LNG: TESLARATI

The Boring Company’s planned 2-mile Las Vegas tunnel is seeing some opposition, with some members of the city’s Convention and Visitors Authority (LVCVA) expressing their reservations about the tunneling startup’s capability to deliver on the project.

Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority CEO Steve Hill has stated that a contract has been negotiated with The Boring Company to build a transport tunnel that could move people around the Las Vegas Convention Center. The cost of the project is estimated to be $52.5 million, far less than the cost of a conventional above-ground transit system. In the event that The Boring Company does not receive a certificate of occupancy for the tunnel system, the LVCVA will get back its entire investment.

While the Boring Company’s deal appears to be a cost-effective proposal that carries little financial risk to the LVCVA, some board members have expressed their reservations for the project nonetheless. Board members Michele Fiore and Carolyn Goodman, for one, recently spoke in favor of an alternative proposal from Austria-based Doppelmayr Garaventa Group, which involves the construction of an above-ground transit system.

This Monday, Goodman sent an email to her fellow board members urging them to support the proposal from the Austria-based company, according to a report from the Las Vegas Sun. In her message, Goodman cited Doppelmayr’s experience in the transport industry, comparing it favorably against The Boring Company’s inexperience.

“Doppelmayr has been in existence for 125 years. They already have projects here that are operating successfully. The Boring Co. is three years old and has yet to deliver a final package on anything. (The tourism and convention business) is a $60 billion industry that every part of this state relies on for dollars. This is really about deliverability — we can’t fail on this,” she wrote.

Doppelmayr’s initial proposal to the LVCVA involved the creation of an above-ground transit system that would cost an estimated $215 million to complete. In her letter to the LVCVA’s board, Goodman argued that the Austria-based company would have been able to build a transport system for as little as $85 million. The board member even invited Doppelmayr CEO Markus Schrentewein to give a presentation at a board meeting on Tuesday.

“During the bidding process, if we would have been given the chance to present and explain in more detail our proposal, I believe we would have come up with a more favorable project for the LVCVA campus,” the Doppelmayr CEO said.

Michele Fiore, who also works as a councilwoman in Las Vegas, also expressed her reservations over the Boring Company’s proposal. In a statement to local media, Fiore echoed Goodman’s sentiments about the Austria-based company’s experience. “The risk of the Boring Co. is quite high, while the risk with Doppelmayr is quite low. How do we justify not really looking at Doppelmayr as a solid and proven company? I’m not so sure the Boring Co. is the company to do this job,” she said.

Hill, for his part, noted that The Boring Company’s proposal was initially selected due to cost, timing, and scalability. At $52.5 million, the tunneling startup’s plan is cost-effective, and the project could be completed while the campuses’ expansion work is ongoing. The Boring Company’s transport tunnel could also be expanded to other areas of Las Vegas in the future. “It’s significantly less expensive than any of the alternatives that we reviewed. Frankly, for the funding capacity of the LVCVA, this is the system that we could go forward with. We’re going to bring a contract next week that will eliminate all financial risk from the LVCVA,” Hill said.

In a previous statement, Boring Company President Steve Davis described the Las Vegas project as an opportunity for both the tunneling startup and the city. “People will be excited. They will ride it, and if they like it, we’ll probably get more interest. Nevada looks for a responsible way to say yes. We think it offers a lot of opportunity. I think others see that as well. And we will put in that work to see if it’s the right choice for Las Vegas,” he said.

A Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority spokesperson has noted that the board will vote on the Boring Company’s proposal on May 22, when the board meets for a budget hearing.

NASA has announced a series of awards as part of its 2024 Moon return ambitions, providing up to $45.5M for 11 companies to study lunar landers, spacecraft, and in-space refueling technologies.

Among those selected for studies are SpaceX, Blue Origin, Masten Space, and the Sierra Nevada Corporation, alongside usual suspects like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The chances of NASA actually achieving a crewed return to the surface of the Moon by 2024 are admittedly minuscule. However, with the space agency’s relatively quick three-month turnaround from accepting proposals to awarding studies, those chances of success will at least be able to continue skirting the realm of impossibility for now. In fact, SpaceX believes its Moon lander could be ready for a lunar debut as early as 2023.

Do the OldSpace Limbo!

