Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s Starship to return humanity to the Moon in stunning NASA decision

SpaceX - and only SpaceX - has won a competitive NASA contract to land a Starship - and eventually astronauts - on the Moon. (NASA)

Published

on

In one of the biggest NASA contracting surprises in years, the space agency has chosen SpaceX – and only SpaceX – to return humans to the surface of the Moon with its next-generation Starship rocket.

The Washington Post’s Christian Davenport broke the news a few hours before NASA’s scheduled announcement and teleconference, revealing that SpaceX beat out Dynetics and a Blue Origin-led “National Team” for a sole-source contract to build, launch, and land a custom version of Starship on the Moon for $2.89 billion. If that uncrewed testing is successful, SpaceX and Starship will be tasked with landing the first astronauts on the Moon in half a century as early as the in the mid-2020s.

While a Human Landing System (HLS) announcement was fully planned and expected to happen this month, virtually everyone following the process believed that NASA would continue to lean on the rationale behind selecting multiple providers for its Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) and Commercial Crew (CCP) programs. Having multiple distinct providers, spacecraft, and rockets available to accomplish the same tasks fundamentally insulates NASA (and the International Space Station that depends on those programs) from losing the ability to transport crew or cargo in the event that any one provider is delayed or suffers a major failure.

With a goal as complex as landing humans back on the Moon for the first time since the 1970s, redundancy and multiple distinct solutions would obviously be even more desirable. Entirely contrary to expectations, NASA instead announced that it had exclusively contracted with SpaceX alone for next phase of HLS development. Though SpaceX may have been the only competitor already testing something approximating real integrated flight hardware, NASA’s decision to sole-source HLS to Starship represents a significant gamble.

Simultaneously, though, the move is also extraordinarily pragmatic and indicates that one or several major decisionmakers at NASA have taken less positive lessons from its commercial cargo and crew programs to heart. Crucially, over the first several years of the Commercial Crew Program (CCP), Congress systematically underfunded the development of two commercial crew spacecraft – one from Boeing and the other from SpaceX. As a direct result, the launch debuts of both spacecraft were delayed by several years, forcing NASA to to continue relying on Russian Soyuz launches well into the 2020s to get its astronauts to the ISS.

Advertisement

Additionally, SpaceX – an unequivocal underdog and newbie next to Boeing in the mid-2010s – has drastically outperformed its traditional aerospace counterpart, beating Boeing to the punch and launching astronauts first. Boeing’s Starliner is now at least 18 months behind Crew Dragon despite costing almost 60% more.

In its first year on the books, almost mirroring NASA’s Commercial Crew experience, Congress aggressively underfunded the HLS program, allotting $850M – just 25% – of the $3.4B NASA requested. In other words, NASA seems to be proceeding with HLS under the assumption that Congress – as it did with CCP – will continue to chronically underfund the lunar lander program for years to come. If that’s the case, NASA appears to have made an uncharacteristically astute decision to structure HLS not on its preferred budget – but on what the agency believes Congress will pony up.

Put in a slightly different way, NASA is basically telling Congress that its lack of commitment has forced the agency to sole-source its lunar lander contract to SpaceX, putting the impetus on Congress to properly fund the HLS program if it wants redundant providers. All told, while NASA is undoubtedly taking a risk selecting SpaceX and Starship to return both it and humanity to the Moon, the space agency has now made it abundantly clear that it’s fully committed to the program and goal, whether or not Congress is willing to do its job.

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

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.”

Published

on

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.

How to repair your Tesla Model S Door handle (DIY Kit)

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.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla is bailing out Canadian automakers once again: here’s how

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

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.

Continue Reading

Cybertruck

Tesla ditches key Cybertruck charging feature for very obvious reason

“Wireless charging something as far off the ground as the [Cybertruck] is silly.”

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

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.

Continue Reading

Trending