LNG: TESLARATI

Speaking in an interview with TIME Magazine’s Jeffrey Kluger, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk telegraphed some clear, latent frustration with US space agency NASA, indicating that quite literally building Starship and landing it on the Moon could be easier than convincing NASA that the company is serious.

Although minor progress has been made in the last six or so months, NASA headquarters – for the most part – still effectively operates as if SpaceX’s next-generation launch vehicle plans do not exist, all while the agency is seriously considering other similarly unproven rockets with years of development remaining. In light of this frustrating inconsistency, Musk has taken to publicly acknowledging that developing, building, and launching Starship completely internally may be an easier (and faster) fight to win than attempting to convince NASA to assist in Starship development or even just be willing to use it as a launch option.

NASA assistance or support could come in any number of forms, ranging from a cost-sharing development contract, a developmental launch contract like the US Air Force’s STP-2 Falcon Heavy mission, or something as basic as publicly expressing support for the SpaceX program and a willingness to launch NASA payloads on it down the road. For now, the closest SpaceX has gotten to public NASA interest in and acknowledgment of Starship is an official Starship render posted by the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC).

In a sign of just how unengaged NASA is, the closest SpaceX’s Starship/Super Heavy vehicle has gotten to an acknowledgment from NASA headquarters is quite literally having an outdated BFR render subtly included in a few slideshows and documents published less than two months ago (late May 2019).

Ironically, despite the fact that Starship – first and foremost – is designed to be a giant, human-rated reusable spacecraft nominally capable of carrying dozens of astronauts into space and back, the US military appears to have been far more receptive to Starship. This is despite the fact that a BFR-heavy bid may have cost SpaceX a development contract last year. Even with the challenges such an ambitious vehicle poses, the US Department of Defense is still interested in at least discussing potential use-cases and providing input that might influence SpaceX’s final design.

Speaking in September 2018, CEO Elon Musk indicated SpaceX’s BFR (now Starship/Super Heavy) program was likely to cost ~$5B – no less than $2B and no more than $10B. However, this answer – provided off the cuff as a response to a reporter’s question – was almost certainly directed at BFR prior to a radical move from carbon composite structures and tanks to stainless steel. Since then, Musk has made some radical claims about the potential of an efficient, stainless-steel rocket, indicating that it could actually cost less to build than Falcon 9 – a far smaller rocket with a fraction of the performance.

In other words, if the potentially low cost of the vehicle itself also translates to a low development cost, SpaceX could quite feasibly develop Starship/Super Heavy from scratch with nothing more than traditional investment rounds. In the first half of 2019 alone, SpaceX has raised more than $1B in funding through three separate rounds, all of which have been described by Musk and other executives as “oversubscribed” – the demand for SpaceX equity far outstrips supply.

“If it were to take longer to convince NASA and the authorities that we can do it versus just doing it, then [SpaceX] might just do it [ourselves]. It may literally be easier to just land Starship on the moon than try to convince NASA that we can.”
— Elon Musk, July 12th, 2019, via TIME Magazine

As such, unless NASA’s attitude undergoes rapid changes, SpaceX may simply leave the agency behind when it comes to space exploration beyond low Earth orbit. In the event that quite literally developing, building, and launching a giant, stainless steel rocket and spaceship is faster, more efficient, and less disruptive than trying to convince NASA to get its foot in the door, SpaceX might have to forge its own path. If SpaceX can raise enough funding to develop its next-generation rocket independently, what comes next is anyone’s guess.

Ultimately, Musk believes that SpaceX can make that Starship Moon landing happen as few as two years from now, with the first crewed landing potentially coming as few as one or two years after that. All told, this ambitious timeline would see SpaceX land humans on the Moon – perhaps entirely commercially – as early as 2022 or 2023.

Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes.

SpaceX’s Starhopper appears to have come out the other end of an eventful night of fires, fireballs, and Raptor testing completely unscathed, although – as with all things rocketry – there is vastly more than meets the eye.

However, signs point towards Starhopper being almost entirely unharmed by its brief voyage inside a fireball – even if Boca Chica’s fire suppression system got a thorough workout and many a SpaceX onlooker likely suffered a partial heart attack. For the time being, it’s safe to assume that Starhopper’s planned flight activities have been indefinitely delayed as SpaceX technicians analyze the vehicle and engineers work to mitigate or completely prevent major fires from recurring.