Almost exactly 90 days (three months) since NASA released its lunar lander request for proposal (RFP), the 11 US companies selected for awards can now begin mature their designs, concepts of operations, and even build prototypes in a select few cases. At least based on the volume of awards and prototypes funded, the bulk of the $45.5M available for these studies unsurprisingly appears to have gone to Boeing and Lockheed. The duo of military-industrial complex heavyweights have maintained a decades-old stranglehold over NASA’s human spaceflight procurement.

In the last 13 years, the companies – combined – have carefully extracted no less than $35B from NASA, all of which has thus far produced a single launch of a half-finished prototype spacecraft (Orion) on a contextually irrelevant rocket (Delta IV Heavy) in 2014. The SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft remain almost perpetually delayed and are unlikely to complete their uncrewed launch debut until 2021, if not later.

SpaceX enters the lunar lander fray

“SpaceX was founded with the goal of helping humanity become a spacefaring civilization. We are excited to extend our long-standing partnership with NASA to help return humans to the Moon, and ultimately to venture beyond.”

– SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell

SpaceX was one of the 11 companies to receive NASA funding for a lunar lander-related design study. By all appearances, the company has been analyzing this potential use-case for some time. What they offer is significantly more complex than what NASA’s press release described as “one descent element study”. First and foremost, however, it must be stressed that these NASA funded studies – particularly those relegated to design, with no prototype builds – are really just concepts on paper. The NASA funding will help motivate companies to at least analyze and flesh out their actual capabilities relative to the task and time frame at hand, but there is no guarantee that more than one or two of the 11 studies will translate into serious hardware contracts.

Regardless of the many qualifications, SpaceX’s proposed descent module (i.e. Moon lander) is undeniably impressive. If SpaceX were to win a development contract, the lander would be based on flight-proven Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon subsystems wherever possible, translating into a vehicle that would have significant flight heritage even before its first launch. That first Moon landing attempt could come as early as 2023 and would utilize the performance of SpaceX’s own Falcon Heavy, currently the most powerful rocket in operation.

No renders have been released at this stage but it’s safe to assume that a SpaceX Moon lander would be somewhat comparable to Blue Origin’s just-announced Blue Moon lander, capable of delivering ~6.5t (14,300 lb) to the lunar surface. Rather than hydrogen and oxygen, SpaceX would instead use either Crew Dragon’s NTO/MMH propulsion or base the lander on Falcon 9’s extremely mature liquid kerosene/oxygen upper stage and Merlin Vacuum (MVac) engine.

Impressively, the SpaceX lander would aim for nearly double Blue Moon’s 6.5t payload capability, delivering as much as 12t (26,500 lb) to the surface of the Moon. That payload could either enable an unprecedentedly large crew capsule/ascent vehicle or permit the delivery of truly massive robotic or cargo payloads. Additionally, SpaceX believes that a descent stage with the aforementioned capabilities could potentially double as an excellent orbital transfer stage, refueling tug, and more. The lander would also serve as a full-up testbed for all the advanced technologies SpaceX needs to enable its goals of sustainable, reliable, and affordable solar system colonization.

Time will tell if NASA is actually serious about upsetting the status quo and getting to the Moon quickly and affordably, or if they will instead fall back on well-worn habits shown to minimize results and maximize cost. The White House recently proposed an additional $1.6B be added to NASA’s FY2020 budget, inexplicably choosing to take those funds from the federal Pell Grant system, which helps more than five million underprivileged Americans afford higher education. Regardless of the sheer political ineptitude involved in the proposed funding increase, even $1.6B annually (the WH proposal is for one year only) would be a pittance in the face of the spectacular inefficiencies of usual contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

The telltale sign of which direction NASA’s lunar ambitions are headed will come when the agency begins to award actual development and hardware production contracts to one or several of the proposals to be studied. Stay tuned!

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

During Tesla’s first-quarter earnings call, Elon Musk noted that the company would be offering a “compelling insurance product” for its vehicles. Musk even provided an estimated timeframe for the service’s launch, stating that Tesla’s insurance would be rolled out within a month.

While the idea of an in-house insurance program might seem like an unnecessary distraction for the electric car maker at this point, the service could very well become a critical factor in Tesla’s pursuit of sustained profitability. This is according to Eddie Yoon, a director at The Cambridge Group, a firm that specializes in growth strategy. According to Yoon, a well-rounded, properly-released insurance program could help make Tesla into one of the industry’s most influential brands.

