Connect with us

News

SpaceX Starship test plans solidify after bad weather delays hop

Published

on

Around the same time SpaceX was preparing for its 100th Falcon rocket launch, bad Texas weather forced the company to abort its second Starship hop test of the month.

Since that abort, SpaceX’s near-term Starship test plans have begun to solidify, offering a clearer picture of what to expect over the next week or two. Pending better weather at its Boca Chica, Texas test facilities, Starship serial number 6 (SN6) is still first in line and has been preparing for its hop debut ever since the prototype completed a Raptor engine static fire test on August 23rd.

Measuring approximately 30m (~100 ft) tall, SN6 is a full-scale Starship tank and engine section – the bottom ~60% and business end of the reusable orbital spacecraft. Of course, SpaceX has a ways to go before Starship is actually ready for its first orbital test flight, let alone reuse after such a test flight, but the company did take its biggest step yet towards that lofty ambitions with Starship SN5’s successful August 4th hop debut.

Effectively twins, Starship SN5 and SN6 have since been expected to take turns completing “several” hops to improve SpaceX’s familiarity with Starship launch operations and work towards a smooth procedure that can be completed multiple times per day. With SN6 now scheduled to hop no earlier than 8am CDT (UTC-5), September 3rd, 29 days after SN5’s debut, SpaceX still has its work cut out for it.

(SpaceX)

Nevertheless, SN5’s 150m (~500 ft) hop was the first flight of any kind for a full-scale Starship prototype, as well as the first use of an entirely new landing leg design and Raptor’s first flight in almost a year. In the history of rocket development, there is no precedent for launching and landing a prototype rocket and then repeating the same test with an entirely new prototype less than a month later.

Additionally, most of the 29 days since SN5’s first hop have been spent preparing Starship SN6 for a crucial “cryo proof” qualification test. Had that cryo proof been completed before SN5’s hop debut, SN6 could have been ready to fly as few as ~10 days later. That still leaves SpaceX a long ways away from multiple Starship hops per day but does offer encouragement that flight-proven Starship SN5 could be ready for its second hop not long after the pad is clear.

Starship SN5 awaits its second hop, August 29th. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)

However, it appears that SpaceX instead plans to follow up SN6’s hop debut with a new ‘test tank’ meant to demonstrate an upgraded Starship “thrust puck” built out of a different steel alloy. Known as Starship SN7.1, the test will follow on the heels of a more traditional tank (SN7) that completed a record-breaking pressure test in June 2020 and proved that Starship would likely be better off with a different steel alloy.

While SN7 was a basic test tank (two domes and a few steel rings), SN7.1 adds a skirt section at its base and replaces the aft dome with a thrust dome. Likely built entirely out of a steel alloy closer to 304L than the 301 SpaceX has used for all prior Starship prototypes, that thrust dome features a new ‘thrust puck’ – the structural element Raptor engines attach to and transmit their thrust through.

Advertisement
-
SN6’s thrust section, June 3rd. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
SN8’s upgraded thrust section, August 15th. SN7.1’s is believed to be identical and will be tested first. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
SpaceX has already installed a new launch mount – including a Raptor thrust simulator – for test tank SN7.1. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)

Unlike past single tank tests, SN7.1 will be put through something more like a full prototype’s cryo pressure test. SN7.1 will be installed on a launch mount, allowing its skirt clamps to firmly secure the prototype to the stand, itself secured to a concrete slab on the ground. That launch mount also allows SpaceX to install a hydraulic ram designed to mechanically simulate the thrust of 1-3 Raptor engines without the risk involved in an actual static fire. SN7.1 is scheduled to begin testing no earlier than (NET) 8 am CDT (UTC-5), September 6th – just three days after SN6’s next planned hop attempt.

Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.

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

Elon Musk

Elon Musk says SpaceX would not exist if this crucial early launch failed

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX

Elon Musk recently restated a fact that still defines SpaceX’s origin story: if Falcon 1’s fourth launch had failed, the company would not exist. The comment answered a reminder that after three consecutive losses, SpaceX had money for only one more attempt.

On X, Peter Diamandis said that the present-day acknowledgement of SpaceX’s success does not discount the rough start the company had. “Almost nobody remembers that Elon’s first rocket failed three times, and there was money for exactly only one more attempt.”

Musk said, “If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist.”

In late 2008, the firm was nearly out of cash. Another failure would have ended payroll, closed the Hawthorne factory, and left the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as unfinished drawings.

The first flight lifted off from Omelek Island on 24 March 2006. Thirty-three seconds later, a corroded aluminum fitting on a fuel line leaked. Kerosene ignited around the Merlin engine, control was lost, and the vehicle came apart. The small DARPA payload, FalconSAT-2, survived the short flight only to land on a storage shed near the pad. Investigators later traced the fitting to a materials mix-up that should never have reached the rocket.

Flight 2, on 21 March 2007, looked far better at first. The first stage burned cleanly and handed off to the Kestrel-powered upper stage. The vehicle crossed 100 kilometers and reached a peak of about 289 kilometers. Then propellant slosh in the second-stage tank started a circular coning motion that grew until the engine shut down. Telemetry faded as the stage tumbled, and SpaceX had reached space but not orbit. Over the next year, the team redesigned everything from the ground up, including tanks, baffles, and the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C.

That engine flew on Flight 3 on 2 August 2008. The first stage performed almost perfectly and reached 217 kilometers. After main-engine cutoff, leftover fuel in the cooling channels produced a faint residual thrust, roughly 10 pounds per square inch of chamber pressure. On a Texas test stand, the effect was invisible beneath ambient air pressure. In vacuum it was enough to push the spent first stage back into the second stage after separation. The stages collided, the upper stage spun, and the mission was lost. Musk later said a slightly longer delay before staging would have saved the flight.

