LNG: TESLARATI

Amid a flurry of new construction at SpaceX’s Boca Chica facilities, technicians have begun to install thruster pods on Starhopper in anticipation of the prototype’s first untethered flights.

According to CEO Elon Musk, Starhopper’s “untethered hover tests” will begin with just one Raptor engine installed, potentially allowing hops to restart within the next few weeks. SpaceX is currently testing Raptor SN03 (and possibly SN02) a few hundred miles north in McGregor, Texas, just a few hours’ drive south once the engine is deemed flight-ready. Meanwhile, Starhopper itself needs a considerable amount of new hardware before it can begin Raptor-powered flight testing.

A Falcon Raptor-powered Starship

Purely from a visible perspective, the most important component Starhopper is missing is a way to control its attitude and remain stable while under Raptor power, particularly critical for hovering. Enter the aptly-named attitude control system (ACS), essentially a pod of omnidirectional thrusters. SpaceX already happens to have its own extremely mature ACS proven over nearly two dozen successful Falcon 9 and Heavy booster landings, as well as every Falcon upper stage that has ever flown. SpaceX’s ACS is based on powerful nitrogen gas thrusters, known for their white puffs during Falcon 9 booster recovery and landing operations.

On May 6th and 7th, SpaceX began to install what looked like Falcon ACS pods on Starhopper. Curiously, of the two pairs of thrusters now installed, half appear to be taken directly off of older mothballed Falcon 9 boosters, while the other two seem to have been acquired from a Falcon 9 Block 5 rocket. The latter pods may very well have come from Falcon 9 B1050, the booster that unintentionally landed in the Atlantic Ocean last December.

Based on the asymmetric location of the first two pod groups, Starhopper’s ACS will probably use a tripod layout. Additionally, the reason for the thruster pairs – versus Falcon 9’s single pods – is likely simple: Starhopper is far heavier than a Falcon booster. To get the same level of control authority, SpaceX is thus pairing pods together to double the functional strength of Starhopper’s ACS.

This leads smoothly to the installation of two (likely soon to be three) new composite-overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs). Starhopper already has two COPVs installed on the outside of its upper tank dome, now effectively confirmed to be helium containers needed to pressurize the vehicle’s methane and oxygen tanks. Based on the fact that Starhopper’s new ACS pods appear to have come straight from Falcon boosters, it’s safe to say that the 2 (or 3) new COPVs will supply the hopper’s thrusters with gaseous nitrogen.

The Ugly Starshipling

In general, this is just the latest chapter in the book of the oddity that is Starhopper. With helium tank pressurization and nitrogen ACS thrusters taken straight from Falcon 9, a major facet of SpaceX’s Mars architecture is entirely missing from the prototype. Known as autogenous pressurization, BFR was meant to use gasified versions of its onboard liquid oxygen and methane to pressurize its propellant tanks. In a similar vein, BFR was expected to integrated the same propellant into its ACS. Simply put, helium is simply out of the question if SpaceX wants to realize its reusable Mars transport architecture. Mars does have a minute quantity of nitrogen available in its already very thin atmosphere, but extracting hundreds or thousands of kilograms is impractical in the near-term, particularly if the first Starship have to carry all of their extraction equipment from Earth.

Although Musk has seemingly confirmed that Starship and Super Heavy will use ACS thrusters more akin to the Falcon family’s cold nitrogen gas pods, he did also confirm that autogenous pressurization would be a part of even the earliest iterations of the rocket. The move from carbon fiber to steel tanks likely made a major difference, as carbon composites have extremely limited heat resistance.

Without autogenous pressurization and propellant tanks closer to the thickness of orbit-capable Starships, Starhopper is really more of a mobile test stand for Raptor than anything else. The ungainly vehicle also offers SpaceX engineers an opportunity to test Starship/Super Heavy avionics in flight conditions, particularly with respect to controlling a real Raptor engine on the fly.

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

As Audi starts delivering the e-tron all-electric SUV to customers, some reservation holders in Norway are complaining over extra delays in vehicle deliveries. One e-tron reservation holder even reported to Norwegian media that he was faced with a fine when he attempted to cancel his order for the vehicle.

Around 7,000 Norwegians placed reservations for the Audi e-tron since it was unveiled last year, but the deliveries of the all-electric SUV have been slower than expected. Amidst large orders for the vehicle and limited supplies of components such as batteries, Audi has faced challenges in the SUV’s rollout. Roar Lauvstad, a reservation holder for the e-tron, noted in a statement to news publication Tek.no that he had been informed of a possible six-month extra wait time for his order, despite deliveries of the SUV already beginning in the country.