According to NASASpaceflight.com’s well-informed sources, despite the spectacular fireworks that followed Raptor’s own impressive display, the engine’s static fire test was a full success – at least in terms of data produced by the engine. The large fireball was attributed to the ignition of a large methane vent that followed soon after Raptor’s shutdown.

For now, this means that Starhopper’s untethered flight test and hover test debut should not be expected to occur for several days, even in the event that the rocket, pad, and Raptor engine all made it through their July 16th ordeal completely undamaged. If there is zero damage, this accident will serve as an unfortunate but useful demonstration of a true stainless steel rocket’s theoretically exceptional sturdiness and heat resistance.

Despite suffering what looked like a serious fireball-related anomaly, #Starhopper appears to have been refueled and is visibly venting while the flare stack burns off excess methane. Very good sign that the issue looked worse than it is. Via @labpadrehttps://t.co/sOHShoRByb pic.twitter.com/cs6FSMcZ0T

— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 17, 2019

It may seem more than a little ironic, but it’s likely less than a coincidence. If it comes to fruition as a truly functional, orbit-capable steel rocket, spaceship, and upper stage, Starship/Super Heavy will exist in their shiny, steel forms almost entirely because of the unintuitive tradeoffs that could theoretically make heat-resistant-but-dense steel more efficient than a ship built out of ultra-light carbon composites. If Starhopper’s newly demonstrated resilience is anything to go by, a very happy side-effect of that efficient, heat-resistant steel could be an almost unprecedented resilience in the face of serious fires, fireballs, and other fire-related anomalies.

For almost any other rocket, exposure – at least outside of the engine section – to large fireballs and quite literally having parts burning while motionless on the ground are deeply, deeply worrisome things and risk a major vehicle malfunction – potentially up to and including a catastrophic failure (i.e. explosion). ULA’s Delta IV rocket family is famous for self-immolating during ignition and liftoff, a minimal concern to the rockets’ thin, aluminum tankage thanks to several inches of thick, fire-retardant foam insulation.

For a rocket like Falcon 9, almost entirely (by surface area) composed of thin, aluminum propellant tanks and carbon composite structures, there is a constant struggle to balance the vehicle’s extreme performance with the low melting point of its primary structures (~720 degrees C). The 301-series stainless steel Starhopper and Starship(s) are built out of has a melting point of ~1400 degrees C, nearly double aluminum-lithium alloys.

In short, while it boggles the mind and is decidedly unintuitive to anyone who watched July 16th’s live coverage of the static fire, it’s actually not a huge surprise that Starhopper has suffered serious fire-related anomalies with essentially zero visible damage. In fact, it’s almost impossible to tell that anything at all happened, let alone discerning some subtle sign(s) of damage incurred by fires. It may sound ironic to say so, but rockets and fire just do not tend to like each other much at all.

Time will tell if Starhopper and Raptor are in as good a condition as they appear to be.

Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes.

Rivian’s CEO RJ Scaringe has teased Jurassic Park-style self-driving tours with the company’s all-electric R1T pickup truck and R1S SUV several times now, but specific details on the car maker’s autonomy approach have been few and far between. Oliver Jeromin, Rivian’s Associate Director of Self-Driving, recently shed some light on the matter during an interview with TechCrunch.

“We want to embrace the challenge,” Jeromin said in response to a question over Rivian’s goal of bringing Level 3 autonomous driving to its vehicles versus other approaches. “There are mobility companies that are working on Level 4, and they’re looking at it kind of from the top down, coming from 4 or 5 for more fleet applications possibly… We want to get a feature into our customers hands sooner than possibly some of those other systems might be fully vetted,” he said.

Rivian’s electric lineup will enable this type of self-driving capability using a suite of cameras, radar, ultrasonic sensors, high-precision GPS technologies, and two cleverly-placed LiDAR. Such features are similar to those found in Tesla’s cars for the same purpose; however, where the two companies differ at the moment is notable. Rivian’s system is being developed to have a two-part monitoring system determining its full self-driving suite’s behavior based on driver input rather than a single requirement for hands to be on the steering wheel.