Six weeks later, the team assembled Flight 4 from remaining parts and flew it on 28 September 2008 at 23:15 UTC. The payload was Ratsat, a 165-kilogram aluminum mass simulator built in-house. Staging was delayed so residual thrust could decay. The Kestrel ignited, the fairing split away, and nine and a half minutes after liftoff the vehicle was in orbit. After a coast, the second stage restarted, settling into a 621-by-643-kilometer path at 9.35 degrees inclination. Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach Earth orbit. Musk called the insertion “middle of the bull’s-eye.”

SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success

That success unlocked NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services award later that year. Without it, there would have been no Falcon 9, no reusable first stages, and no Dragon cargo or crew flights to the International Space Station. Launch prices would have remained far higher. Starlink’s constellation would not exist; broadband from low Earth orbit would still be a paper concept.

Ride-share markets, high launch cadence, and the current pace of lunar and Mars hardware would be years behind. Communications, Earth observation, and the cost of putting anything into space would look more like the 2000s than the 2020s.

One extra second of residual thrust in August 2008 would have written a different decade.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla surges Robotaxi fleet ahead of Cybercab launch event

Tesla’s unsupervised robotaxi fleet quietly grew sevenfold in three weeks just before Cybercab Day arrives.

Published

on

By

Tesla’s unsupervised Robotaxi fleet has grown far faster than the public numbers suggested, and the timing lines up with the company’s biggest autonomy showcase yet. According to data compiled by the crowdsourced Robotaxi Tracker, Tesla now has nearly 200 vehicles operating without a safety monitor across Austin, Dallas and Houston, yielding a roughly 7X increase in about three weeks.

The jump lands four days before this week’s Tesla Cybercab launch event in Austin, where the company plans to show off its purpose-built, two-seat robotaxi with no steering wheel or pedals in a live commercial setting for the first time. Stick with us on X and Facebook for live reporting from the event.

The strategic logic is straightforward. Tesla has spent the past year scaling Robotaxi in small, deliberate steps, first widening geofences, then extending operating hours, then quietly growing fleet size, usually with little advance notice. Ashok Elluswamy told investors on the Q2 earnings call that the program had logged more than 380,000 unsupervised miles with zero notable incidents, a safety record the company has leaned on to justify moving slowly. Critics have used the flip side of that caution, a fleet that appeared stuck around two dozen vehicles for months, as evidence that Tesla’s driverless ambitions were outrunning its actual deployment.

A fleet quietly scaling to nearly 200 vehicles right before Cybercab Day undercuts that argument without Tesla having to say anything about it directly. It also sets up the event to do double duty. Rather than simply introducing new hardware, Tesla can point to an operating base of unsupervised Model Ys already running at meaningful scale, then argue the Cybercab, which uses the same underlying Full Self-Driving stack according to earlier coverage of the fleet’s software upgrades, is a natural next steps. Tesla has separately been registering the two-seat Cybercabs with Texas regulators this week, with the count climbing from seven to 45 in a matter of days.

The two ramps, one in software-driven Model Y deployment and one in physical Cybercab registrations, are happening in parallel rather than in sequence. That suggests Tesla wants Thursday’s event to land as proof that the robotaxi business is already running at scale, not just a reveal of a new vehicle shape. Whether the unsupervised numbers hold up once Cybercabs start mixing into the same fleet is the detail worth watching once the event wraps.

Continue Reading

Cybertruck

Tesla Cybertruck windshield protection just got cheaper

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla is lowering the monthly price of its Cybertruck Windshield Protection Plan from $35 to $25. The new rate will apply to the first payment on or after October 1, 2026. Tesla has told subscribers that all other benefits stay the same.

The plan covers unlimited repairs for chips and minor cracks on the front windshield. It also includes one full replacement every 12 months at no extra charge. Additional replacements in the same year carry a $100 deductible. Service is performed with Tesla glass and camera calibration, which matters because Autopilot and Full Self-Driving rely on those lenses behind the windshield.

There is no long-term contract. Coverage applies only to the front glass and does not include collision, vandalism, or weather damage.

The Cybertruck’s large, complex windshield has been more expensive to replace than glass on Tesla’s cars, which is why the pickup started at a higher subscription price. The $10 monthly cut reduces the annual cost from $420 to $300. Tesla has not publicly explained the change. The timing coincides with a year of claims data after the plan was extended to the Cybertruck.

Tesla sells several related protection products as monthly subscriptions through the Tesla app. The Windshield Protection Plan is also offered on other models. Model 3 and Model Y currently cost $16 a month. Those passenger-car rates are unchanged in the latest Cybertruck notice.

The Wheel and Tire Protection Plan covers road-hazard damage such as potholes, nails, and debris. Repairs are unlimited. Each wheel or tire replacement appointment has a $25 deductible. Pricing varies by model and whether the vehicle is a Performance version. Tesla is raising some of those rates on the same October 1 date.

Reported examples include Model 3 Performance moving from $16 to $24 and Model Y Performance from $20 to $24. Cybertruck wheel-and-tire coverage has been listed at $20 a month for the standard configuration.

A separate Luxe Package bundles four years of windshield coverage, wheel-and-tire coverage, and recommended maintenance on certain new Model S, Model X, and Cyberbeast orders, although the Model S and X are now defunct.

Tesla also offers an Extended Service Agreement after the basic vehicle warranty ends. That product covers many Tesla-manufactured parts rather than glass or tires. Together, the plans give owners a menu of targeted, cancel-anytime coverage instead of relying only on auto insurance.

Continue Reading