Audi has rolled out a “Fast Track” system for Norway, which allows immediate delivery of the e-tron provided that reservation holders order a specific variant of the SUV. The starting price of the e-tron in the country is listed at around NOK 650,000 (around $74,000), but the “Fast Track” variant, the Audi e-tron 55 Advanced Plus, costs around NOK 840,000 (around $95,000). This, according to Lauvstad, forces reservation holders like himself to either select a more expensive version or wait several more months for the actual variant he selected.

Unfortunately, Lauvstad met an unexpected roadblock when he attempted to cancel his e-tron order. According to the reservation holder, he was informed that be would be facing a fine amounting to 8% of his order’s purchase price. “I could break the contract (or) buy a Fast Track car, but I couldn’t just break the contract. They would then have 8% (around $6,800) of the purchase price of around NOK 750,000 (around $85,000) for breach of contract. So now I’m still waiting,” he said (translated using Google Translate).

Audi’s delays with the rollout of the e-tron come amidst reports that the German automaker is running into issues with the supply of the SUV’s batteries, which are sourced from LG Chem, the same company that provides cells for other EVs like the Porsche Taycan and the Jaguar I-PACE. Citing unnamed sources, The Brussels Times reported last month stated that Audi is only operating the e-tron’s production facilities 6 hours a day. Audi’s plant in Györ, Hungary, which produces the e-tron’s electric motors, are reportedly seeing delays as well, partly due to the effects of a workers’ strike earlier this year.

Audi’s growing pains with the ramp of the e-tron echo some of the struggles that Tesla faced when it was starting the production of its vehicles. The Tesla Model X was noteworthy for being delayed due to its design and over-the-top tech, and the Model 3 ramp was aptly described by Elon Musk as production hell. Based on what Audi is experiencing with the e-tron, it appears that even experienced automakers are bound to go through some pains as they learn how to build competitive electric cars.

One thing that appears to be different between Tesla and Audi is how the companies manage requests for cancelation among reservation holders. While Audi seems to have included a penalty in the fine print of its e-tron reservations, Tesla has allowed order cancellations that are practically worry-free. As noted by Elon Musk, orders for Tesla’s electric cars are still fully refundable even after seven days or 1,000 miles.

In the last six or so months, a range of small Chinese rocket startups have begun to make serious progress in the nascent commercial industry, including several inaugural orbital launch attempts, extensive propulsion testing, and more. Rising above the fray are a handful of uniquely notable companies: Landspace, Linkspace, OneSpace, and iSpace (creative, I know).

While the names leave something lacking, several companies have truly impressive ambitions and can already point to major tech development programs as evidence for their follow-through. Linkspace is arguably the most interesting company with respect to what they are doing today, while Landspace has the ambition and expertise to build and launch some truly capable rockets in the near-term.

OneSpace & iSpace

• OneSpace recently made its first attempt at orbital launch after completing an OS-M1 rocket, nominally capable of placing 200 kg (450 lb) in a 300 km (190 mi) low Earth orbit (LEO). The March 2019 attempt failed 45 seconds into launch, likely caused by an improperly-installed gyroscope that guided the rocket in the wrong direction.
  • This failure is by no means a bad thing. Reaching orbit on one’s first try is extraordinarily rare, particularly for private companies with no prior experience developing launch vehicles. SpaceX’s first three Falcon 1 launches failed before success was found on Flight 4. Rocket Lab’s Electron launch debut was forced to abort before reaching orbit due to faulty third-party communications equipment.
  • OneSpace has several additional suborbital OS-X launches and may be able to attempt one additional OS-M1 orbital launch before the end of 2019.
  • Down the road, the company wants to enhance its payload capabilities by adding additional solid rocket strap-on boosters to OS-M1 (designated M2 and M4). OS-M4 would be able to launch as much as 750 kg (1650 lb) into LEO.
• iSpace is in a similar boat. Its Hyperbola-1 rocket relies on three solid stages and a liquid fourth stage and is designed to place 300 kg (660 lb) into LEO. iSpace has plans to attempt the company’s first orbital launch as early as June 2019.
  • Having already raised more than $100M in investment, iSpace also has strong backing for the development of its next-gen Hyperbola-2 rocket. The methalox-based vehicle will have a reusable booster capable of vertical landings and should be able to launch almost 2 tons to LEO. The rocket’s first launch is expected to occur no earlier than late 2020.

