Connect with us

News

SpaceX wins NASA funds to study a Falcon Heavy-launched Moon lander

Shown here is a somewhat generic NASA visualization of what a modern lunar lander (descent stage) and ascent stage (crew section) might look like. (NASA)

Published

on

NASA has announced a series of awards as part of its 2024 Moon return ambitions, providing up to $45.5M for 11 companies to study lunar landers, spacecraft, and in-space refueling technologies.

Among those selected for studies are SpaceX, Blue Origin, Masten Space, and the Sierra Nevada Corporation, alongside usual suspects like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The chances of NASA actually achieving a crewed return to the surface of the Moon by 2024 are admittedly minuscule. However, with the space agency’s relatively quick three-month turnaround from accepting proposals to awarding studies, those chances of success will at least be able to continue skirting the realm of impossibility for now. In fact, SpaceX believes its Moon lander could be ready for a lunar debut as early as 2023.

https://twitter.com/AscendingNode/status/1129123146186002434

Do the OldSpace Limbo!

Almost exactly 90 days (three months) since NASA released its lunar lander request for proposal (RFP), the 11 US companies selected for awards can now begin mature their designs, concepts of operations, and even build prototypes in a select few cases. At least based on the volume of awards and prototypes funded, the bulk of the $45.5M available for these studies unsurprisingly appears to have gone to Boeing and Lockheed. The duo of military-industrial complex heavyweights have maintained a decades-old stranglehold over NASA’s human spaceflight procurement.

In the last 13 years, the companies – combined – have carefully extracted no less than $35B from NASA, all of which has thus far produced a single launch of a half-finished prototype spacecraft (Orion) on a contextually irrelevant rocket (Delta IV Heavy) in 2014. The SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft remain almost perpetually delayed and are unlikely to complete their uncrewed launch debut until 2021, if not later.

One possible variant of the “Gateway” NASA is trying to set between Earth and the Moon. (ESA)

SpaceX enters the lunar lander fray

“SpaceX was founded with the goal of helping humanity become a spacefaring civilization. We are excited to extend our long-standing partnership with NASA to help return humans to the Moon, and ultimately to venture beyond.”

– SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell

SpaceX was one of the 11 companies to receive NASA funding for a lunar lander-related design study. By all appearances, the company has been analyzing this potential use-case for some time. What they offer is significantly more complex than what NASA’s press release described as “one descent element study”. First and foremost, however, it must be stressed that these NASA funded studies – particularly those relegated to design, with no prototype builds – are really just concepts on paper. The NASA funding will help motivate companies to at least analyze and flesh out their actual capabilities relative to the task and time frame at hand, but there is no guarantee that more than one or two of the 11 studies will translate into serious hardware contracts.

Regardless of the many qualifications, SpaceX’s proposed descent module (i.e. Moon lander) is undeniably impressive. If SpaceX were to win a development contract, the lander would be based on flight-proven Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon subsystems wherever possible, translating into a vehicle that would have significant flight heritage even before its first launch. That first Moon landing attempt could come as early as 2023 and would utilize the performance of SpaceX’s own Falcon Heavy, currently the most powerful rocket in operation.

No renders have been released at this stage but it’s safe to assume that a SpaceX Moon lander would be somewhat comparable to Blue Origin’s just-announced Blue Moon lander, capable of delivering ~6.5t (14,300 lb) to the lunar surface. Rather than hydrogen and oxygen, SpaceX would instead use either Crew Dragon’s NTO/MMH propulsion or base the lander on Falcon 9’s extremely mature liquid kerosene/oxygen upper stage and Merlin Vacuum (MVac) engine.

Impressively, the SpaceX lander would aim for nearly double Blue Moon’s 6.5t payload capability, delivering as much as 12t (26,500 lb) to the surface of the Moon. That payload could either enable an unprecedentedly large crew capsule/ascent vehicle or permit the delivery of truly massive robotic or cargo payloads. Additionally, SpaceX believes that a descent stage with the aforementioned capabilities could potentially double as an excellent orbital transfer stage, refueling tug, and more. The lander would also serve as a full-up testbed for all the advanced technologies SpaceX needs to enable its goals of sustainable, reliable, and affordable solar system colonization.

Falcon Heavy Flight 2. The booster in the middle - B1055 - was effectively sheared in half after tipping over aboard drone ship OCISLY. (Pauline Acalin)
Falcon Heavy Block 5 prepares for its launch debut and the heavy-lift rocket’s first commercial launch, April 11th. Falcon Heavy Flight 2. The booster in the middle – B1055 – was effectively sheared in half after tipping over aboard drone ship OCISLY. (Pauline Acalin)
An extraordinary view of all 27 of Falcon Heavy’s Merlin 1D engines just seconds after ignition and liftoff. (SpaceX)

Time will tell if NASA is actually serious about upsetting the status quo and getting to the Moon quickly and affordably, or if they will instead fall back on well-worn habits shown to minimize results and maximize cost. The White House recently proposed an additional $1.6B be added to NASA’s FY2020 budget, inexplicably choosing to take those funds from the federal Pell Grant system, which helps more than five million underprivileged Americans afford higher education. Regardless of the sheer political ineptitude involved in the proposed funding increase, even $1.6B annually (the WH proposal is for one year only) would be a pittance in the face of the spectacular inefficiencies of usual contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

The telltale sign of which direction NASA’s lunar ambitions are headed will come when the agency begins to award actual development and hardware production contracts to one or several of the proposals to be studied. Stay tuned!

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

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

News

Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges

“Rather than spending billions more on large EVs that now have no path to profitability, we are allocating that money into higher returning areas, more trucks and van hybrids, extended range electric vehicles, affordable EVs, and entirely new opportunities like energy storage.”

Published

on

Credit: Ford Motor Co.

