News
What’s causing SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy delays?
Although uncertainty in the schedule remains, SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket appears to be nearly ready for its first engine ignition test (called a ‘static fire’) sometime within the next week or so.
An attempt at 1 PM EST today, January 16, was canceled for unspecified reasons, although Kennedy Space Center reportedly maintained the usual roadblock to prevent vehicles from driving past, implying that SpaceX still intends to conduct propellant loading tests with Falcon Heavy. It was noted earlier this morning by spaceflight journalist Chris Bergin that things were “a bit too quiet” if a test was indeed planned for today, and his intuition appears to have been correct. It still remains the case that Falcon Heavy is an experimental and untested rocket to an extent, and these delays are to be expected as SpaceX works out the inevitable kinks and bugs that arise during the extensive testing big launch vehicle has been and is still being put through.
KSC is in roadblock stance, so they will still do some testing it would seem, but we will have to wait for the Static Fire itself. https://t.co/DxzsRn85NR
— NSF – NASASpaceflight.com (@NASASpaceflight) January 16, 2018
Due to range requirements in support of an upcoming launch of the United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) Atlas 5 rocket, currently NET Thursday, SpaceX has postponed the static fire of Falcon Heavy without a replacement date. It is unlikely that another attempt will occur before the upcoming weekend, but SpaceX should have at least a solid week of uninterrupted range support once ULA’s launch occurs, hopefully without delay. Godspeed to ULA, in the meantime.
The crazy complexity of rocketry
Most recently, and perhaps somewhat related to Falcon Heavy’s static fire delays, SpaceX completed as many as two complete wet dress rehearsals (WDRs), which saw Falcon Heavy topped off with full tanks of its cryogenic (super cool) liquid oxygen (LOX) and rocket-grade jet fuel (RP-1). In essence, the rocket became equivalent to several hundred tons of carefully stabilized explosive. Nominally, these rehearsals appear entirely uneventful to an outside observer, with little more than ice formation and the occasional bursts of propellant tank vents to suggest that something important is occurring. However, anomalies like the failure of Falcon 9 during the Amos-6 static fire provide a staggering demonstration of just how explosive and sensitive a rocket’s fuel is, and Falcon Heavy has approximately three times the fuel capacity of Falcon 9. Empty, Falcon 9’s mass has been estimated to be around 30 metric tons, a minuscule amount of structure in the face of the more than 500 metric tons of propellant the vehicle carries at liftoff.
These propellant loading tests can also be challenging for reasons aside from their highly explosive nature. Due to basic realities of the physical nature of metal, the predominate ingredient for Falcon 9’s load-bearing structures, metallic structures shrink under extreme cold (and expand under heating). In the case of Falcon 9’s massive 45 meters (150 foot) tall first stage, the scale of this contraction can be on the order of several inches or more, particularly given SpaceX’s predilection towards cooling their propellant as much as possible to increase its energy density. For Falcon 9, these issues (thermodynamic loads) are less severe. However, add in three relatively different first stage boosters linked together with several extremely strong supports at both their tops and bottoms and that dynamic loading can become a fickle beast. The expansion or compression of materials due to temperature changes can create absolutely astounding amounts of pressure – if you’ve ever forgotten a glass bottled drink in the freezer and discovered it violently exploded at some future point, you’ll have experienced this yourself.
With several inches of freedom and the possibility that each Falcon Heavy booster might contract or expand slightly differently, these forces could understandably wreak havoc with the high precision necessary for the huge rocket to properly connect with the launch pad’s ground systems that transmit propellant, fluids, and telemetry back and forth. Information from two reliable Kennedy Space Center sources experienced with the reality of operating rockets, as well as NASASpaceflight.com, suggested that issues with dynamic loads (such as those created by thermal contraction/expansion) are a likely explanation for the delays, further evidenced by their observations that much of the pad crew’s attention appeared to be focused at the base of Transporter/Erector/Launcher (TEL). The TEL base hosts the clamps that hold the rocket down during static fires and launches, as well as the Tail Service Masts (TSMs) that connect with the Falcon 9/Heavy to transport propellant and data to the first stage(s). These connection points are both relatively tiny, mechanically sensitive, and absolutely critical for the successful operation of the rocket, and thus are a logical point of failure in the event of off-nominal or unpredicted levels of dynamic stresses.