Linkspace

• In April 2019, Linkspace began flight-testing a sort of miniature version of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 Grasshopper testbed. Known as NewLine Baby, the small suborbital prototype is designed to improve the company’s technical familiarity with vertically landing orbital-class rocket boosters after missions. Thus far, hop testing has been a great success.
  • Baby weighs 1.5 t (1100 lb), is 8.1m (27 ft) tall, and is powered by five liquid methane and oxygen (methalox) rocket engines.
• The company hopes to transfer the knowledge gained into NewLine-1, a partially reusable orbital-class rocket designed to place 200 kg in LEO. Linkspace could attempt their first orbital launch as early as 2021.
  • The two-stage rocket’s booster would separate a few minutes into launch and attempt a vertical landing on a pad or boat, the same approach SpaceX has used with unprecedented success.
  • The similarities with SpaceX’s Falcon 9 are honestly not the worst thing. SpaceX has no patent on vertically landing rockets and has never attempted to corner the industry. Copying a successful new paradigm is certainly better than doing nothing.
    • (For the record, Blue Origin did the exact opposite and attempted to patent vertically landing rockets at sea in 2014, before the company had conducted a single serious launch and at the same time as SpaceX was already planning barge recoveries of Falcon 9 boosters.)
  • One could even say that Linkspace and several other Chinese companies are actually doing better than industry heavyweights like ULA and Arianespace by simply embracing the new paradigm, as opposed to denial, pearl-clutching, and half-measure responses.

Landspace

• Finally, there is Landspace. Perhaps the most exciting company of the bunch, Landspace is developing a fairly large methalox launch vehicle named ZhuQue-2 (ZQ-2). Powered by several fairly large TQ-12 liquid rocket engines, ZQ-2 is designed to launch up to 4t (8800 lb) to an orbit of 200 km (120 mi) and would produce up to 2650 kN (600,000 lbf) of thrust at liftoff, about a third of SpaceX’s Falcon 9.
  • The two-stage ZQ-2 is not currently being designed for reusability, but an upgraded three-stage variant (ZQ-2A) would feature a much larger payload fairing and improve payload performance to 200 km by 50%, from 4t to 6t.
• Landspace will attempt ZQ-2’s inaugural launch as early as 2020. Critically, the company is just completed the first full-scale prototype of the TQ-12 engine meant to power the rocket and could begin static fire tests just a month or two from now.
  • Tianque-12 (TQ-12) is a fairly unique engine. Powered by liquid methane and oxygen (methalox), TQ-12 uses a gas-generator propulsion cycle and is designed to produce up to 80t (175,000 lbf) of thrust. In a sense, TQ-12 is basically a slightly less powerful methalox variant of SpaceX’s Merlin 1D engine.
  • The fact that Landspace is already in a position to begin static fire tests of the engine powering its next-gen rocket bodes very well for the company’s future plans. At a minimum, it likely means that Landspace is much closer to offering multi-ton commercial launch services compared to its competitors.
• Aside from its next-gen ambitions, Landspace has also developed a much smaller three-stage rocket known as ZQ-1. Capable of launching up to 300 kg into LEO, ZQ-1 nearly reached orbit on its October 2018 launch debut, failing midway through its third-stage burn.
• For now, the Chinese launch startup scene is downright frenetic. The title of “first private Chinese company to reach orbit” has yet to be awarded, and more than half a dozen groups are practically racing to secure it.

Mission Updates:

• SpaceX’s CRS-17 Cargo Dragon spacecraft successfully rendezvoused and berthed with the ISS on May 6th.
• Potentially less than two weeks after the Falcon 9’s May 4th CRS-17 launch, SpaceX’s first dedicated Starlink mission is scheduled to occur as early as May 13th, although delays of a few days are likely.
• SpaceX’s second West Coast launch of 2019 – carrying Canada’s Radarsat Constellation – finally has an official launch date – June 11th. The mission will reuse Falcon 9 B1051.
• Falcon Heavy’s third launch remains tentatively scheduled no earlier than June 22nd.

Photo of the Week

Falcon 9 B1056 returned to dry ground less than 24 hours after launching CRS-17 and landing aboard drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY). (Tom Cross)

SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell has revealed that the company’s first dedicated Starlink launch is scheduled for May 15th and will involve “dozens” of satellites.

Corroborated by several sources, the actual number of Starlink satellites that will be aboard Falcon 9 is hard to believe given that it is a satellite constellation’s first quasi-operational launch. Suffice it to say, if all spacecraft reach orbit in good health, SpaceX will easily become the operator and owner of one of the top five largest commercial satellite constellations in the world with a single launch. Such an unprecedentedly ambitious first step suggests that the perceived practicality of SpaceX’s Starlink ambitions may need to be entirely reframed going forward.

From 0 to 100

In short, it’s hard to exaggerate just how much of a surprise it is to hear that SpaceX’s very first Starlink launch – aside from two prototypes launched in Feb. 2018 – will attempt to place “dozens” of satellites in orbit. Competitor OneWeb, for example, conducted its first launch in February 2019, placing just five satellites in orbit relative to planned future launches with 20-30. To go from 2(ish) to “dozens” in a single step will break all sorts of industry standards/traditions.