Ford is canceling the all-electric F-150 Lightning and also announced it would take a $19.5 billion charge as it aims to quickly restructure its strategy regarding electrification efforts, a massive blow for the Detroit-based company that was once one of the most gung-ho on transitioning to EVs.

The announcement comes as the writing on the wall seemed to get bolder and more identifiable. Ford was bleeding money in EVs and, although it had a lot of success with the all-electric Lightning, it is aiming to push its efforts elsewhere.

It will also restructure its entire strategy on EVs, and the Lightning is not the only vehicle getting the boot. The T3 pickup, a long-awaited vehicle that was developed in part of a skunkworks program, is also no longer in the company’s plans.

Instead of continuing on with its large EVs, it will now shift its focus to hybrids and “extended-range EVs,” which will have an onboard gasoline engine to increase traveling distance, according to the Wall Street Journal.

“Ford no longer plans to produce select larger electric vehicles where the business case has eroded due to lower-than-expected demand, high costs, and regulatory changes,” the company said in a statement.

While unfortunate, especially because the Lightning was a fantastic electric truck, Ford is ultimately a business, and a business needs to make money.

Ford has lost $13 billion on its EV business since 2023, and company executives are more than aware that they gave it plenty of time to flourish.

Andrew Frick, President of Ford, said:

“Rather than spending billions more on large EVs that now have no path to profitability, we are allocating that money into higher returning areas, more trucks and van hybrids, extended range electric vehicles, affordable EVs, and entirely new opportunities like energy storage.”

CEO Jim Farley also commented on the decision:

“Instead of plowing billions into the future knowing these large EVs will never make money, we are pivoting.”

Farley also said that the company now knows enough about the U.S. market “where we have a lot more certainty in this second inning.”

Continue Reading

News

SpaceX shades airline for seeking contract with Amazon’s Starlink rival

Published

on

Credit: Richard Angle

SpaceX employees, including its CEO Elon Musk, shaded American Airlines on social media this past weekend due to the company’s reported talks with Amazon’s Starlink rival, Leo.

Starlink has been adopted by several airlines, including United Airlines, Qatar Airways, Hawaiian Airlines, WestJet, Air France, airBaltic, and others. It has gained notoriety as an extremely solid, dependable, and reliable option for airline travel, as traditional options frequently cause users to lose connection to the internet.

Many airlines have made the switch, while others continue to mull the options available to them. American Airlines is one of them.

A report from Bloomberg indicates the airline is thinking of going with a Starlink rival owned by Amazon, called Leo. It was previously referred to as Project Kuiper.

American CEO Robert Isom said (via Bloomberg):

“While there’s Starlink, there are other low-Earth-orbit satellite opportunities that we can look at. We’re making sure that American is going to have what our customers need.”

Isom also said American has been in touch with Amazon about installing Leo on its aircraft, but he would not reveal the status of any discussions with the company.

The report caught the attention of Michael Nicolls, the Vice President of Starlink Engineering at SpaceX, who said:

“Only fly on airlines with good connectivity… and only one source of good connectivity at the moment…”

CEO Elon Musk replied to Nicolls by stating that American Airlines risks losing “a lot of customers if their connectivity solution fails.”

There are over 8,000 Starlink satellites in orbit currently, offering internet coverage in over 150 countries and territories globally. SpaceX expands its array of satellites nearly every week with launches from California and Florida, aiming to offer internet access to everyone across the globe.

SpaceX successfully launches 100th Starlink mission of 2025

Currently, the company is focusing on expanding into new markets, such as Africa and Asia.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Model Y Standard stuns in new range test, besting its Premium siblings

Tesla’s newer vehicles have continued to meet or exceed their EPA estimates. This is a drastic change, as every 2018-2023 model year Tesla that Edmunds assessed did not meet its range estimates.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

The Tesla Model Y Standard stunned in a new range test performed by automotive media outlet Edmunds, besting all of its Premium siblings that are more expensive and more luxurious in terms of features.

Testing showed the Model Y Standard exceeded its EPA-estimated range rating of 321 miles, as Edmunds said it is the “longest-range Model Y that we’ve ever put on our loop.” In the past, some vehicles have come up short in comparison with EPA ranges; for example, the Model Y’s previous generation vehicle had an EPA-estimated range of 330 miles, but only drove 310.

Additionally, the Launch Series Model Y, the first configuration to be built in the “Juniper” program, landed perfectly on the EPA’s range estimates at 327 miles.

It was also more efficient than Premium offerings, as it utilized just 22.8 kWh to go 100 miles. The Launch Series used 26.8 kWh to travel the same distance.

It is tested using Edmunds’ traditional EV range testing procedure, which follows a strict route of 60 percent city and 40 percent highway driving. The average speed throughout the trip is 40 MPH, and the car is required to stay within 5 MPH of all posted speed limits.

Each car is also put in its most efficient drive setting, and the climate is kept on auto at 72 degrees.

“All of this most accurately represents the real-world driving that owners do day to day,” the publication says.

With this procedure, testing is as consistent as it can get. Of course, there are other factors, like temperature and traffic density. However, one thing is important to note: Tesla’s newer vehicles have continued to meet or exceed their EPA estimates. This is a drastic change, as every 2018-2023 model year Tesla that Edmunds assessed did not meet its range estimates.

Tesla Model Y Standard vs. Tesla Model Y Premium

Tesla’s two Model Y levels both offer a great option for whichever fits your budget. However, when you sit in both cars, you will notice distinct differences between them.

The Premium definitely has a more luxurious feel, while the Standard is stripped of many of the more premium features, like Vegan Leather Interior, acoustic-lined glass, and a better sound system.

You can read our full review of the Model Y Standard below:

Tesla Model Y Standard Full Review: Is it worth the lower price?

Continue Reading