LNG: TESLARATI

SpaceX appears to have selected Falcon 9 B1056 to become the first booster to have all four landing legs retracted and stowed. While relatively minor in the scope full Falcon 9 booster reuse, in-situ leg retraction could save SpaceX days of recovery and preflight work, a big help for truly rapid reusability.

A handful of prior retraction attempts have been made on Block 5 boosters but unknown issues prevented the process from taking hold. With some modifications to the legs and their deployment/retraction mechanisms, SpaceX seems to have solved those issues and is ready to graduate to a new level of rapid and easy rocket reusability. Teslarati photographer Tom Cross was on site in Port Canaveral, Florida when SpaceX began its first operational leg retractions and was able to capture photos and videos of the process.

Falcon 9 doesn’t even lift

The crux of the need for a relatively complex crane-and-jig method of leg retraction rests on SpaceX’s landing leg design. Put simply, after rapidly deploying with a combination of gravity and hydraulics, Falcon 9 landing legs have no built-in way to return to their stowed state. Each of the four legs are quite large, weighing around 600 kg (1300 lb) and stretching about 10m (33 ft) from hinge to tip. They use an intricate telescoping carbon fiber deployment mechanism to give the legs enough strength to stand up to the forces of Falcon 9 booster landings.

Combined, the legs’ size and telescoping mechanism makes the addition of an onboard retraction mechanism impractical. All the needed hardware would struggle to find a good place for installation and would quite literally be dead weight during launches and landings, stealing from Falcon 9/Heavy payload capacity and generally serving no purpose until a booster has been lifted off the ground with a giant crane.

As a result, SpaceX engineers instead decided to separate leg retraction hardware from the rocket itself and designed a custom crane jig. Pictured above, the jig attaches to Falcon 9’s interstage and allows the crane operator to lift the entire booster as needed. It also features four independent motors and pulleys that are meant to attach to a specific port on the outside of each booster landing leg. The jig then lifts the landing legs up, nominally retracting the telescoping deployment mechanism, at which point latches should be able to safely secure the legs to the booster’s body.

This has been significantly more difficult than expected, judging from a number of retraction attempts over the past six or so months. Falcon 9 Block 5 debuted in May 2018 – in fact, almost exactly one year ago – and SpaceX has since built 11 boosters that have supported 15 launches. SpaceX has thus taken ~12 months to get to a point where Falcon 9’s landing legs can be safely retracted, perhaps owing more to the fact that said legs are of minimal monetary value relative to the rest of a recovered booster. Improving leg retractibility is a bit of a luxury in that sense, as retracting legs offers little value proposition in terms of significantly lowering the cost of launch or reuse.

What leg retraction does do, however, is shave a significant amount of time off of the process of booster recovery and post-recovery processing. Instead of the normal process of totally dismantling and removing the legs piece by piece, stowing Falcon 9’s legs saves not only the time it takes to remove them but also the time it then takes to reinstall said legs for the next launch. At a minimum, this could save 12-24 hours of dedicated work, up to as much as several days according to CEO Elon Musk. Taken to the extreme, it’s likely that SpaceX’s ultimate goal is to lift a booster off the drone ship, retract its landing legs mid-air (or close), flip the booster horizontal, and lower it onto a transporter in one fluid movement.

If SpaceX can arrive at something approximating that in the near future, the company will be well on its way accomplish Musk’s goal of launching the same Falcon 9 booster twice in ~24 hours. Even further down the road, if or when SpaceX manages to optimize the reusability of its Falcon 9 boosters to the extent that almost zero refurbishment or in-depth inspection is needed between launches, minimizing the amount of human effort that goes into something as basic as preparing landing legs may actually have a significant impact on launch costs. For the time being, we get to enjoy the new and unusual spectacle of a giant reusable booster carefully stowing its landing legs for another launch attempt.

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

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)

Tesla is concerned about a global shortage of minerals required for production of electric vehicle batteries, with the electric car maker recently warning major industry players and US government representatives of an upcoming mineral supply challenge due to underinvestment in mining sources, according to a report published by Reuters. Representatives in the US government who are both aware and focused on the shortage issue have introduced legislation in the Senate to address delays rooted in the federal approval process. The bill, titled the “American Mineral Security Act”, was presented at the same closed-door conference where Tesla expressed its concerns last week.