In an article on the Harvard Business Review, Yoon notes that companies which become multi-billion-dollar mega-brands usually meet several critical success factors. The first of these involves picking the right first adjacency to enter. Since breaching an untried market is difficult, companies that succeed generally go for an adjacency that has a similar go-to-market model, or at least one where a strong partner could be leveraged. Tesla appears to be doing the latter by partnering with Markel to provide insurance to its customers.

The first adjacency must also have attractive economics that could be measured, among other things, by how it could improve the company’s core business. This is pertinent for Tesla, since the company’s vehicles are generally cheaper to run than an internal combustion car. If Tesla can reduce the price of its vehicles’ insurance through its own service, the company could make the idea of owning an electric car more attractive and practical to a wider spectrum of customers.

Coupled with Tesla’s continued optimizations in the production of its vehicles, a solid, reasonable insurance program could result in more electric car sales for the company. This, of course, gives Tesla a better chance at becoming profitable in the long-term.

If Tesla proves successful in rolling out its auto insurance service, the company could potentially expand the program to other areas of its business. Tesla is currently aiming to ramp its Energy business, with Elon Musk dubbing 2019 as the “Year of the Solar Roof and Powerwall.” Musk has also hinted at a “Tesla smart home” in the past. Perhaps these products could pave the way for a Tesla home insurance program in the future? Such a possibility is not too farfetched.

These ideas and initiatives could seem drastic in light of Tesla’s business today, but Yoon noted that other mega-brands are adopting similar strategies. Gerber baby foods, for example, generated $900 million in life insurance premiums in 2017. That’s equal to about 75% of its core baby food business during the year. With this in mind, it appears that Elon Musk’s idea for Tesla’s insurance service not be too farfetched at all.

DeepSpace is a weekly newsletter sent to Teslarati members, giving a break down of what’s happening in the space industry and what you need to watch.

This week, the only rational option for DeepSpace is to focus on SpaceX’s imminent Starlink milestone, a dedicated launch that will attempt to deliver an unprecedented 60 development satellites to low Earth orbit (LEO).

Assigned to the milestone launch is twice-flown Falcon 9 booster B1049, most recently launched in January 2019 on Iridium’s 8th and final NEXT mission. Around 10 pm EDT on May 13th, SpaceX successfully completed a static fire test of the flight-proven booster and fresh upper stage, additionally keeping the satellite payload (SpaceX’s own spacecraft) installed on the rocket for the first time in almost three years.

Although having the payload attached during a static fire adds risk, that risk is almost entirely SpaceX’s to do with as it sees fit. The attached payload also cuts down on a few dozen hours of processing. Known as Starlink v0.9, SpaceX’s first dedicated launch is thus scheduled for liftoff as early as 10:30 pm EDT (02:30 UTC), May 15th, a little over 48 hours after static fire.

Never miss an issue of our DeepSpace newsletter!

You’ll get special updates, exclusive content, and a preview of Teslarati’s membership program.

Like all SpaceX launches, Starlink v0.9 will include a live webcast hosted by SpaceX engineers. By all appearances, Wednesday’s webcast is likely to be quite the event, including a number of first-looks at SpaceX’s Starlink satellite hardware and factory, as well as official details on the company’s strategy, goals, and timelines.

Additionally, viewers may get a live view of what is bound to be a spectacular process of deploying 60 bizarrely flat satellites, stacked so efficiently that Starlink v0.9 will become the heaviest payload SpaceX has ever launched.

The second phase of Starlink testing – 60 advanced satellites – in a single fairing. (SpaceX)

Pictured here after its second launch and landing, Falcon 9 B1049 could be one of the boosters recently spotted in Florida. (Pauline Acalin)

Starlink v0.9 satellite deployment will apparently look nothing like the traditional method used with Tintin A/B. (SpaceX)

