Connect with us
A different angle of Falcon Heavy Flight 2's liftoff from Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin. (Pauline Acalin) A different angle of Falcon Heavy Flight 2's liftoff from Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin. (Pauline Acalin)

SpaceX

SpaceX preps for Cargo Dragon, Falcon Heavy launches despite setbacks

Published

on

Despite suffering the loss of the first Falcon Heavy Block 5 center core and a catastrophic failure of the first flight-proven Crew Dragon spacecraft in nearly the same week, SpaceX’s core operations continue as usual to prepare for multiple launches in the coming months.

The echoes of the past week’s failures and ‘anomalies’ will undoubtedly ring for months to come but SpaceX now finds itself in a unique situation. Despite the imminent start of a major failure investigation, it appears unlikely – at least for the time being – that it will impact the majority of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches planned for the rest of 2019. Currently on the Q2 2019 manifest are Cargo Dragon’s 17th operational mission (CRS-17), the first operational Starlink launch, Spacecom’s Amos-17 satellite, the Canadian Radarsat Constellation Mission (RCM), and Falcon Heavy’s third launch (STP-2).

Spotted on April 20th, this Falcon upper stage is most likely bound for the launch of either Starlink-1 or Amos-17.

Cargo Dragon – CRS-17

Following an April 20th explosion that destroyed Crew Dragon C201, SpaceX’s next launch – Cargo Dragon CRS-17 – has likely just become the most important in the near-term. Although Crew Dragon shares almost nothing directly in common with Cargo Dragon, both spacecraft still do come from the same lineage, relying on the same propellant and Draco maneuvering thrusters, as well as similar plumbing (excluding SuperDraco pods) and many of the same engineers and technicians.

On the other hand, Cargo Dragon has never suffered a catastrophic anomaly on the ground or in flight, although SpaceX has dealt with a fair share of less serious issues throughout the spacecraft’s operational life. Further, following the August 2017 launch of CRS-12, every CRS mission has launched with a flight-proven Cargo Dragon spacecraft. In fact, it’s quite likely that the CRS-12 Cargo Dragon capsule is the same spacecraft that has been refurbished for CRS-17, as it is currently the only flightworthy capsule to have only flown one orbital resupply mission.

It’s unclear which Falcon 9 booster has been assigned to CRS-17. NASA’s agreement with SpaceX for flight-proven boosters has been predicated on keeping those boosters ‘in-family’, so to speak, meaning that NASA will only accept flight-proven boosters if they have only flown NASA missions. The only booster that currently fits that bill is B1051, previously flown during Crew Dragon’s orbital launch debut on March 2nd, but B1051 has reportedly been assigned to SpaceX’s second Vandenberg launch of 2019 at the customer’s request. CRS-17 will thus likely launch on a new Falcon 9 booster (B1056). There is a chance that Crew Dragon’s catastrophic failure has severely contaminated the Landing Zone area with unburnt MMH and NTO, both of which are extraordinarily toxic to humans in even the tiniest of quantities.

Some launch-related questions may be answered in a NASA media briefing planned for 11am EDT, April 22nd. CRS-17 is scheduled to launch no earlier than 4:22 am EDT (08:22 UTC), April 30th.

Cargo Dragon capsule C113 and its expendable trunk depart the ISS after successfully completing CRS-12, September 2017. (NASA)
CRS-17’s fresh Cargo Dragon trunk is shown here with two major unpressurized payloads, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 3 (OCO-3) and STP-H6, which will investigate communicating with X-rays, among other things. (SpaceX via NASA)

Starlink, Falcon Heavy, and more

Meanwhile, the Falcon upper/second stage (S2) spotted in the tweet at the top of the article serves as evidence of preparations for launches planned in May/June, as do a duo of first stage boosters spied during their own Cape Canaveral arrivals. All that’s missing to round out a busy week of SpaceX transportation is the appearance of one or several payload fairings, although CEO Elon Musk says that the company will try to reuse Falcon Heavy Flight 2’s fairing on the first Starlink launch.

Said Starlink launch – unofficially labeled Starlink-1 – is currently scheduled for liftoff no earlier than mid-May, likely making it the SpaceX mission that will follow CRS-17. The most likely Falcon 9 S1 candidate is the thrice-flown Block 5 booster B1046, a move that would retire risk otherwise transmitted to customers. SpaceX has now flown two separate Falcon 9 boosters (B1046 and B1048) three times without major issue, meaning that the fourth flight of the same booster (and beyond) will be new territory for reuse at some level.

B1046.3 landed aboard drone ship Just Read The Instructions after a successful third launch, December 2018. (SpaceX)
Falcon 9 B1048 returned to Port Canaveral on Feb. 24 after the rocket’s own third successful launch and landing. (Tom Cross)

Beyond Starlink-1, SpaceX has the communications satellite Amos-17 and Radarsat Constellation Mission (RCM), both of which are understood to be targeting launch no earlier than (NET) early June. Finally, Falcon Heavy Flight 3 – carrying the US Air Force’s STP-2 mission – is scheduled to launch NET June 22nd, although some additional delays are probable.

