LNG: TESLARATI

SpaceX is T-18 hours to its second Falcon Heavy launch in barely 70 days, set to lift off with the Department of Defense’s Space Test Program-2 (STP-2) rideshare mission no earlier than (NET) 11:30 pm EDT (03:30 UTC), June 24th.

According to SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, STP-2 is without a doubt the company’s “most difficult launch ever”, owing to a multitude of high-stakes performance requirements, US military and NASA oversight, several technical milestones, challenging booster and fairing recoveries, and much, much more. Should SpaceX succeed on all fronts, the company will have taken a massive leap towards being able to offer competitive launch services that can fulfill all of the US government’s many different spaceflight needs.

Prelaunch Appetizers 🍔🚀🍜

• SpaceX set for Falcon Heavy triple booster landing, hottest center core reentry yet
• SpaceX ship Mr. Steven renamed, departs for first Falcon Heavy fairing catch attempt in 7 months

Challenges all the way down

Likely the single most challenging aspect of STP-2 is the performance the mission’s Falcon 9 upper stage will have to deliver. SpaceX describes the challenge below:

“[The STP-2 mission] will deliver 24 satellites to space on the DoD’s first-ever SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch. [It] will be among the most challenging launches in SpaceX history, with four separate upper-stage engine burns, three separate deployment orbits, a final propulsive passivation maneuver, and a total mission duration of over six hours.”
— SpaceX.com/STP-2

According to older USAF documents (STP-2’s original launch target was mid-2015), those numbers could actually rise as high as five separate upper-stage Merlin Vacuum burns and a mission duration of more than 7.5 hours. Given the last-second decision to move Falcon Heavy’s center core recovery from ~40 km offshore to more than 1240 km offshore, it’s fairly likely that five burns and 7.5 hours will be closer to the reality of STP-2. In short, the center core will move from a gentle recovery to what will probably be SpaceX’s hottest and hardest booster recovery ever to transfer as much margin as possible to STP-2’s upper stage.

With regard to that extra spicy reentry, Falcon Heavy center core B1057 – the second Block 5 center core built by SpaceX – is now expected to attempt a landing aboard drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) more than 1240 km (770 mi) off the coast of Florida, potentially smashing the current record of ~970 km (600 mi).

At the same time, fairing recovery vessel GO Ms. Tree (formerly Mr. Steven; renamed due to change in ownership) is steaming hard, heading anywhere from 1400-1600 km into the Atlantic Ocean. Falcon Heavy STP-2 will be the vessel’s first attempted fairing catch since December 3rd, 2018, nearly seven months ago. It will likely crush the previous record for most distant fairing recovery attempt by 50% or more. Whether or not the vessel succeeds and catches its first Falcon fairing(s) ever, it’s exciting to see Ms. Tree (Mr. Steven) out and about for a fairing recovery after months of inactivity.

As always, SpaceX will host an official Falcon Heavy STP-2 livestream, beginning around T-15 minutes and likely lasting at least 1-2 hours as the rocket’s upper stage prepares for a ~7.5-hour orbital marathon.

Want to remember the awesomeness of Falcon Heavy every single day? Consider a limited-edition set of high-quality prints, signed by both Teslarati photographers to commemorate the rocket’s inaugural Starman launch.

New information from both NASA and the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) confirm that SpaceX is currently targeting – at least very tentatively so – Crew Dragon’s first launch with astronauts aboard no earlier than November 15th, 2019.

SpaceX is currently in the midst of a complex, high-stakes anomaly investigation after its flight-proven DM-1 Crew Dragon capsule suffered a catastrophic failure on April 20th. That investigation is nowhere near full closure due to the fact that the interests of NASA and the Commercial Crew Program (CCP) are equally interwoven into the work involved. Given the potential consequences of a similar failure occurring with astronauts (public or private) aboard, NASA is unlikely to accept anything less than a no-stone-left-unturned analysis and failure resolution, including any necessary design changes to Crew Dragon, no matter how far-reaching.

As NASASpaceflight.com’s Chris Gerbhardt notes, the Crew Dragon-related dates included in the NASA Flight Planning Integration Panel (FPIP) document are extremely tentative. They’re really only there to serve as placeholders for longer-term International Space Station planning, already a necessarily uncertain endeavor. Nevertheless, NASA’s NET November 15th 2019 planning date for Crew Dragon DM-2 (the first crewed test flight) was likely okayed by SpaceX – if not provided outright by the company – before going into an official FPIP.

In other words, November 15th is probably a real target but should be treated as an absolutely-positively-no-earlier-than launch date for Crew Dragon’s first astronaut-laden mission to the ISS. Back in late March (after DM-1’s successfully completion but before the capsule’s ground failure), anonymous Russian space industry sources confirmed that NASA’s DM-2 planning date was July 25th, while also indicating that the space agency was already preparing for delays that could push DM-2 as late as November 2019.

Specifically, an anonymous Roscosmos source told Russian outlet TASS that “the [DM-2] launch of Crew Dragon is likely to be postponed to November”. Given that that delay was rumored – albeit quasi-officially – and reported on nearly a month before Crew Dragon capsule C201 catastrophically exploded during testing, it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in a November 2019 DM-2 planning date officially released by NASA more three months later.