.teslarati-newsletter-box {background: #fff;border: 2px solid #a9d300;color: #a9d300;padding: 16px 16px 16px;position: relative;box-sizing: border-box;margin-bottom: 10px;}#text-area-box p {font-family: Montserrat;line-height: 120%;margin-bottom: 10px;font-weight: 500;}#text-area-box h3 {font-family: Montserrat;}.PicoSignupForm {box-sizing: border-box;text-decoration: inherit;vertical-align: inherit;font-family: inherit;font-size: inherit;font-style: inherit;line-height: inherit;width: 100%;}.teslarati-newsletter-box-header-icon {background: #fff;left: 50%;position: absolute;top: 2px;padding: 0 16px;transform: translate(-50%,-50%);}.teslarati-newsletter-box-header-icon img {width: 30px;max-height: 35px;position: relative;margin-bottom: 50%;}[data-pico-status=»registered»] {display: none;}[data-pico-status=»paying»] { display: none;}

A flyover of Tesla’s Gigafactory 3 site in Shanghai shows that work on the upcoming electric car factory is continuing at an incredibly rapid rate. Based on the progress of the facility’s construction so far, it appears that Gigafactory 3’s workforce has all but shifted to overdrive as they attempt to finish the initial buildout of the site’s Phase 1 area by the end of May.

Comparing the drone footage captured on May 13 to those captured the week before, it is easy to see how much progress the Gigafactory 3 site has achieved. External walls have been installed over most of the facility, and even areas such as the rumored stamping section are getting their roofing done. There are also fewer cranes on the site, suggesting that a significant portion of the work has shifted to the interior of the upcoming general assembly building.

Also notable in the recent drone flyover was footage of what appears to be dormitories for the upcoming electric car factory’s workers. The units are two stories high and seemingly modular, which would likely make them easy to expand at a later time. The dorms look well-built and refined as well, suggesting that the units might be built to last. Perhaps Tesla will be housing some of Gigafactory 3’s employees on the site? Such a strategy could benefit the company, especially if the factory operates 24/7.

One thing that is almost inevitable considering the speed of Gigafactory 3’s construction is the completion of the Phase 1 buildout, which includes a massive general assembly building for the Tesla Model 3 and Model Y. Shanghai official Chen Mingbo, who currently serves as the head of the city’s economic and information technology commission, announced during the annual parliamentary meeting back in March that the initial buildout of Gigafactory 3 should be done in May. That target date falls somewhere within the next couple of weeks.

If China’s workforce meets its target deadline for the completion of Gigafactory 3’s initial construction, it could accelerate the timeline for the electric car maker’s Model 3 trial production. During the facility’s groundbreaking event in January, Elon Musk stated that the first Model 3 could roll out of Gigafactory 3 by the end of the year. If China’s workforce completes the facility’s initial buildout this month, Model 3 trial production could start as early as September.

China is a country that specializes in rapid construction initiatives. But even among the impressively-quick buildouts that China has accomplished in the past, Gigafactory 3 could very well be on a completely different level. Chang Yan CY, Senior Editor of Tencent Auto, noted that China’s record for the fastest buildout of an industrial-grade facility like Gigafactory 3 had been 17 months. This is a record that Gigafactory 3 is on track of beating.

Watch Gigafactory 3’s progress as of May 13, 2019 in the video below.

Less than 24 hours before SpaceX’s first dedicated Starlink mission is scheduled to lift off, the company revealed a handful of new details about the design of the 60 satellites cocooned inside Falcon 9’s fairing.

The Falcon 9 booster assigned to launch the Starlink v0.9 mission – B1049 – has already flown twice before in September 2018 and January 2019 and will likely take part in many additional launches prior to retirement. In support of B1049’s hopeful future, drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) arrived at its recovery location on May 13th, an impressive 620 km (385 mi) downrange relative to the launch’s low target orbit (440 km, 270 mi).

(Extra) smallsats

The combination of a distant booster recovery and a low target orbit can only mean one thing: the Starlink v0.9’s satellite payload is extremely heavy. As it just so happens, that is exactly the case per details included in SpaceX’s official press kit (PDF).

“With a flat-panel design featuring multiple high-throughput antennas and a single solar array, each Starlink satellite weighs approximately 227kg, allowing SpaceX to maximize mass production and take full advantage of Falcon 9’s launch capabilities. To adjust position on orbit, maintain intended altitude, and deorbit, Starlink satellites feature Hall thrusters powered by krypton. Designed and built upon the heritage of Dragon, each spacecraft is equipped with a Startracker navigation system that allows SpaceX to point the satellites with precision. Importantly, Starlink satellites are capable of tracking on-orbit debris and autonomously avoiding collisions. Additionally, 95 percent of all components of this design will quickly burn [up] in Earth’s atmosphere at the end of each satellite’s lifecycle—exceeding all current safety standards—with future iterative designs moving to complete disintegration.”

