Connect with us

News

SpaceX bid Starship to launch NASA cubesat constellation

SpaceX appears to have narrowly lost a contract to launch a constellation of NASA cubesats with Starship and Super Heavy. (SpaceX)

Published

on

First discussed by SpaceNews, Teslarati can confirm that the mystery launch vehicle SpaceX bid to launch a tiny NASA satellite constellation was none other than Starship – a large, next-generation rocket still deep in development.

Back on February 26th, the space agency announced that it had awarded small rocket startup Astra $7.95 million to launch six small science satellites on three separate Rocket 3.0 flights. Known as TROPICS, NASA says the mini-constellation is designed to monitor tropical storms with a set of microwave sounding instruments. As a constellation, TROPICS will have an unprecedented revisit rate as low as 30 minutes, meaning that weather events could be observed as many as 48 times per day to improve forecasts and advance meteorology. All told, the MIT team estimates a total mission cost of $32 million and the six-satellite TROPICS constellation is expected to weigh no more than 56 kg (~124 lb).

The TROPICS mission is comprised of six elongated-shoebox-sized cubesats fitted with microwave spectrometers. Each satellite weighs around 4 kg (9 lb). (MIT)

In a routine source selection statement published by NASA on March 11th, reporter Jeff Foust was first to catch on to some oddities included in the brief. Notably, SpaceX was one of four companies to submit a viable proposal and enter the competition – not exactly shocking behavior. However, in the statement, the NASA contracting officer included information heavily implying that SpaceX didn’t propose to launch TROPICS on its proven workhorse Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy rockets.

As Foust went on to note, the “weaknesses” raised to explain why SpaceX wasn’t chosen (namely an unproven, unlicensed launch vehicle with low schedule certainty) meshed suspiciously well with SpaceX’s next-generation Starship rocket. A source familiar with NASA launch procurement has now confirmed to Teslarati that SpaceX did, in fact, bid Starship to launch the TROPICS constellation.

Starship is currently in the early to middle stages of development, only recently graduated beyond short hop tests, and has yet to secure an orbital launch license from the FAA. While SpaceX CEO Elon Musk recently confirmed the company’s ambition to launch Starship on its first orbital mission(s) as early as July 2021, it’s safe to say that there is a huge amount of uncertainty in that schedule.

Advertisement
Starship only just achieved its first intact landing after a high-altitude launch and still exploded several minutes after touchdown. (SpaceX)
Cargo Starship doesn’t exist at this point in time and TROPICS would be akin to a drop in the bucket of its cavernous payload fairing. (SpaceX)

On the scale of Starship’s payload target of 100 metric tons to low Earth orbit (LEO), the TROPICS constellation is quite literally a rounding error. Assuming three separate launches are a fundamental requirement for the constellation, each Starship – a rocket substantially larger than a 737 passenger jet – would be carrying the equivalent of a single briefcase containing two shoebox-sized satellites.

While the source was unable to provide the specific price of the offer, they confirmed that SpaceX bid Starship and Super Heavy – not a single-stage-to-orbit Starship configuration as some later speculated. It’s still unclear if SpaceX intended to perform three separate launches or if Starship would have been capable of delivering the entire constellation in a single launch with the huge performance margins offer by such a tiny payload.

Astra narrowly missed orbit on Rocket 3’s third test flight and the company’s fifth test launch overall.

Notably, NASA’s selection statement revealed that the price of SpaceX’s Starship launch proposal was more expensive than Astra’s ~$8M offering but less expensive than a Rocket Lab proposal utilizing Electron. From a purely speculative angle, assuming three launches were a necessity, Rocket Lab’s bid would have been around $25M (Electron sells for around $7.5M), leaving SpaceX around $15-20M – not far off a $5M Starship launch cost target floated by company executives over the last few years.

Ultimately, SpaceX did lose out, but the fact that NASA considered a Starship proposal at all is impressive in its own right. TROPICS is scheduled to launch out of Kwajelein Atoll on three separate Astra Rocket 3 vehicles between January and July 2022

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

The secret behind Tesla’s Cybercab Gold goes well beyond just the color

Published

on

By

Tesla has spent years trying to engineer its way out of the automotive paint shop, one of the most expensive, space-consuming, and environmentally costly steps in vehicle manufacturing. With the Cybercab, Tesla confirmed on X this week that a new reaction injection molding process will embed color directly into the panel itself during production.

“Our new reaction injection molding (RIM) process shrinks Cybercab paint cycles from hours to minutes. This cuts those parts’ manufacturing and supply chain emissions by 35% and eliminating 100% of paint volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted in traditional paint methods.” noted Tesla.

While the RIM process isn’t necessarily new and has existed since the 1960s, what makes Tesla’s application notable is how it is being used specifically for exterior body panels that traditionally required a separate paint process after forming.

Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules

Tesla’s RIM approach integrates the color directly into the panel material during the molding process itself. The pigment is part of the polymer mix injected into the mold, meaning the panel comes out of the mold already colored, with no separate paint application required. The clear coat or protective layer can be applied at the mold stage or through a much faster post-process than traditional multi-stage painting. Tesla claims this compresses what was a multi-hour paint cycle into minutes per panel.

