LNG: TESLARATI

Rivian has a lot of excitement built up for its outdoor adventure brand, and alongside the launch of its all-electric R1T pickup truck and R1S SUV, the company also has plans to launch must-have accessories for new vehicle owners. The most notable of these is the extendable kitchen set designed for the R1T gear tunnel which is constructed with environmentally friendly materials that align with Rivian’s sustainability mission.

A close-up look at Rivian’s portable kitchen was recently published by Tech Crunch from their attendance at the Overland Expo West in Flagstaff, Arizona this past May. The car maker had unveiled the cooking companion at the event, and team members were demonstrating the module’s functionality. Part of Rivian’s branding is centered around being part of a sustainable future as an electric vehicle car manufacturer, and with that in mind, the gear tunnel kitchen uses recycled materials in its frame and work surfaces, specifically the brand Richlite, as revealed in the recent video. Richlite is an ultra-durable, heat-resistant blend of recycled paper and resin that has received several sustainability certifications, including Greenguard Certification for low emissions, Rainforest Alliance Certification, and Forest Stewardship Council Certification, per the company’s website.

Another interesting part of Rivian’s portable kitchen is its induction stovetop and electric kettle; both were designed to tuck away into the kitchen’s frame for maximum usability with minimum storage requirements. Drawers with cork inserts that stabilize utensils and cooking supplies while driving are also included in the design. The kitchen set additionally includes a dish drying rack made from bamboo that folds out of a built-in sink. Finally, there’s a 5-gallon water tank to supply any drinking, cooking, or cleaning needs.

Rivian’s R1T gear tunnel kitchen set. | Image: Rivian/Twitter

Rivian’s R1T gear tunnel kitchen set. | Image: Rivian/Twitter

The Rivian R1T with tent attachment. | Image: Rivian/Instagram

After unveiling its kitchen set, Rivian’s social media focused on promoting the accessory to help jog potential customers’ imaginations and inspire trips of their own with food at the forefront. Two company team members documented a trip to Sedona with the R1T truck over Memorial Day weekend highlighting the kitchen specifically along with a tent that attaches to the truck bed. While this newest gear tunnel addition was only meant to be a prototype to interact with the overlanding community and gain feedback for Rivian’s products, its popularity has convinced the company to offer it as a standard accessory available for purchase when the company fully launches its production vehicles.

The Rivian team is currently hard at work bringing the company up to a high-volume manufacturing level for the R1T and R1S. In the meantime, CEO RJ Scaringe has teased a few other environmentally-focused projects underway. At the company’s manufacturing facility in Normal, Illinois, Rivian is planning an on-site food farm for employees in collaboration with local universities. Also, the car maker recently announced an expansion of its partnership with rock climber Alex Honnold via an energy storage project using the company’s expended car batteries for a micro solar grid in Puerto Rico.

Deliveries of the first customer R1T pickup trucks and R1S SUVs are expected to happen at the end of 2020. Scaringe recently estimated that in 2021, Rivian’s estimated first full year of rolling vehicles through the assembly line, approximately 20,000 to 40,000 cars will be made. Until then, preorders are still open on their website.

Documented on Twitch and covered by several local reporters and photographers, an accident at SpaceX’s Florida Starship campus led to a minor fire that reportedly caused $50K-$100K of damage.

Per information disclosed by the Cocoa Fire Department after quickly responding to the fire, this may actually be SpaceX’s second fire at its Florida Starship facilities in recent months, potentially adding up to more than $650,000 in damages. Indicative of scrappy development program skirting the edges of safety, sustainability, and efficiency, SpaceX – as described by company executives – is pushing to get its next-gen Starship/Super Heavy rocket orbital as quickly as possible. These fire(s) serve as a reminder that – especially for something as complex as orbital-class rocket production – that speedy rocket development is a major challenge.