First and foremost, an individual satellite mass of around 227 kg (500 lb) is an impressive achievement, nearly halving the mass of the Tintin A/B prototypes SpaceX launched back in February 2018. For context, OneWeb’s essentially finalized satellite design weighs ~150 kg (330 lb) each and relies on a ~1050 kg (2310 lb) adapter capable of carrying ~30 satellites. Accounting for the adapter, that translates to ~180 kg (400 lb) per OneWeb satellite, around 25% lighter than Starlink v0.9 spacecraft.

However, assuming SpaceX has effectively achieved its desired per-satellite throughput of ~20 gigabits per second (Gbps), Starlink v0.9 could provide more than twice the performance of OneWeb’s satellites (PDF). These are still development satellites, however, and don’t carry the laser interlinks that will be standard on the all future spacecraft, likely increasing their mass an additional ~10%.

Despite the technical unknowns, it can be definitively concluded that SpaceX’s Starlink satellite form factor and packing efficiency are far ahead of anything comparable. Relative to the rockets it competes with, Falcon 9’s fairing is actually on the smaller side, but SpaceX has still managed to fit an incredible 60 fairly high-performance spacecraft inside it with plenty of room to spare. Additionally, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says that these “flat-panel” Starlink satellites have no real adapter or dispenser, relying instead on their own structure to support the full stack. How each satellite will deploy on orbit is to be determined but it will likely be no less unorthodox than their integrated Borg cube-esque appearance.

That efficiency also means that the Starlink v0.9 is massive. At ~227 kg per satellite, the minimum mass is about 13,800 kg (30,400 lb), easily making it the heaviest payload SpaceX has ever attempted to launch. It’s difficult to exaggerate how ambitious a start this is for the company’s internal satellite development program – Starlink has gone from two rough prototypes to 60 satellites and one of the heaviest communications satellite payloads ever in less than a year and a half.

[Insert Kryptonite joke here]

Beyond their lightweight and space-efficient flat-panel design, the next most notable feature of SpaceX’s Starlink v0.9 satellites is their propulsion system of choice. Not only has SpaceX designed, built, tested, and qualified its own Hall Effect thrusters (HETs) for Starlink, but it has based those thrusters on krypton instead of industry-standard xenon gas propellant.

Based on a cursory review of academic and industry research into the technology, krypton-based Hall effect thrusters can beat xenon’s ISP (chemical efficiency) by 10-15% but produce 15-25% less thrust per a given power input. Additionally, krypton thrusters are also 15-25% less efficient than xenon thrusters, meaning that krypton generally requires significantly more power to match xenon’s thrust. However, the likeliest explanation for SpaceX’s choice of krypton over less exotic options is simple: firm prices are hard to come by for such rare noble gases, but krypton costs at least 5-10 times less than xenon for a given mass.

At the costs SpaceX is targeting ($500k-$1M per satellite), the price of propellant alone (say 25-50 kg) could be a major barrier to satellite affordability – 50 kg of xenon costs at least $100,000, while 50 kg of krypton is more like $10,000-25,000. The more propellant each Starlink satellite can carry, the longer each spacecraft can safely operate, another way to lower the lifetime cost of a satellite megaconstellation.

SpaceX’s dedicated Starlink launch debut is set to lift off no earlier than 10:30pm EDT (02:30 UTC), May 15th. This is not a webcast you want to miss!

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

Reports from a local German news agency have noted that Mercedes-Benz is set to ramp the production of its first all-electric SUV, the EQC, at a rate of about 100 units per day. The German carmaker will reportedly increase its production capacity over the following months, with the company doubling its target output to 200 units per day in the coming year.

The update about the EQC’s production was provided by a manager working for Mercedes-Benz, according to news agency Automobilwoche. The carmaker opened the order books for the EQC a few days ago, but just like its competitor, the Audi e-tron, the initial production of the all-electric SUV is reportedly limited as well. While the German carmaker is reportedly not having issues with the supply of cells themselves, the complex design of the EQC’s battery, which is comprised of six packages with 384 cell modules, is becoming a factor in the vehicle’s limited rollout.