“Our bill takes steps that are long overdue to reverse our damaging foreign dependence and position ourselves to compete in growth industries like electric vehicles and energy storage,” Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the main sponsor of the bill, said in a statement about the legislation. Senators Joe Manchin (D-W. Virginia), Martha McSally (R-Arizona), and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) are co-sponsors.

The bill specifically requires that a list of critical minerals be compiled at least every three years along with a resource assessment of those minerals nationwide. This data is then used to target and implement reforms in the federal regulatory process aimed at reducing government-driven delays in the mining approval process.

As a major consumer of minerals required for the production of electric vehicle (EV) batteries and other vehicle parts, Tesla will need stable access to mined resources like copper, nickel, and lithium in the long term. The expansion of the EV market will continue to increase demand for these resources. Other tech players such as Amazon and Alphabet also need the same resources for the production of their digital assistants and home connectivity devices.

Tesla’s global supply manager for battery metals, Sarah Maryssael, spoke with representatives present at the industry conference about Tesla’s concerns regarding the company’s mineral needs. Maryssael noted that a “huge potential” existed for mining partnerships in Australia and the US to help with the supply issue, possibly citing a preliminary deal between the two countries for a joint effort towards research and development in the area.

The global demand for copper, in particular, is expected to increase from the current 38,000 tons per day to 1.5 million tons by 2030, and this estimate has driven major copper production companies to expand its mining activities in the US and Indonesia. Electric cars use twice as much copper as gas-powered cars, making the EV industry particularly sensitive to its market availability.

Tesla’s needs from the mineral industry go well beyond copper. The company’s Nevada-based Gigafactory 1 facility is expected to hit 255 GWh annual production of batteries once complete. At that rate, the current global supply of lithium will need to increase nearly three times over to meet the demand. Unlike copper, though, investments in lithium production are ongoing, and Tesla’s ramping need for the mineral is driving significant expansion in part of the mineral market.

Tesla rival Volkswagen has taken a stand against a debunked yet insistent argument against all-electric vehicles. In a recent study involving one of its  most popular vehicles, the German automaker declared that EVs have a smaller carbon footprint than their internal combustion-powered counterparts, even if they are not charged from renewable sources.

Volkswagen used two of its vehicles, a Golf TDI and an e-Golf for its study. The e-Golf produced 57g/km of carbon dioxide per vehicle, which is higher than the Golf TDI’s 29g/km of CO2 per vehicle. This is the only time that the electric car’s carbon footprint exceeded that of its diesel counterpart, since when it came to charging and operating the vehicles, the e-Golf proved far cleaner than its diesel-powered sibling.

Driving the Golf TDI resulted in an average CO2 output of 111g/km, which was notably higher than the 62g/km CO2 produced by the e-Golf when charging. Volkswagen estimated that this figure could drop to as low as 2g/km if the electric car were charged using renewable energy. With these calculations in mind, the German carmaker noted that the diesel-powered Golf TDI produced an average of 140g/km over its lifetime. The e-Golf, on the other hand, produced an average of 119g/km over its lifetime.

The Volkswagen-backed study mirrors the findings of a previous analysis by research organization BloombergNEF, which concluded that the CO2 emissions produced by electric vehicles charged from non-renewable power were still 40% lower than cars operating with internal combustion engines. This gap, of course, is set to get smaller with the introduction of more efficient battery technology and more sustainable automotive manufacturing processes.

Credit is due to Volkswagen for taking a stand against a persistent piece of misinformation that has been peddled for years. The study, if any, is yet another sign that one of Germany’s largest of automakers is beginning to take the upcoming electric car revolution seriously.

This is highlighted by Volkswagen’s recent public comments, as shown when the carmaker acknowledged Tesla for establishing that the demand for electric vehicles is there. The company also made headlines when CEO Herbert Diess encouraged BMW and Daimler to commit to an all-electric future. After Das Auto’s agreement, BMW member of the board Klaus Fröhlich confirmed that Germany would be moving away from other alternative forms of propulsion like hydrogen, as the country’s automakers will be focusing on all-electric vehicles instead.