-
- The white bars in this photo are half of Falcon Heavy’s seperation mechanism. A number of actuators take the place of the more common solid rocket motors used with vehicles like the Delta IV Heavy. (SpaceX)
-
- Falcon Heavy’s three boosters and 27 Merlin 1D engines on full display. (SpaceX)
-
- Falcon Heavy. Modeled and rendered by NASASpaceflight forum user WBY1984. (WBY1984)
Test, launch, land, repeat.
All things considered, these difficulties demonstrate that even after months (even years) of relentless modeling, testing, remodeling, and retesting, rockets (and especially huge rockets like Falcon Heavy) are immensely complex, and even tiny mistakes can lead the vehicle to stray from its expected behavior. Quite simply, the reality of engineering only truly comes into play once hardware is fully in the loop, and it’s in this state that SpaceX has demonstrated again and again a distinct and elegant ability to learn from their hardware, rather than attempt to salve uncertainty with a neurotic and counterproductive level of statistical analysis, modelling, and documentation. The agile launch company still dabbles in those aspects when beneficial or necessary, but testing comes first in its importance.
The conclusion here, then, is that Falcon Heavy’s delays betray this aspect of SpaceX – a launch company that loves its fans, but also understands the need for cautious testing when it comes to new and untried rocket hardware. Whether Falcon Heavy succeeds or fails, SpaceX will learn from the proceedings, and they will be better off for it (although maybe less so financially…).
Follow along live as launch photographer Tom Cross and I cover these exciting proceedings as close to live as possible.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Instagram
Eric Ralph – Twitter
Elon Musk
Tesla reveals Optimus Academy, where robots teach themselves
Tesla has begun building production quality Optimus robots in Fremont and revealed its training plan.
Tesla has started building Optimus on the high volume line it set up inside its Fremont factory, and the company says the robots coming off it are the first that meet the bar for a real product. “The bots coming off this line are the first production-quality bots that we have manufactured,” Tesla wrote in its third quarter shareholder letter, adding that it has “proven that the current manufacturing process for Optimus is suitable for a commercial product.”
The line sits in space that built the Model S and Model X until this spring. Tesla cleared the old vehicle line in 46 days, as Teslarati reported in July, to make room for robot production sized for one million units a year. On Wednesday’s earnings call, Elon Musk said most of the equipment for that capacity is already in Fremont, with output set to climb toward roughly 20,000 robots a week as the line ramps.
Musk described the ramp as a classic S curve. “The growth of Optimus is an S curve, but the initial curve is a shallow slope,” he said. The team is now refining the robot’s AI, electromechanical design, reliability and service life, and Musk expects that work to be finished by the end of next year, when Tesla plans to start delivering Optimus to outside companies for dangerous, repetitive and around the clock jobs.
The most interesting part of the call was how Tesla plans to teach the robots. Its cars send real driving data back to the AI team from millions of vehicles, but Optimus has no fleet like that yet. “A big difference with Optimus versus the cars is we don’t have this vast fleet of cars from which we can gather training data,” Musk said. Tesla’s answer is an Optimus Academy, where 10,000 to 20,000 robots will practice a wide range of tasks and feed what they learn into the next version of the model. Every unit off the Fremont line becomes a source of that training data.
Smarter hardware is on the way too. Tesla plans to put its AI5 chip into Optimus next year, and Musk said a new Optimus video should arrive within one or two months showing the robot completing tasks driven by AI rather than preprogrammed motions. He took aim at rival humanoid demos that only run scripted routines, saying those would not hold up in the real world.
The supply chain is lining up behind the program. In September, Tesla certified Tuopu, Joyson and Sanhua as mass production partners for Optimus components. A far larger Optimus factory is also rising at Giga Texas, where drone footage from Joe Tegtmeyer showed the steel frame nearing completion, and Musk has pegged that plant’s long term target at 10 million robots a year.
Tesla executives also said Optimus production costs are trending toward the expected manufacturing cost of Cybercab, a sign the robot is being engineered for volume from the start. The hands remain the toughest piece of the design, a point Musk also made at the X Takeover event earlier this month, as Teslarati covered at the time, and that is where much of the current engineering effort is focused.
Elon Musk
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.
Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.
The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.
The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.
Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing
Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.
Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.
The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.
Tesla reveals Optimus Academy, where robots teach themselves
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