Tesla’s obsession with killing the paint shop is one of the most consistent threads running through the company’s manufacturing philosophy going back years. As far back as 2018, Musk was trimming paint color options to simplify production, tweeting at the time: “Moving 2 of 7 Tesla colors off menu on Wednesday to simplify manufacturing.” Two years later, in a 2020 Automotive News interview, Musk laid out his broader vision, saying he believed Tesla factories could one day be 1,000 times more efficient than conventional plants, and pointing to the paint shop as one of the biggest sources of waste, cost, and complexity. The Cybertruck was the most extreme expression of that thinking. Tesla chose an unpainted stainless steel exterior partly because it would eliminate the need for a $200 million paint facility at Gigafactory Texas. The stainless approach proved harder and more expensive than anticipated, but the underlying ambition never changed. The Cybercab is what happens when that same ambition meets a manufacturing process that delivers on it.

Continue Reading

Lifestyle

Tesla app update makes Robotaxi ownership make a lot more sense

Tesla’s app now shows a live indicator when your car is actively driving itself.

Published

on

By

A recent Tesla app update, released last week  (4.58.5), gives visibility on whether a vehicle is navigating in its semi-autonomous mode or being drive by a human driver. The updated app now displays a live “Self-Driving” indicator in bright blue text directly beneath the vehicle’s speed readout whenever Full Self-Driving is actively engaged, along with the signature glowing blue navigation path that FSD users see on the main touchscreen. It is a small visual update with meaningful implications for how Tesla owners monitor their vehicles remotely.

The feature was first spotted in the wild by X user Jordan Camina, who shared video of a Hardware 3 Model S displaying the new animation through the app while driving. That detail is significant because it confirms the update is not limited to newer HW4 vehicles. It works across hardware generations, and Tesla confirmed it will eventually support all vehicles regardless of chip platform once both the app and vehicle software are updated. The vehicle side requires software version 2026.20.6.1, which has reached nearly 40% of the fleet so far, as monitored by NotaTeslaApp.

The feature makes the most practical sense when viewed through the lens of Tesla’s expanding robotaxi operation. In a robotaxi context, the owner of a vehicle generating ride revenue has a direct financial and safety interest in knowing whether their car is operating under autonomous control at any given moment. The app’s new FSD indicator gives fleet owners exactly that visibility, the same way a logistics company monitors whether a delivery driver is following the planned route. It also carries implications for Tesla’s insurance model. Tesla’s own insurance product prices premiums in part based on FSD engagement rates, and real-time visibility into when FSD is active creates a feedback loop that could eventually tie directly into policy pricing. For individual owners who have opted their personal vehicles into the robotaxi network, the update effectively turns the Tesla app into a fleet management dashboard, one that tells you whether your car is earning money, whether it is driving itself to do it, and whether everything is operating the way it should from wherever you happen to be.

Tesla expands Robotaxi to Florida, marking its third state for autonomy

As Teslarati has reported, Tesla launched unsupervised robotaxi rides in Miami this summer, a milestone that makes a remote FSD status indicator significantly more practical than a cosmetic feature. When a vehicle is operating as a robotaxi without a driver present, the owner or fleet operator needs a reliable way to confirm autonomy is engaged. The app now provides exactly that.

As noted by NotATeslaApp, The update also arrived alongside a hint buried in the same app version that Tesla plans to use the cabin camera to verify driver identity before FSD can be activated. Pairing identity verification with a live autonomy status indicator points toward the infrastructure Tesla is building for a fleet of driverless vehicles that owners can monitor the way you would track a package delivery.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

California snubs Tesla in its newly passed EV incentive that favors Rivian and Lucid

California passed a $135 million EV incentive that rewards Rivian and Lucid while sidelining Tesla

Published

on

By

tesla fremont

California just drew a line in the EV incentive sand to put Tesla on the wrong side of it. The state recently passed a $135 million program offering first-time electric vehicle buyers a direct incentive with no application required, but the rules were written in a way that leaves Tesla at a structural disadvantage compared to Rivian and Lucid.

The program caps eligible vehicles at $50,000 for new EVs and $25,000 for used ones. That pricing threshold rules out a significant portion of Tesla’s lineup, though some lower-priced Model 3 and Model Y configurations would still qualify. California-based automakers are exempt from the price cap entirely, regardless of what their vehicles cost. Rivian, headquartered in Irvine, and Lucid, based in the San Francisco Bay Area, both benefit from that exemption. Rivian’s R2 starts at roughly $45,000 but has versions above the cap. Lucid’s Air and Gravity start at $70,990 and $79,990 respectively, well above any threshold a non-California company would face.

California hits Tesla Cybercab and Robotaxi driverless cars with new law

Tesla built its reputation and a significant portion of its early market share in California, where EV adoption has consistently led the nation. The company operates its original factory in Fremont, California, and the state was home to Tesla’s headquarters for most of its existence. That changed in 2021 when Tesla moved its corporate headquarters to Austin, Texas. Since then, the relationship between the company and California Governor Gavin Newsom has been openly adversarial, with Musk and Newsom trading public criticism on multiple occasions.

California’s EV incentive landscape has shifted repeatedly in recent years, and Tesla has previously lost eligibility for state-level programs as its vehicles exceeded income-adjusted price thresholds. The federal $7,500 EV tax credit, which Tesla models have qualified for and lost depending on policy cycles, is no longer available after it expired without renewal, making state-level programs more meaningful to buyers than they have been in years.

The practical impact for buyers is more nuanced than the headline suggests. California residents purchasing a Tesla under $50,000 for the first time can still access the incentive. But the exemption written for California-based manufacturers is a structural advantage that rewards where a company plants its headquarters flag rather than where it builds its products, and Tesla moved that flag to Texas.

Continue Reading