“We’re building a driver-monitoring system so it’s not just one sensor like a torque input sensor – like if a driver actually wants to disengage the longitudinal and lateral controller,” Jeromin explained. “There going to be a driver-monitoring camera, and there’s also going to be hands-on wheel sensors.”

In other words, Rivian’s full self-driving system will ignore driver input unless it is determined to be intentional. A Level 3 self-driving system can handle most aspects of driving, so if a driver wants their vehicle to behave differently than its programming is carrying out, the car will use the camera and sensors in the cabin to determine whether to proceed. If, say, the wheel is bumped from the driver shifting around in their seat for some reason, the safety procedures will know it was an accident.

“It’s really trying to determine the driver’s intention because if…you inadvertently give the steering input to the steering controller…the driver monitoring camera will see that you’re not looking at the road, and you also don’t have both hands on the wheel,” Jeromin clarified. “So, we’ll have to ignore that input from the human to understand that they’re not intending to change lanes. They’re actually just doing something else while the vehicle is in control.”

Tesla has also installed cameras to monitor activity in vehicle cabins, but the purpose isn’t exactly to monitor the driver’s intentions. Rather, Tesla Network passengers will be recorded to ensure any damages caused can be remedied. “It’s there for when we start competing with Uber/Lyft & people allow their car to earn money for them as part of the Tesla shared autonomy fleet. In case someone messes up your car, you can check the video,” CEO Elon Musk replied on Twitter to a Tesla owner’s inquiry about the tiny camera inside the rear view mirror. “Also, it can be used to supplement cameras on outside of vehicle, as it can see through 2nd side windows & rear window…Only external cameras are being used right now, so internal is not enabled. When it is enabled, we’ll add a setting to disable internal camera.”

As Rivian continues to develop its manufacturing process to bring the R1S and R1T to market, it will be interesting to also see what differences and similarities the car maker will have with other companies working on full self-driving vehicle software. Tesla has billions of miles in Autopilot-driven customer data to use for training of its self-driving program, so perhaps Rivian will eventually share its plan to close the gap.

Watch TechCrunch’s full interview with Rivian’s staff below:

SpaceX has (partially) ignited Starhopper’s freshly-installed Raptor engine, successfully verifying that the engine is ready for its next major test: a full ignition and static firing. Although successful, SpaceX still has some work to do before the vehicle is ready for its first untethered flight(s).

July 15th’s progress is just the latest in a several day-series of preflight tests designed to reduce the likelihood that Starhopper is destroyed over the coming days and (hopefully) weeks. If all goes planned during the awkward Starship prototype’s first foray into hover tests, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has stated that he will provide an official presentation updating the public on the status of the company’s ever-changing next-generation rocket.

The past week or so of Starhopper preflight testing began with Raptor serial number 6 (SN06) completing the last of a series of acceptance test fires in McGregor, Texas on June 10th. Even on its own, this was a major milestone for the new SpaceX engine: Raptor SN06 was the first of the new, full-scale engines to pass the acceptance test program with flying colors. According to Musk, for the engine to complete those tests so successfully, SpaceX had to solve a challenging bug in which some sort of mechanical resonance (i.e. vibration) damaged or destroyed Raptors SN01-05.

Hours later, the engine began a short ~450 mi (720 km) journey south to Starhopper, located in Boca Chica, Texas. The engine arrived on July 11th and was fully installed on Starhopper by the following evening (July 12th), at which point SpaceX put Starhopper and Raptor through some mild but valuable thrust vector controller (TVC) tests, wiggling the car-sized engine to ensure it can accurately steer the prototype rocket.

Around two days after the above ‘wiggle’ test was successfully completed, SpaceX moved into the next stage, partially fueling Starhopper with liquid methane and oxygen propellant and helium pressurant in what is known in rocketry as a wet dress rehearsal (WDR). The (implicitly) successful WDR was capped off with a duo of what can now safely be concluded were some sort of Raptor test preceding even pre-ignition operations. Whatever the tests were, they appear to have been completed successfully.

That appears to be the case because less than 24 hours after their completion, on July 15th, SpaceX once again began loading Starhopper with propellant and pressurant for a second round of wet testing. This time around, SpaceX got right into more critical Raptor tests once enough propellant was loaded, igniting the engine’s interwoven oxygen and methane preburners.