“This afternoon, a small fire occurred at a SpaceX facility in Cocoa, Florida. The fire was contained to a sea van (shipping container) on site and extinguished thanks to the Cocoa Fire Department, which responded within minutes. There were no injuries as a result of the fire, and the cause is under investigation.” – SpaceX, July 8th

Most importantly, just based on a handful of Twitch streams that happened to capture the fire, it was relegated to an on-site shipping container that also appeared to contain the fire. Anything inside the container has likely been rendered into scrap, but SpaceX’s Florida Starship segments have likely escaped without a scratch. It’s unclear what started the fire but the combination of Florida’s extreme heat and humidity, the serious power requirements of steel welding, plasma cutting, and other industrial work, and the scrappy and speed-focused nature of SpaceX’s Starship program are an excellent start.

In a generic example scenario, some miscellaneous packing/construction materials or welding supplies could have been ignited by an electrical short inside the container. Whatever the cause, it can likely be traced back one way or another to human error. In heavy industry, the most common failure modes can be found as managers rush employees and employees have to find ways (often corner-cutting and/or lax safety) to meet unrealistic timelines with a finite workforce and only so many hours in a day. Regardless, the Starship prototype is safe and SpaceX will hopefully learn from this minor mishap and prevent it from reoccurring.

Simultaneously, SpaceX is building a similar but different orbital Starship prototype and operating a lower-fidelity Starhopper test article at its companion Boca Chica, Texas facilities. Any safety-related knowledge learned in Florida will almost certainly be transmitted to Texas, theoretically preventing the same failure mode from reoccurring at any SpaceX facility – not just the one that suffered damage. Each campus is technically competing to build the better orbital Starship prototype as fast as possible, but information will inevitably be shared between the teams if major breakthroughs or safety-critical discoveries are made on the path to orbit.

Ultimately, July 8th’s fire is just a minor setback along the path to the first flights of one or both of SpaceX’s orbital Starship prototypes, hopefully culminating in high-speed, suborbital tests fairly soon and the first Super Heavy-boosted orbital launches in 2020. Stumbles are inevitable for such a complex, envelope-pushing development program – all that matters is that those mistakes are learned from and preempted in the future.

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

NASA has announced that SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket – using a flight-proven booster – will launch the ~300 kg (670 lb) Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) spacecraft no earlier than April 2021.

Intriguingly, IXPE was originally planned to launch on Orbital ATK (now Northrop Grumman’s) Pegasus XL but NASA never followed through with a launch contract. The move to SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket is likely related to the extremely disruptive and expensive launch delays NASA’s Ionospheric Connection Explorer (ICON) spacecraft has suffered at the hands of its Pegasus XL rocket. Capable of launching less than 450 kg (1000 lb) to low Earth orbit, Pegasus XL has been lucky to launch annually over the last decade or so and carries a price tag of no less than $50M-$60M today.

To add to this: NASA says SpaceX can use a previously flown booster on this mission.

IXPE is a small satellite, but this launch contract is less than what NASA paid for for the still-pending Pegasus XL launch of ICON ($56.3M in a 2014 contract). Think about that… https://t.co/sJlWVMHC5c

— Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) July 8, 2019

Small rocket, huge delays

Defying its small size, Pegasus XL was originally scheduled to launch ICON in December 2017. Delayed by unspecified problems with launch vehicle hardware, the mission was pushed back an inexplicable 10 months to October 2018, where additional issues with the rocket again indefinitely scrubbed a launch attempt. In early 2019, the launch was tentatively scheduled for Q2 2019, while – as of July – ICON is not expected to launch before September 2019.

All said and done, in the increasingly unlikely event that Pegasus XL is ready for launch this September, the ICON spacecraft – ready for launch since late-2017 – will have been delayed more than 21 months by problems with the rocket.

Again, for the small-scale performance of Pegasus XL, the rocket still carries a price tag of more than $50M – NASA’s ICON launch contract was valued at more than $56M. Conscious of this, SpaceX has managed to sway NASA to launch the small IXPE spacecraft on a flight-proven Falcon 9 at a cost of just $50.3 million, easily the lowest Falcon 9 launch contract cost ever publicized.