Despite the ~15 months that have passed since that first launch, SpaceX’s Starlink team has really only spent the last 6-9 months in a phase of serious mass-production buildup. As of now, the company has no dedicated satellite factory – space in Hawthorne, CA is far too constrained. Instead, the design, production, and assembly of Starlink satellites is being done in 3-4 separate buildings located throughout the Seattle/Redmond area.

SpaceX’s Starlink team has managed to transition almost silently from research and development to serious mass-production (i.e. dozens of satellites) in the space of about half a year. The dozens of spacecraft scheduled to launch on SpaceX’s first dedicated mission – likely weighing 200-300 kg (440-660 lb) each – have also managed to travel from Seattle to Cape Canaveral in the last few months and may now be just a few days away from fairing encapsulation.

To some extent, the first flight-ready batch of “dozens” of satellites are still partial prototypes, likely equivalent to the second round of flight testing mentioned by CEO Elon Musk last year. This group of spacecraft will have no inter-satellite laser (optical) links, a feature that would transform an orbiting Starlink constellation into a vast mesh network. According to FCC filings, the first 75 satellites will be of the partial-prototype variety, followed soon after by the first spacecraft with a more or less finalized design and a full complement of hardware.

If this is just step one…

Meanwhile, Shotwell – speaking at the Satellite 2019 conference – suggested that SpaceX could launch anywhere from two to six dedicated Starlink missions this year, depending on the performance of the first batch. Put a slightly different way, take the “dozens” of satellites she hinted at, multiply that number by 6, and you’ve arrived at the number of spacecraft she believes SpaceX is theoretically capable of producing and delivering in the next 7.5 months.

“Dozens” implies no less than two dozen or a bare minimum of 144 satellites potentially built and launched before the year is out. However, combined with a target orbit of 450 km (280 mi) and a planned drone ship booster recovery more than 620 km (385 mi) downrange, 36, 48, or 60 satellites seem far more likely. Tintin A/B – extremely rough, testbed-like prototypes – were about 400 kg (~900 lb) each.

As an example, SpaceX’s eight Iridium NEXT satellite launches had payloads of more than 10,000 kg (22,000 lb), were launched to an orbit around 630 km (390 mi), and required a upper stage coast and second burn on-orbit. Further, Iridium missions didn’t get the efficiency benefit that Starlink will by launching east along the Earth’s rotational axis. Despite all that, Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters were still able to land less than 250 km (155 mi) downrange after Iridium launches. Crew Dragon’s recent launch debut saw Falcon 9 place the >13,000 kg (28,700 lb) payload into a 200 km (125 mi) orbit with a drone ship landing less than 500 km (310 mi) downrange, much of which was margin to satisfy safety requirements.

Starlink-1’s target orbit is thus a third lower than Iridium NEXT, while its drone ship will be stationed more than 2.5 times further downrange. Combined, SpaceX’s first Starlink payload will likely weigh significantly more than ~13,000 kg and may end up being the heaviest payload the company has yet to launch.

Assuming a payload mass of ~14,000 kg (~31,000 lb) at launch, a worst-case scenario with ~400 kg spacecraft and a 2000 kg dispenser would translate to 30 Starlink satellites. Cut their mass to 300 kg and the dispenser to 1000 kg and that rises to ~45 satellites. Drop even further to 200 kg apiece and a single recoverable Falcon 9 launch could place >60 satellites in orbit.

Of course, this entirely ignores the elephant in the room: the usable volume of SpaceX’s standard Falcon payload fairing. It’s unclear how SpaceX would fit 24 – let alone 60 – high-performance satellites into said fairing without severely constraining their design and capabilities. SpaceX’s solution to this problem will effectively remain unanswered until launch, assuming the company is willing to provide some sort of press release and/or offer a live view of spacecraft deployment on their webcast. Given the cutthroat nature of competition with the likes of OneWeb, Telesat, LeoSat, and others, this is not guaranteed.

At the end of the day, such a major leap into action bodes extremely well for SpaceX’s ability to realize its ambitious Starlink constellation, and do so fast. For those on Earth without reliable internet access or any access at all, the faster Starlink – and competing constellations, for that matter – can be realized, the sooner all of humanity can enjoy the many benefits connectivity can bring. For those that sit under the thumb of monopolistic conglomerates like Comcast and Time Warner Cable, relief will be no less welcome.

Stay tuned as we get closer to Starlink-1’s May 15th launch date. Up next is a static fire of the mission’s Falcon 9 rocket, perhaps just two or three days from now.

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