with launching Iridium’s 7th group of 10 NEXT satellites on July 25th, Falcon 9 B1048 has been assigned as SAOCOM 1A’s ride to orbit, originally expected to refly as early as September 5th and September 28th. Despite the delays, it still appears that B1048 will easily snag the SpaceX record for second fastest booster turnaround – 74 days compared to Block 5 booster B1045’s 71 days gap between launching NASA’s TESS and CRS-15 missions.

Falcon 9 B1048 arrived at the Port of LA on July 27th and spent another week at its berth before being shipped elsewhere. (Pauline Acalin)

According to a number of comments from satellite engineers involved in the launch, most of the month-long slip rested on rocket availability, meaning that SpaceX was having some sort of difficulty with Falcon 9 components. Given photos and official comments showing that SAOCOM-1A was encapsulated in its payload fairing more than 5 weeks before launch (August 30th) and that Falcon 9 Block 5 is a fairly new launch vehicle, especially in a flight-proven configuration, the most logical explanation is that SpaceX is simply being extra cautious and thorough with B1048’s post-flight analysis and refurbishment.

It’s entirely possible that SpaceX engineers and technicians could have managed a ~40-day turnaround to make the original September 5 launch date, but it’s equally likely that some off-nominal characteristics were noted while the booster was being prepped for transport after craning off of drone ship Just Read The Instructions. In fact, B1048’s recovery operations were exceptionally lengthy and in-depth, including an extraordinary few hours during which technicians removed the booster’s Merlin 1D access panels, baring wholly-uncovered rocket engines in full view of a public area. Nothing equivalent has ever been observed over the course of more than a dozen Falcon booster recoveries, perhaps indicating some unique circumstances in the case of B1048.

Advertisement
-

 

The most obvious explanation is that those publicly-visible inspections were used to judge whether the flight-proven booster could return directly to SpaceX’s Vandenberg launch pad or needed to make a stop at the company’s dedicated Hawthorne factory and refurbishment facilities. Judging from the month-long slip that transpired, it’s probable that the latter option was selected. Regardless, caution is key when a customer’s payload is on the line.

Once it makes its way to the launch pad for the second time, B1048 will have the opportunity to both become the first Block 5 booster to land on land and the first rocket ever to land at SpaceX’s West Coast Landing Zone (LZ), under construction/development for the last two or so years. Just like its Floridan twins, the California LZ will only be an option for particularly lightweight payloads and lower-energy launch profiles, of which SAOCOM 1A (and 1B) certainly fit the bill.


For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!

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

Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote

AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile want 290 MHz cut from an FCC satellite plan before Thursday.

Published

on

By

Starlink D2D direct to device vs Verizon, AT&T (Concept render by Grok)

AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are asking the Federal Communications Commission to pull nearly 300 MHz of spectrum out of a proposal that would let satellite companies like SpaceX offer cell service directly to ordinary phones. The request lands one day before the agency votes on it.

The FCC will vote Thursday, October 29, on a notice of proposed rulemaking that would make an additional 482 MHz available for direct to device service, expanding the number of eligible bands from five to 13, according to the FCC fact sheet. It would also scrap the rule requiring a satellite operator to lease spectrum from carriers, replacing it with a certification that the operator has coexistence agreements in place or holds the terrestrial license itself.

That second path matters for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported earlier this month, SpaceX agreed to buy Grain Management’s nationwide 800 MHz portfolio to turn Starlink Mobile into a full US carrier, adding to the spectrum it already bought from EchoStar.

The carriers want two bands removed, 2.5 GHz and 3.45 GHz, which make up 290 MHz of the 482 MHz on the table. Through industry group CTIA, they argued that about 300 million users depend on those bands and that satellite operations in them are not technically feasible. T-Mobile, which calls 2.5 GHz the foundation of its Ultra Capacity 5G network, said in its own filing that satellite interference could wipe out up to 96% of a cell site’s uplink coverage area and cut uplink speeds by 88% to 99%.

Executives from all three carriers met with FCC staff on October 20, and T-Mobile CEO Srini Gopalan met separately with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. T-Mobile’s role stands out because it is still SpaceX’s US launch partner for Starlink Mobile. The three carriers have also teamed up on their own satellite joint venture to pool spectrum, a move widely seen as a response to Starlink.

Advertisement
-

SpaceX is asking for the opposite. In an October 23 filing after meetings with FCC staff and commissioners’ offices, the company asked regulators to add the 902 to 928 MHz band to the proposal. “Doing so now saves time later,” SpaceX wrote. The company also asked the FCC to modernize interference rules and align satellite deployment requirements with those for terrestrial cell networks, saying the goal is to let satellite and ground networks work together so Americans stay connected wherever they are.

The carriers have not been shy about how they view SpaceX as a competitor. On Verizon’s third quarter earnings call Monday, its chief executive said Starlink Mobile “just can’t compete with a terrestrial network” and estimated SpaceX would need four to six years and $300 billion to $500 billion to build a full US carrier network.

Thursday’s vote will not settle which bands survive. Adopting the notice opens a public comment period, with final rules to come later in the proceeding. The FCC already considered and rejected 2.5 GHz for satellite coverage once, in 2024. SpaceX also is not the only satellite player watching: the FCC approved Amazon’s $11.6 billion acquisition of Globalstar on October 27, giving its planned direct to device fleet its own mobile satellite spectrum.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know

Published

on

Credit: KTVU

A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.

The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.

There were no injuries reported.

The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.

However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.

At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.

The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.

The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.

An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla’s ‘Emergency Drive Away’ function gets its first use in the real world

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.

A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.

“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”

Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.

Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.

Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:

  • You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
  • You must leave the area immediately.
  • Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
  • Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.

After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.

Continue Reading