From a business-as-usual perspective, the fact that Crew Dragon C201 failed during intentional testing on the ground means that it will likely be SpaceX’s least commercially disruptive failure yet. This could change for any number of reasons, depending on the conclusions drawn by the joint NASA-SpaceX investigation soon to begin, and it’s far too early to draw far-reaching conclusions. Chances are good that the impact to non-Crew Dragon launches will be minimal but only time will tell as SpaceX begins to quite literally pick up the pieces and start a deep-dive analysis of all data gathered from Saturday’s failure.

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

Tesla gives the Roadster an official “Go for launch” demonstration date

Tesla teased an October 1 Roadster reveal, reviving years of delayed SpaceX thruster hover promises.

Published

on

By

Concept rendering of a Tesla Roadster with SpaceX Package via Grok
Concept rendering of a Tesla Roadster with SpaceX Package via Grok

Tesla teased an October 1 event date for its next generation Roadster, posting an image on X Saturday that shows the car lit up like it is sitting on a launch pad, with the date “10.01” stamped across the bottom and the caption “Go for launch.” A countdown clock on Tesla’s Roadster order page now points to the same date, which falls on a Thursday. The company has not said where the event will happen or whether it will be streamed at the moment. Stay with us @Teslarati for live updates.


Tesla has since sent formal invitations to reservation holders confirming the event will take place in Waco, Texas, about 90 minutes north of its Austin headquarters, based on a digital ticket shared on X by Sawyer Merritt. Tesla did not name the exact venue, though Waco sits close to SpaceX’s McGregor, Texas, rocket test site, previously reported as the planned location for a Roadster thruster demonstration. The invite sets the reveal for 8:30 p.m. Eastern on October 1, requires RSVPs by midnight on September 16, and limits entry to guests 21 and older. Invitations are non-transferable.

The tease follows nine years of a project defined by unimaginable specs along with slipped dates. Musk first showed the second generation Roadster in November 2017 as a surprise reveal at the end of the Tesla Semi event, promising a 0 to 60 mph time under two seconds, a top speed above 250 mph, 620 miles of range from a 200 kWh battery, and production starting in 2020. At last November’s shareholder meeting, Musk set an April 1 demo date and joked the choice gave him “deniability” if it slipped again, which it did, moving first to late April, then to “a month or so,” then to August.

Tesla Roadster SpaceX Package’s 1.1-second 0-60 mph launch visualized in concept video

Whatever Tesla shows on October 1 is expected to center on the SpaceX developed thruster package Musk has described since 2018. Internally code named A71, a nod to the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird, the system reportedly uses cold gas thrusters fed by a composite overwrapped pressure vessel, the same tank design SpaceX uses on Falcon 9. Musk has said a thruster equipped Roadster could hit 60 mph in about 1.1 seconds under roughly 2.75 g of launch force, well past the 1.9 second figure quoted for the standard car. That version reportedly will not be street legal and has reportedly been discussed as a limited run sold through a track only program.

The standard Roadster is still expected to carry the original $200,000 base price and $250,000 Founders Series tier, both set when Tesla opened $50,000 and $250,000 reservations in 2017. Tesla VP of Vehicle Engineering Lars Moravy has confirmed production will happen at Gigafactory Texas, with Musk targeting 2027 or 2028, 12 to 18 months after whatever the company demonstrates next month.

Continue Reading

News

SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit

SpaceX filed with the FCC for Starship Flight 14, its first true orbital launch attempt.

Published

on

By

SpaceX has asked the Federal Communications Commission for permission to fly Starlink terminals during Starship’s fourteenth flight test, and the filing lays out a genuine trip to orbit, something the program has never attempted.

Every Starship flight so far, including Flight 13’s successful splashdown in the Indian Ocean on July 24, has flown a suborbital arc that ends with the ship reentering the atmosphere within the same hour it launches. The FCC paperwork describes a mission profile built around an actual orbital insertion instead.

The payload is the other half of the story. Flight 13 carried 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, but because that mission never reached orbit, the satellites reentered along with the ship rather than joining the constellation, something Teslarati covered in detail after SpaceX released footage shot from one of those satellites as it drifted away from Starship in space. Flight 14 is designed to close that gap. If the orbital insertion holds, the roughly 20 V3 satellites onboard would separate into an operational orbit and could eventually go into service, each one rated for about 1 terabit per second of downlink capacity by SpaceX’s own account.

SpaceX announces new Starbase for ‘thousands of Starship launches annually’

Elon Musk first flagged the orbital attempt during SpaceX’s August 4 earnings call, the company’s first as a public entity following its June IPO under the ticker SPCX. He also floated catching the ship with the Starbase tower on the same flight, an idea he walked back on August 20, saying the catch attempt would more likely come “in a few months,” as Teslarati reported at the time. Flight 14 will instead target a splashdown for the ship in the Indian Ocean, the same recovery method used since Flight 12.

Hardware has been catching up to the ambition. Booster 21 completed a full 33-engine static fire on August 28, and Ship 41 finished its own six-engine test the week before. An airspace briefing circulated to pilots on August 20 listed September 15 as the target date, later than the end of August window Musk mentioned on the earnings call, though SpaceX has not confirmed a launch date publicly and Starship schedules routinely slip while hardware and FAA paperwork line up.

The FCC filing itself does not guarantee a launch date. It covers communications authority, and not flight readiness, considering SpaceX still needs Ship 41 fully stacked and cleared by the FAA before Flight 14 can fly. But the filing is a real marker of intent and it puts a specific regulatory process behind what had so far only been Musk’s word on the earnings call.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

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

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