LNG: TESLARATI

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.

For the third time ever, SpaceX has successfully performed a critical static-fire test of an integrated Falcon Heavy, briefly igniting all 27 of its Merlin 1D engines to verify the health and readiness of the rocket.

Per SpaceX’s official confirmation, a “quick-look” inspection of static fire telemetry has indicated that the company’s Falcon Heavy rocket is ready for its second launch in less than three months, a milestone that could also allow both flight-proven side boosters to tie SpaceX’s own record for booster turnaround. Falcon Heavy Flight 3 is now scheduled to launch the US Air Force’s Space Test Program 2 (STP-2) mission no earlier than 11:30 pm ET (03:30 UTC), June 24th. According to SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, the mission will unequivocally be the company’s “most difficult launch ever”.

Coincidentally, on top of being Falcon Heavy’s first scheduled night launch, STP-2 has now also marked the massive rocket’s first nighttime static fire. During this critical test, Falcon Heavy briefly ignites all 27 of its three boosters’ Merlin 1Ds and throttles the engines up to full thrust, much like airliners sometimes set their brakes and throttle up before attempting to take off. The difference between Falcon Heavy and passenger aircraft is nevertheless rather significant, given that Falcon Heavy produces ~15x the thrust of an A380 – the world’s most powerful mass-produced passenger aircraft – at liftoff: 22,820 kN (5.1M lbf) to the massive jet’s meager 1,440 kN (0.3M lbf).

Despite all of that thrust, Falcon Heavy is held down during static fire by eight accurately-named hold-down clamps, themselves a part of a massive transport/erector, which is itself anchored directly to Pad 39A’s concrete foundation. In short, Falcon Heavy (and especially Falcon 9) is not going anywhere until those hold-down clamps are explicitly released. Thanks to SpaceX’s avoidance of the solid rocket boosters used by almost every other modern launch vehicle, Falcon 9 and Heavy rockets can abort at any point prior to clamp release, offering a uniquely broad abort capability.

As such, not only does SpaceX’s dedicated pre-launch static fire fully test the rocket’s health, but the same procedure is essentially repeated in the seconds before clamp release during an actual orbital launch attempt. If at any point Falcon 9’s autonomous onboard computer decides that it doesn’t like any of the thousands of channels of telemetry it’s constantly analyzing, it can command an engine shutdown and total launch abort even if all first stage engines have already ignited and reached full thrust. If routine McGregor, TX acceptance testing – also involving a full static fire – is accounted for, every single Falcon 9 booster technically completes three fully-integrated static fires before its inaugural liftoff. Falcon Heavy is slightly different, as each booster is independent test-fired in Texas but the integrated rocket can only perform static fires at Pad 39A.

After those three critical tests, flight-proven Falcon boosters are subjected to the less stringent few-second static fires SpaceX performs at the launch pad 3-7 days before a given launch. With Falcon Heavy Flight 3, the rocket’s center core, upper stage, and payload fairing are all brand new, fresh from either SpaceX’s Hawthorne factory or McGregor acceptance testing. However, both side cores – Block 5 boosters B1052 and B1053 – are flight-proven, having successfully completed their first launches and landings on April 11th, less than 70 days ago.

Set by regular old Falcon 9 boosters, SpaceX’s current record for booster turnaround time (time between two launches) is 71 days (set in June 2018), while the Block 5 upgrade’s record stands at 74 days (set in October 2018). If Falcon Heavy’s STP-2 launch holds strong on June 24th, B1052 and B1053 will simultaneously tie SpaceX’s Block 5 turnaround record. This would be accomplished despite the added pressure from the US Air Force’s decision to use STP-2 as a sort of dress rehearsal for certifying all flight-proven commercial rockets, an honor (and burden) that likely added extra work, oversight, and scrutiny to the process of refurbishing and relaunching B1052 and B1053.

“[T]he US Air Force has decided that STP-2 presents an excellent opportunity to begin the process of certifying flight-proven SpaceX rockets for military launches. The STP-2-related work is more of a preliminary effort for the USAF to actually figure out how to certify flight-proven commercial rockets, but it will still be the first time a dedicated US military mission has flown on a flight-proven launch vehicle. Down the road, the processes set in place thanks – in part – to STP-2 and Falcon Heavy may also apply to aspirational rockets like Blue Origin’s New Glenn and ULA’s “SMART” proposal for Vulcan reuse.”
— Teslarati.com, 06/16/2019

In a last-second surprise, SpaceX updated Falcon Heavy center core B1057’s planned drone ship landing site from a brief 40 km (25 mi) to more than 1240 km (770 mi) off the coast of Florida. SpaceX set its current record for recovery distance less than three months ago during Falcon Heavy’s commercial launch debut, in which Block 5 center core B1055 landed nearly 970 km (600 mi) offshore on drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY). If all goes well, B1057 – the second finished Block 5 center core – will absolutely crush its predecessor’s record, implying that the booster will likely be subjected to SpaceX’s most difficult reentry and recovery yet.

For more on what CEO Elon Musk describes as “[SpaceX’s] most difficult launch ever”, check out these previous articles on an unexpected ultra-fast booster reentry and the extraordinary challenge facing Falcon upper stage.

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