Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s second Super Heavy booster might land in Mechazilla’s arms

Published

on

CEO Elon Musk says that SpaceX could attempt to catch a Super Heavy booster out of mid-air with a tower-sized ‘Mechazilla’ robot as early as Starship’s second orbital launch attempt.

Speaking on Twitter just hours after SpaceX installed said Starship launch tower’s first arms, Musk has thankfully answered a question on the minds of many: how many prototype boosters must be expended? In a move that can be only described as unexpected, SpaceX revealed plans to fully expend its first orbital-class Starship and Super Heavy booster pair in May 2021 FCC filings, confirming (or strongly implying) that no true recovery attempts would be made.

Instead, in what could be described as a quasi-orbital debut, SpaceX intends to launch the first two-stage Starship to an altitude of around 200-300 km (TBD). Like many Falcon boosters, Super Heavy will separate a few minutes after liftoff, flip around, and boost back towards the South Texas coast, where it will attempt a soft landing 20 miles offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. Reading between the lines of Musk’s latest info, depending on the results of that ocean landing attempt, SpaceX might attempt to catch the second flightworthy Super Heavy booster on the very next launch.

Heading towards a similar fate, Starship will continue onwards and upwards like a Falcon upper stage. Based on its FCC application, SpaceX seems to have implied that Starship will stop just short of true orbit – traveling slow enough to passively reenter Earth’s atmosphere before completing a full trip around the planet. Of course, it’s possible that SpaceX simply left out plans for an intentional deorbit burn, but it does make sense that the company might try to lock in safeguards for such an ambitious inaugural test flight.

Advertisement

In other words, if Starship were to fail during the ~80 minutes it would spend coasting in space, its launch trajectory design would more or less passively prevent a Russian roulette scenario reminiscent of China’s recent spate of uncontrolled reentries. The feats facing Super Heavy are thankfully a fair bit simpler, though Starship booster recovery does pose its own hurdles.

In an apparent effort to reduce risk, SpaceX intends to fully expend the first flightworthy Super Heavy (potentially Booster 4) and all 29 of its Raptor engines. There will be no attempt at all to land the booster or its one-of-a-kind engines at land or on a sea-based platform – partly because Elon Musk appears to have endeavored to entirely prevent the installation – and, perhaps, the design and assembly – of legs. Instead, in one of the eccentric executive’s less intuitive gambles as of late, SpaceX will entirely dispense of more than half a decade of experience landing 90+ Falcon boosters on legs to attempt to catch Super Heavy boosters out of the air with house-sized arms tacked onto a 145m (~475 ft) tall tower.

The launch tower’s ‘chopstick’ catcher arms (left) and what’s believed to be the carriage (right) they’ll be mounted on are almost ready for installation. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)

No different than a hypothetical landing with legs, Super Heavy will still have to boost back to land, coast, and fire up several Raptor engines for a final landing burn – only on tiny handle-like hardpoints and giant moving arms instead of legs and a concrete pad. If catching boosters eventually proves reliable enough to be a worthwhile reinvention of the wheel, the only apparent benefit of the approach will be a slight reduction in Super Heavy’s dry mass.

According to Musk, though, SpaceX might not have to wait long to find out just how viable a recovery method ‘Mechazilla’ really is and will “hopefully” attempt to catch Super Heavy Booster 5 (B5) after Starship’s second orbital launch attempt. Presumably, that attempt is contingent upon FAA approval and on Booster 4 successfully simulating a smooth, accurate landing in the Gulf, as even a minor issue during a catch attempt could catastrophically damage pad hardware that would take months to repair or replace.

For now, it’s almost impossible to say when Starship S20 and Super Heavy B4 will be ready for their orbital launch debut, as that now lies almost solely in the hands of the FAA. In theory, the FAA could complete environmental reviews and grant SpaceX a launch license as few as two or so months from now. In practice, SpaceX could be forced to sit and wait for at least 6-12 more months. Regardless, SpaceX has already begun assembling and staging sections of Ship 21 and Booster 5, so the company could be ready for an extremely rapid turnaround (and Mechazilla’s first catch attempt) after Starship’s orbital launch debut – whenever that may come.

Advertisement

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

Tesla owners explore potential FSD pricing options as uncertainty looms

We asked Tesla owners what the company should price Full Self-Driving moving forward, as now it’s going to be subscription-based. There were some interesting proposals.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla is starting the process of removing the ability to purchase the Full Self-Driving suite outright, as it pulled the purchase option in the United States over the weekend.

However, there has been some indication by CEO Elon Musk that the price of the subscription will increase as the suite becomes more robust. But Tesla finds itself in an interesting situation with this: the take rate for Full Self-Driving at $99 per month is about 12 percent, and Musk needs a significant increase in this rate to reach a tranche in his new compensation package.

This leaves Tesla and owners in their own respective limbos: Tesla needs to find a price that will incentivize consumers to use FSD, while owners need Tesla to offer something that is attractive price-wise.

We asked Tesla owners what the company should price Full Self-Driving moving forward, as now it’s going to be subscription-based. There were some interesting proposals.