Previously discussed 24 hours ago in a Teslarati article focused on Raptor wiggles and other miscellaneous tests, Raptor is an extremely advanced rocket engine based on a cycle (i.e. how propellant is turned into thrust) known as full-flow staged combustion.

“In a staged-combustion engine like Raptor, getting from the supercool liquid oxygen and methane propellant to 200+ tons of thrust is quite literally staged, meaning that the ignition doesn’t happen all at once. Rather, the preburners – essentially their own, unique combustion chambers – ignite an oxygen- or methane-rich mixture, the burning of which produces the gas and pressure that powers the turbines that bring fuel into the main combustion chamber. That fuel then ignites, producing thrust as they exit the engine’s bell-shaped nozzle.

Unintuitively, conditions inside the preburner – hidden away from view – are actually far more intense than the iconic blue, purple, and pink flame that visibly exists Raptor’s nozzle. Much like hot water will cool while traveling through pipes, the superheated gaseous propellant that Raptor ignites to produce thrust will also cool (and thus lose pressure) as it travels from Raptor’s preburner to its main combustion chamber. If the pressure produced in the preburners is too low, Raptor’s thrust will be (roughly speaking) proportionally limited at best. At worst, low pressure in the preburners can trigger a “hard start” or shutdown that could destroy the engine. According to Elon Musk, Raptor’s oxygen preburner thus has the worst of it, operating at pressures as high or higher than 800 bar (11,600 psi, 80 megapascals).”

In full-flow staged combustion (FFSC), even more complexity is added as all propellant that touches the engine must necessarily end up traveling through the main combustion chamber to eke every last ounce of thrust out of the finite propellant a rocket lifts off with. As such, FFSC engines can be about as efficient as the laws of physics allow any given chemical rocket engine to be, at the cost of exceptional complexity and brutally difficult development.

Additionally, FFSC physically requires two separate preburners and then makes things even harder by making each separate preburner (methane and oxygen) depend on each other’s operation for the engine to fully ignite. This means that no individual preburner can be used to kickstart Raptor – instead, SpaceX must somehow spin the turbopumps that feed propellant into each preburner with some separate system. This is all just to emphasize the fact that Raptor’s ignition sequence is a spectacularly complex orchestra of valves, spark plugs, sensors, and magic. This is why it’s valuable for Raptor to test its preburner system independently of an actual ignition test, at least as long as the engine is still in the development stages.

According to NASASpaceflight.com managing editor Chris Bergin, what this practically translates to is a minor Starhopper hover test delay of 1-2 days, while the static fire has also been pushed roughly 24 hours from July 15th to July 16th. If that full static fire produces lots of happy data, Starhopper could be cleared for a hover test debut attempt as early as Wednesday or Thursday (July 17/18).

Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes.

The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) is perhaps just a few weeks (maybe days) away from attempting to place the country in the history books, hopefully setting India up to become the fourth nation on Earth – after the Soviet Union, United States, and China – to successfully soft-land on the Moon.

Known as Chandrayaan-2, the mission seeks to simultaneously launch a lunar orbiter, lander, and rover, altogether weighing nearly 3900 kg (8600 lb) at liftoff. If successful, the trio of spacecraft will remain integrated for about two months as the orbiter slowly raises its Earth orbit to eventually intercept and begin orbiting the Moon. Although originally expected to launch on Sunday, July 14th (July 15th local time), a bug with the Indian-built launch vehicle’s upper stage has pushed Chandrayaan-2 outside its original launch window, which ended today (July 16th). Depending on the complexity of the mission profile ISRO is using, the delay should be no more than a few days to a few weeks before the next launch window opens.

Editor’s note: Following ISRO’s July 15th scrub, the Chandrayaan-2 Moon lander mission has been rescheduled for launch no earlier than (NET) 2:43 pm local time, July 22nd (2:13 am PDT/9:13 UTC, July 23rd).