In recent months, SpaceX executives have made comments indicating that Falcon 9’s default base price – likely assuming a flight-proven booster – is now as low as $50M. July 8th’s NASA launch contract is the first direct confirmation of that exceptionally affordable pricing, likely also indicating that the base price for Falcon 9 is even lower for commercial customers with less stringent requirements.

Barring an unexpected contract between now and IXPE’s expected April 2021 launch, the mission will probably be the first time that a dedicated flight-proven SpaceX rocket launches a scientific spacecraft for NASA. SpaceX’s next dedicated NASA launch – the ESA-built Sentinel 6A spacecraft – is scheduled to no earlier than November 2020 and is likely to fly on a new Falcon 9 booster.

In April 2019, NASA awarded SpaceX $69M for Falcon 9 to launch the agency’s Double Asteroid Redirect Test (DART) – an asteroid-impactor spacecraft – no earlier than June 2021. IXME is SpaceX’s second NASA launch contract win of 2019.

According to NASA, “IXPE will fly three space telescopes with sensitive detectors capable of measuring the polarization of cosmic X-rays, allowing scientists to answer fundamental questions about these turbulent environments where gravitational, electric and magnetic fields are at their limits.”

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

According to SpaceX job posts published early this month, the company has already begun the process of looking for the engineer or engineers that will be responsible for preparing both Starship/Super Heavy and its prospective pad facilities for the rocket’s inaugural launches.

Per one of those posts, Starship/Super Heavy’s “initial launch capability” will be achieved at Kennedy Space Center’s historic Launch Complex 39A (also known as Pad 39A), a facility SpaceX has leased since 2014 and launched from since 2017. Originally constructed in the 1960s to support Saturn V, the largest operational US rocket ever built, Pad 39A spent another three decades supporting dozens of Shuttle launches until the latter was also retired, after which SpaceX took over the historic facility. Although SpaceX has specifically discussed plans to ultimately turn its South Texas outpost into a full-fledged orbital launch site, that will be an extremely slow and expensive endeavor and Pad 39A makes sense for several reasons.

Building rocket launch facilities is hard

Even though SpaceX has still tended to aggressively outperform its competitors and peers, the process of building a new launch complex from scratch is extremely challenging. For example, after SpaceX suffered a catastrophic failure of Falcon 9 at Pad 40 (LC-40) in September 2016, the company had to conduct extensive refurbishment and even tacked on some pre-planned upgrades. Still, a large portion of the pad remained intact, including the flame trench (with minor damage), hangar facilities, and more.

Ultimately, it took SpaceX more than 10 months and $50M to repair, rebuild, and upgrade LC-40. The biggest single ticket item was likely the new transporter/erector and its associated launch mount and water deluge system, followed by new plumbing and communications infrastructure throughout the pad. By far the most time-consuming and expensive process, however, is laying a foundation for the launch pad itself, most of which SpaceX was able to skip at Pad 40 after some relatively minor repairs and modifications.

Although Blue Origin is as tightlipped as space startups come, owner Jeff Bezos has indicated that the companies large-scale LC-36 pad – built from a clean slate – was part of an overall investment of “more than $1 billion”. That is split between LC-36, a new factory, and a more general-use campus in and around Cape Canaveral, Florida. Building a factory is even more expensive than launch facilities, so the overall cost of building LC-36 from scratch is likely somewhere between $150M and $300M, although it could be even more expensive.

LC-36 is being built for New Glenn, a rocket that will produce roughly 75% as much thrust as Falcon Heavy and ~25% as much thrust as Starship’s Super Heavy booster at liftoff. This is all to make a simple point: if SpaceX means to do so, building a new Super Heavy-class launch pad at Boca Chica is going to take a bare minimum of a year and $100M+ (assuming Blue Origin has been somewhat inefficient, as usual). SpaceX’s current setup is unambiguously dedicated to far lower-thrust Starhopper (and maybe Starship) test flights, whereas an orbital launch complex capable of surviving Super Heavy liftoffs would be at least 5X larger and involve extensive foundation-laying and far more concrete.