While Volkswagen is arguably one of Tesla’s loudest rivals with its constant releases of concept all-electric vehicles that are yet to enter production, the company has shown some earnest interest in the electric car maker’s work. During the final days of Elon Musk’s short-lived attempt to take Tesla private last year, the CEO received a number of offers from investors willing to fund company’s privatization at $420 per share. The deal, which was estimated to cost around $30 billion, attracted a number of prominent investors, one of which was none other than Volkswagen AG.

Volkswagen’s electric car emissions study could be accessed here.

According to SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, the next round of Starhopper activity will focus on removing the spacecraft prototype’s tethers and performing far more substantial hop tests.

Longer tests demand that SpaceX begins expanding the known performance envelope of its full-scale Raptor engine. Towards that end, longer-duration tests would need to be done at the company’s McGregor, TX development facilities to reduce risk, tests that Musk confirmed are already well underway. A recent Raptor static fire reportedly lasted no less than 40 seconds, more than enough time for a single-engine Starhopper to significantly expand both the maximum altitude and velocity of future hop tests. In support of the upcoming Starhopper test campaign, significant construction work is also ongoing at SpaceX’s Boca Chica test and development facilities.

Unleashing the Hopper

During the months of March and April, SpaceX’s South Texas team effectively completed Starhopper and put the prototype through its first real tests. The process began with tank proof tests in which Starhopper’s tanks were filled with liquid nitrogen – relatively neutral and unreactive – to safely identify and repair any leaks, while also subjecting the vehicle to cryogenic temperatures. The proof testing also put the newly installed ground systems (GSE) and vehicle-pad connection hardware through their paces before moving to Starhopper’s nominal liquid oxygen and liquid methane propellant.

Following at least half a dozen or so wet dress rehearsals (WDRs) that saw Starhopper loaded with LOx and methane, SpaceX technicians analyzed the health of the prototype and soon began live tests with a Raptor engine installed. Designed to produce no less than 2000 kN (450,000 lbf, 205 mT) of thrust at full throttle, Raptor offers more than twice the max thrust of the latest variant of the Merlin 1D engine that powers Falcon 9 and Heavy (941 kN or 212,000 lbf). In other words, a single Raptor should be more than enough to lift Starhopper off the ground 150+ tons of propellant aboard.

After several unsuccessful test attempts, Starhopper completed two static fires (<10s combined) and hopped – tethered – a handful of feet off the ground on April 3rd and 5th, three weeks after Raptor was first installed. Days later, the lone Raptor engine was removed from Starhopper and shipped back to SpaceX’s Hawthorne, CA factory or McGregor, TX testing facilities for post-test analysis and inspection. In short, SpaceX used Starhopper as a sort of ad hoc test stand for the second serial Raptor (SN02) produced, completing two major acceptance tests simultaneously.

A handful of concise tweets published by Musk in the last few days of April implicitly confirmed that the next steps for Starhopper involved untethered flights off its South Texas pad, once again powered by a single Raptor engine. As both the prospective altitudes and flight times rise for future Starhopper tests, so do the risks posed to SpaceX’s adjacent facilities and the prototype itself. To minimize those risks and progress the Raptor program as a whole, SpaceX has been extensively testing the third serial Raptor (SN03) at its McGregor facilities. Instead of a rushed test regime similar to the one that almost completely destroyed Raptor SN01 less than two weeks after testing began, SN03 is participating in a more cautious and systematic series of tests.

Confirmed by Elon Musk, this included significantly increasing the length of Raptor SN03’s latest static fires, culminating in an April 27th test that lasted ~40 seconds. Above all else, long test fires are necessary to demonstrate that Raptor can reliably operate for dozens of seconds at a time, given that any failure leading to a loss of thrust could cause Starhopper – basically a controlled explosive device – to fall out of the sky. The famous Musk/SpaceX ethos of moving fast and breaking things does not preclude a pragmatic attitude towards the destruction of facilities and prototypes that could take months and millions of dollars to rebuild.

The ETA of future hop tests is unclear. For the time being, it appears that SpaceX’s South Texas facilities will be caught up in construction work for at least another week. Whether or not Raptor SN03 is next in line for installation on Starhopper, SpaceX will likely put it through several more long-duration static fires before moving ahead with untethered hop tests. All things considered, the rough Starship prototype is unlikely to restart powered testing for another two or so weeks. 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