Price Reduction

Although people are willing to pay the $99 per month for the FSD suite, it certainly is too high for some owners. Many suggested that if Tesla would back down the price to $49, or somewhere around that region, many owners would immediately subscribe.

Others suggested $69, which would make a lot of sense considering Musk’s obsession with that number.

Different Pricing for Supervised and Unsupervised

With the release of the Unsupervised version of Full Self-Driving, Tesla has a unique opportunity to offer pricing for different attention level requirements.

Unsupervised Full Self-Driving would be significantly more expensive, but not needed by everyone. Many people indicate they would still like to drive their cars manually from time to time, but others said they’d just simply be more than okay with only having Supervised FSD available in their cars.

Time-Based Pricing

Tesla could price FSD on a duration-based pricing model, including Daily, Weekly, Monthly, and Annual rates, which would incentivize longer durations with better pricing.

Annually, the rate could be $999 per year, while Monthly would stay at $99. However, a Daily pass of FSD would cost somewhere around $10, while a $30 per week cost seems to be ideal.

These all seem to be in line with what consumers might want. However, Tesla’s attitude with FSD is that it is the future of transportation, and with it offering only a Monthly option currently, it does not seem as if it will look as short-term as a Daily pass.

Tiered Pricing

This is perhaps the most popular option, according to what we’ve seen in comments and replies.

This would be a way to allow owners to pick and choose which FSD features they would like most and pay for them. The more features available to you, the more it costs.

For example, if someone only wanted Supervised driving and Autopark, it could be priced at $50 per month. Add in Summon, it could be $75.

This would allow people to pick only the features they would use daily.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla leaves a single loophole to purchase Full Self-Driving outright

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla has left a single loophole to purchase Full Self-Driving outright. On Sunday, the option officially disappeared from the Online Design Studio in the United States, as Tesla transitioned to a Subscription-only purchasing plan for the FSD suite.

However, there is still one way to get the Full Self-Driving suite in an outright manner, which would not require the vehicle owner to pay monthly for the driver assistance program — but you have to buy a Model S or Model X.

Months ago, Tesla launched a special “Luxe Package” for the Model S and Model X, which included Full Self-Driving for the life of the vehicle, as well as free Supercharging at over 75,000 locations, as well as free Premium Connectivity, and a Four-Year Premium Service package, which includes wheel and tire protection, windshiel protection, and recommended maintenance.

It would also be available through the purchase of a Cyberbeast, the top trim of the Cybertruck lineup.

This small loophole would allow owners to avoid the monthly payment, but there have been some changes in the fine print of the program, as Tesla has added that it will not be transferable to subsequent vehicle owners or to another vehicle.

This goes for the FSD and the Supercharging offers that come with the Luxe Package.

For now, Tesla still has the Full Self-Driving subscription priced at $99 per month. However, that price is expected to increase over the course of some time, especially as its capabilities improve. Tesla seems to be nearing Unsupervised FSD based on Musk’s estimates for the Cybercab program.

There is the potential that Tesla offers both Unsupervised and Supervised FSD for varying prices, but this is not confirmed.

In other countries, Tesla has pushed back the deadline to purchase the suite outright, as in Australia, it has been adjusted to March 31.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Sweden’s port deal sparks political clash in Trelleborg

The extension of Tesla’s lease has drawn criticism from the local Social Democratic opposition.

Published

on

Andrzej Otrębski, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Tesla Sweden’s lease agreement at the Port of Trelleborg has triggered a political dispute, with local leaders divided over whether the municipally owned port should continue renting space to the electric vehicle maker amidst its ongoing conflict with the IF Metall union.

Tesla Sweden’s recently extended contract with the Port of Trelleborg has triggered calls for greater political oversight of future agreements.

Tesla has used the Port of Trelleborg to import vehicles into Sweden amid a blockade by the Transport Workers’ Union, as noted in a report from Dagens Arbete (DA). By routing cars via trucks on passenger ferries, the company has maintained deliveries despite the labor dispute. Vehicles have also been stored and prepared in facilities leased from the municipal port company.

The extension of Tesla’s lease has drawn criticism from the local Social Democratic opposition. Initially, the Port of Trelleborg hinted that it would not enter into new agreements with Tesla, but it eventually opted to renew its existing contract with the EV maker anyway.

Advertisement

Lennart Höckert, an opposition councilor, described the port’s decision as a “betrayal of the Swedish model,” arguing that a municipally owned entity should not appear to side with one party in an active labor dispute.

“If you want to protect the Swedish model, you shouldn’t get involved in a conflict and help one of the parties. When you as a company do this, it means that you are actually taking a position and making things worse in an already ongoing conflict,” Höckert said. 

He added that the party now wants politicians to review and approve future rental agreements involving municipal properties at the port.

The proposal has been sharply criticized by Mathias Andersson of the Sweden Democrats, who chairs the municipal board. In comments to local media, Andersson described the Social Democrats’ approach as “Kim Jong Un-style,” arguing that political leaders should not micromanage a company governed by its own board.

Advertisement

“I believe that the port should be run like any other business,” Andersson said. He also noted that operational decisions fall under the authority of the Port of Trelleborg’s board instead of elected officials.

Continue Reading