All things considered, it’s thrilling that SpaceX is already in the process of designing and – soon – constructing the launch complex (or add-on hardware) that will support the first suborbital and orbital launches of Starship and Super Heavy. Per the aforementioned Launch Engineer job post, it seems all but certain that visible work at Pad 39A could begin at any moment, regardless of whether SpaceX has plans to subtly modify the existing 39A facilities or build something entirely new within its borders.

According to SpaceX VP of Commercial Sales Jonathan Hofeller, “the goal is to get orbital as quickly as possible, potentially even this year, with the full stack operational by the end of next year and then customers in early 2021.” In short, Starship and Super Heavy-compatible launch facilities are going to be needed at 39A (and, eventually, Boca Chica) far sooner than later. Even if it’s likely that the vehicle development will suffer delays that could push Starship’s orbital launch debut into 2021 or beyond, launch pad design and construction is challenging and slow but still fairly predictable. and it is certainly better to be early than to be late. In short, the next 12 months are going to be wild.

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

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has revealed the latest official photo of the company’s Raptor engine in action and indicated that a major technical issue with vibration appears to have been solved, hopefully paving the way for Starhopper’s first untethered flights.

Partly due to Musk’s own involvement in the program, SpaceX’s propulsion development team have struggled to get any single Raptor engine to survive more than 50-100 seconds of cumulative test fires. According to information from sources familiar with the program, Musk has enforced an exceptionally hardware-rich development program for the first full-scale Raptor engines to such an extent that several have been destroyed so completely that they could barely be used to inform design optimization work. Although likely more strenuous and inefficient than it needed to be, the exceptionally hardware-rich test program appears to have begun to show fruit, with the sixth engine built (SN06) passing its first tests without exhibiting signs of a problem that has plagued most of the five Raptors that came before it.

Resonance: not even once

In his tweet, Musk cryptically noted that a “600 Hz Raptor vibration problem” appears to have been fixed as of SN06’s first few static fire tests since arriving in McGregor, Texas. More likely than not, the self-taught SpaceX executive is referring to the hell that is mechanical resonance in complex machines and structures. Shown below, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge’s 1940 collapse – quite possibly the single most famous civil engineering failure of all time – is an iconic example of the unintuitive power of resonance in complex systems.

When it was inaugurated, the first Tacoma Narrows Bridge was one of the longest suspension bridges ever built and implemented new techniques and technologies that had never been tried at such a large scale. As Grady (Practical Engineer) aptly notes, mechanical resonance – in this case, triggered by consistent winds running through the Puget Sound – simply wasn’t something that period engineers knew they had to worry about. When rapidly pushing the envelope of engineering and construction, the chances of discovering entirely novel failure modes also increases – it’s simply one of the costs of extreme innovation.

Luckily for SpaceX, the company doesn’t have to clash with the immense challenge of testing something as large, complex, and expensive as a suspension bridge. Raptor, Starship, and Super Heavy need not necessarily be perfect on SpaceX’s first try, whereas civil bridges must essentially be flawless on the first try, despite being one of a kind. This is why SpaceX has been chewing through an average of one Raptor engine per month since February 2019 – by testing engines to destruction and aggressively comparing engineering expectations with observed behavior and post-test hardware conditions, rapid progress can (theoretically) be made.

Instead of spending another year or more analyzing models and testing subscale engines and components, SpaceX dove into integrated testing of a sort of minimum-viable-product Raptor design, accepting that the path to a flightworthy, finalized design would likely be paved with one or several dozen destroyed engines. According to Musk, the biggest pressing design deficiency involved a mode of mechanical resonance that may or may not have been predicted over the course of the design process. Dealing with unprecedented conditions, it’s not particularly surprising that some sort of new resonance mode was discovered in Raptor.

For the time being, SpaceX continues to work around the clock to build its first two orbital Starship prototypes (one in Texas, one in Florida), while also outfitting Starhopper and completing any possible engine-less tests in anticipation of the first flightworthy Raptor’s arrival. If Musk’s early analysis proves correct and Raptor SN06 makes it through lengthier static fire tests unscathed over the next week or so, the engine could potentially be delivered to Boca Chica as early as mid-July.

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