Mercedes-Benz opted to use pouch cells from LG Chem for the EQC, just like fellow veteran carmakers Audi and Jaguar, who also utilize the South Korean company’s cells for their respective electric cars. In contrast, electric car pioneer Tesla utilizes cells from Japanese firm Panasonic for its Model X SUV. Initial production of the EQC reportedly started last week, though only in very limited quantities.

While Mercedes-Benz is yet to issue an official statement about the EQC’s reported production difficulties, it should be noted that the company is not the only veteran carmaker that is finding it challenging to ramp the manufacturing of an all-electric vehicle. The Audi e-tron, for one, is reportedly seeing delays in production due to the limited supply of cells from LG Chem.  A report from The Brussels Times even noted that Audi’s e-tron facility is only operating 6 hours a day due to the limited supply of the SUV’s components.

Overall, the struggles reportedly being faced by Audi, and now Mercedes-Benz all but show that performing a production ramp of an electric vehicle is no joke. Electric car maker Tesla has received various criticisms over the years due to the company’s delays in producing its vehicles like the Model X and Model 3. These reports concerning the Mercedes-Benz EQC and the Audi e-tron’s production ramps prove that Tesla is not the only carmaker that feels challenges when manufacturing an all-electric vehicle.

The Mercedes-Benz EQC is equipped with an 80 kWh battery pack, which is estimated to give a range of over 200 miles per charge. Performance-wise, the all-electric SUV boasts some decent specs, with two electric motors that produce 402 hp and 564 lb-ft of torque giving the vehicle a 0-60 mph time of 4.9 seconds and a top speed of 112 mph. Once released, the EQC will be competing in the same segment as the veteran Tesla Model X, as well as other premium EVs like the Jaguar I-PACE and Audi e-tron.

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has confirmed that the company’s second orbital Starship prototype is already in the early stages of integration at a parallel Florida facility, piggybacking on ongoing work in South Texas.

SpaceX’s plans to simultaneously build Starship prototypes in Texas and Florida have been public for some time. However, photos taken by forum members of NASASpaceflight.com offer the first direct confirmation that hardware is already being assembled in Florida. Likely unique in the annals of full-scale heavy-lift rocket development, SpaceX’s strategy of building largely identical prototypes in separate locations – and with separate teams – could be an ingenious method of speeding up development.

Around the tail end of 2018, SpaceX began to rapidly expand its presence in Boca Chica, Texas and started building what would eventually become Starhopper. Effectively a testbed for SpaceX to gain experience building an operating rockets made out of steel, Starhopper is unlikely to ever move beyond low-speed, low-altitude hover tests.

The prototype exists as more of a flying testbed for SpaceX’s Raptor engine and its associated avionics and software, as well as an excellent opportunity to practice welding steel. Starhopper performed its first two hop tests in the first week of April and is expected to begin its second round of powered flights as early as late May.

In March 2019, SpaceX’s Boca Chica team began to assemble and weld together much thinner sheets of stainless steel to form the structure of the first (potentially) orbit-capable Starship prototype. Including metal nose and tank sections that have yet to be installed, the Boca Chica prototype would stand around 32.5m (~105 ft) tall today, with the bulk of the work remaining likely centered around Starship’s aft section. In simpler terms, the more complex of the tasks at hand still lay ahead, including Starship’s actuating tripod fins/legs, actuating canards, the bulk of the spacecraft’s tankage, and a thrust structure capable of handling up to seven Raptors.

At full power, seven Raptors would produce more than 1.5 times the thrust of an entire Falcon 9 booster, likely demanding a new variation (dare I say hexaweb?) on the Falcon family’s proven octaweb thrust structures.

In short, the small cylindrical section of SpaceX’s first Florida Starship is just the first step or two of many, many more to come. Many questions remain, including exactly how SpaceX plans to transport 9m-diameter rocket segments from its new Florida facility to Cape Canaveral, at least 20-30 miles by road. Regardless, with two similar groups working on the same problem simultaneously, SpaceX’s rate of learning is about to jump even higher than it already is.

Time will tell if the parallel development strategy ends up paying off, but CEO Elon Musk stated in December 2018 that he was 60% confident that SpaceX would be ready to attempt the first orbital Starship launch before the end of 2020.

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