Fourth to the Moon (in one piece)

• All the way back in 1966, the Soviet Union (USSR) became the first to successfully soft-land an uncrewed spacecraft on the Moon with a mission known as Luna-9. Some four months after the momentous achievement, the United States became the second, safely landing Surveyor-1 on the Moon in June 1966.
  • At the height of the space race, huge amounts of money was being funneled into these milestones, permitting the companies, institutions, and space agencies building, launching, and operating the individual missions to almost throw hardware at the metaphorical wall until something stuck. With the Soviet space program, this involved 17 failures, two successes, and one partial success in the first 7 years of the Luna initiative, culminating in Luna 9’s successful landing in February 1966.
  • The US had three major separate programs known as Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, and Surveyor, the former of which was meant to simply fly past or impact the Moon to acquire detailed photos of its surface. Ranger suffered five consecutive failures and one partial failure before three full successes, while Orbiter was a complete success (5/5) and Surveyor failed only 2 of 7 attempts.
• Ultimately, this little snippet of history is simply meant to emphasize the utterly different approaches of those pathfinder programs relative to modern exploration efforts. In the case of ISRO’s Chandrayaan-2, failure would likely mean several years of delays before the next possible attempt – there is no concurrent (verging on mass-) production of multiple spacecraft like there was with Surveyor and Luna.
• Just shy of 50 years after the back-to-back first and second soft landings of Luna-9 and Surveyor-1, China became the third nation on Earth to successfully soft-land on the Moon with its 2013 Chang’e-3 mission, featuring a lander and rover. This was followed by Chang’e-4 in 2018, which continues to successfully operate 8 months after achieving the first successful soft-landing on the far side of the Moon.
• Finally, just several months ago, private company SpaceIL – supported by Israeli aerospace company IAI – attempted (albeit unsuccessfully) to make Israel the fourth country to land on the Moon.

Indian spacecraft, Indian rocket

• This finally brings us to Chandrayaan-2, what can only be described as a continuation of a recent resurgence in interest and serious robotic exploration of the Moon. Once it launches, the mission will take roughly 56 days to get into position for an attempted soft-landing. Prior to landing, the orbiter – in a circular, 100-km (62 mi) lunar orbit – will actively scout the intended landing site with a high-resolution ~0.3m/pixel camera to help the lander avoid any dangerous terrain.
• Once complete, the lander – carrying a tiny, ~27 kg (60 lb) rover – will begin its deorbit and landing maneuvers, hopefully culminating in a successful, gentle landing near the Moon’s South pole.
  • Sadly, the Vikram lander and Pragyaan rover have an expected life of just one lunar day after landing, translating to ~14 Earth days or ~340 hours. This is a strong indicator that the Chandrayaan-2 landing component was not designed to survive the ultra-cold and harsh lunar night, also ~14 Earth days long.
  • This isn’t much of a surprise, as surviving the lunar night is a whole different challenge that is rarely worth the hardware, effort, and funding required until the first prerequisite – a soft landing on the Moon – has been successfully demonstrated.
• A follow-up mission known as Chandrayaan-2 has already been proposed and would likely permit far lengthier exploration of the lunar south pole if India and launch partner Japan choose to move forward with it.

• Chandrayaan-2 will be launched on an Indian-built Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) Mk III-D2 rocket, the most powerful rocket in India’s arsenal. Although GSLV Mk III weighs significantly more than SpaceX’s
• Falcon 9 when fully fueled (640 metric tons to F9’s 550), the rocket is almost a third less capable to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) – 8000 kg to F9’s ~23,000 kg.
• However, thanks to the development of an efficient liquid hydrogen/oxygen (hydrolox) upper stage and engine, the rocket comes into its own when dealing with its namesake – geostationary (i.e. high-altitude) satellite launches. To GTO, GSLV Mk III is reportedly capable of launching at least 4000 kg, almost half of Falcon 9’s expendable performance and almost 75% as much as Falcon 9 with booster landing.
• Even more impressive is the cost: ISRO purchased a block of 10 GSLV Mk III rockets in 2018 for roughly $630M, translating to ~$63M per rocket, nearly equivalent to Falcon 9’s own list price of $62M. This places GSLV Mk III around the same level as Russia’s Proton-M rocket in terms of a cost-to-performance ratio, still second to Falcon 9 in most cases. GSLV Mk III has only launched three times (all successful) since its 2014 debut and Chandrayaan-2 will be its fourth launch.