Crew Dragon stumbles, but optimism remains

As is often said, things were going perfectly up to the point that they weren’t. Despite 2-3 months of NASA paperwork and review-related delays, SpaceX’s first flightworthy Crew Dragon performed flawlessly during orbital rendezvous, docking, departure, and reentry to the extent that NASA and SpaceX officials were joking on-webcast about their partial disbelief. NASA’s lengthy post-mission review effectively concluded as much, although there is always room for improvement.

Due to those aforementioned DM-1 delays (roughly early January to early March), DM-2’s Crew Dragon assembly and integration was delayed in turn to preserve access in case DM-1 revealed flaws or necessary changes. Things didn’t quite go as planned, but the delayed integration has turned out to be beneficial, preserving access to most of Dragon 2’s critical subsystems without requiring major disassembly before any anomaly-related changes are implemented.

Per a late-May update from CCP manager Kathy Lueders, SpaceX has effectively shifted its Crew Dragon hardware assignments over one to account for the loss of the DM-1 capsule, C201. The vehicle previously assigned to DM-2 has been reassigned to a critical in-flight abort (IFA) test, previously meant to use flight-proven C201. Per charts provided during Lueders’ presentation, SpaceX’s replacement DM-2 capsule (likely the capsule previously assigned to the following mission, Crew-1) is in a sort of holding pattern to allow for modifications that may be required after the DM-1 failure investigation concludes.

Per a previous December 2018 update from Lueders, SpaceX’s original DM-2 spacecraft (now assigned to IFA) was expected to be fully assembled, shipped to Pad 39A, and ready for launch by June 2019. Accounting for DM-1’s delays, that spacecraft could likely be ready for the abort test as early as July or August, which meshes with post-anomaly indications that IFA is now scheduled no earlier than fall (September 2019)

All things considered, a pragmatic analysis suggests that Crew Dragon‘s DM-2 launch will most likely happen no earlier than Q1 2020, although miracles (and nightmares) are certainly possible. For the time being, all that really matters to SpaceX is wrapping up the C201 failure investigation as quickly and accurately as possible. Only after the company has publicly announced the results of that investigation should any IFA or DM-2 launch dates be taken with anything less than a full shaker of salt.

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

The Audi-e-tron, once dubbed by news outlets as a potential “Tesla Killer” or “Tesla Fighter” recently received its first impressions review from Consumer Reports. Reviewers from the organization proved impressed with the all-electric SUV, noting that the vehicle “takes charge among new EVs.”

Consumer Reports‘ reviewers were particularly impressed with the Audi e-tron’s luxurious amenities such as its high-quality interior and its quietness at highway speeds. This is quite notable, as cabin noise was a point of improvement given to the Tesla Model 3 during the electric sedan’s first impressions review back in February 2018.

The organization also praised the e-tron’s two-screen interface, particularly the SUV’s dedicated screen for its climate system. The displays’ haptic feedback, which simulates the feeling of pressing a physical button, also got the approval of CR‘s reviewers. Nevertheless, reviewers did point out that some of the technology in the e-tron was “needlessly complicated,” as shown in its gear selector, which was not intuitive at all.

Quite interestingly, the e-tron’s rather leisurely acceleration, which was less aggressive than other electric cars such as the Model 3, was dubbed as “appropriate” considering the SUV’s luxury segment. “Unlike some other EVs we’ve recently tested, the E-Tron doesn’t lunge off from a stop; it has a more leisurely rollout. That’s appropriate for a luxury vehicle… On the plus side, there is no spinning of wheels that we have experienced in some other EVs… Once the E-Tron is moving, drivers get smooth and effortless power on demand, at any speed,” Consumer Reports noted.

Considering that the organization has only conducted an initial review of the vehicle, the e-tron’s fast-charging capabilities were not tested. Nevertheless, the organization was optimistic about the vehicle overall, stating that the e-tron has an “air of maturity that exudes quality, and it’s likely because it comes from an established luxury automaker.” Until more tests are conducted, at least, it appears that CR perceives the Audi e-tron as a strong competitor in the growing premium EV segment.

While it is understandable for the organization to not include more details about the e-tron, it is quite interesting to see no mention of the challenges that Audi has and is reportedly facing in bringing the vehicle to market. Currently, reports from reservation holders in Norway have indicated that e-tron deliveries are still delayed, and all units that have been sold so far are presently being recalled due to a fire risk. These details were missing in Consumer Reports‘ initial review.

It should be noted that unlike the e-tron, Consumer Reports‘ first impressions review of the Model 3 included notable sections on the vehicle’s points for improvement, particularly in terms of references to Tesla’s then-ongoing production issues. “Hype has surrounded this car since Tesla CEO Elon Musk first announced it about two years ago, with hundreds of thousands of shoppers placing $1,000 deposits within days. But many of those prospective buyers have had their patience tried, since the Model 3 rollout has been plagued by Tesla’s production headaches and delays,” the organization wrote in its first impressions review last year.

Tesla and Consumer Reports have had a mixed relationship over the years. Take the Model 3, for instance. The organization initially opted to not give the vehicle a “Recommended” rating due to its braking distance, but after Tesla rolled out a software update to address the issue, CR updated its score for the electric car. This February, the organization changed its tone once more, removing the Model 3’s “Recommended” rating after it aggregated reports from owners that listed complaints about issues such as fit and finish. Tesla, for its part, noted that it had already addressed the customer complaints that were aggregated by the organization.