LNG: TESLARATI

This is a free preview of DeepSpace, Teslarati’s new member-only weekly newsletter. Each week, I’ll be taking a deep-dive into the most exciting developments in commercial space, from satellites and rockets to everything in between. Sign up for Teslarati’s newsletters here to receive a preview of our membership program.

Rocket Lab continues to buck the adage that “space is hard” with its small but increasingly reliable Electron rocket. After a slight range hardware malfunction caused a launch abort just shy of orbit during Electron’s inaugural May 2017 launch attempt, Rocket Lab fixed the issue and returned to flight, successfully completing Electron’s first orbital launch in January 2018. On November 11th, 2018, the rocket completed its first truly commercial launch, placing seven various satellite into Low Earth Orbit (LEO), rapidly followed by Electron’s fourth successful launch on December 16th, barely one month later.

On March 29th, Rocket Lab completed yet another milestone launch for Electron, successfully placing its heaviest payload – an experimental ~150 kg DARPA spacecraft known as R3D2 – into an accurate orbit. Even relative to SpaceX’s barebones Falcon 1 launch campaign, which attempted five launches – two successfully – over a three year career, Rocket Lab’s Electron has progressed at an extraordinary pace, taking less than two years to complete its fifth launch and achieving its first launch success after just one attempt and eight months of flight operations.

Relentless progress

• To find a rocket with a comparable record of success less than two years after its first launch attempt, one must jump back more than half a century to the late 1950s and early 1960s, when Russia and the US were putting their industrial mights to the challenge of achieving spacefaring ‘firsts’. Almost all of those original vehicles – including Redstone, Atlas, Delta, Thor, Titan, and even Saturn V – were able to weather early failures and achieve extraordinary launch cadences just 12-24 months after their debuts.
  • None, however, were developed as an entirely commercial rocket with almost exclusively private funds, although ESA’s Ariane 3 and 4 vehicles nearly fit the bill, with exemplary commercial track records and impressive acceleration from debut to high launch cadences.
• Incredibly, Rocket Lab has brought Electron from paper to its fourth successful launch in ~16 months on what can only be described as a shoestring budget relative to all past efforts, perhaps even Elon Musk and SpaceX.
  • According to public investment records, the small US-based, New Zealand-operated company may have reached orbit for the first time with less than $100M, including ~$70M in equity investment and unspecified development funding from DARPA in the early 2010s.

• Rocket Lab’s Electron rocket is quite small, measuring 1.2 m (~4 ft) wide, 17 m (56 ft) tall, and 12,500 kg (27,600 lb) at liftoff, anywhere from a quarter to half the size of SpaceX’s Falcon 1, by most measures.
  • Electron is capable of placing 150–225 kg (330–495 lb) into either a 550 km (340 mi) sun synchronous orbit (SSO) or a lower low Earth orbit (LEO).
  • Electron is advertised with a commercial list price of around $6M.
• Aside from Electron’s industry-defying record of achievement, its R3D2 launch is impressive for another reason: the cost of the payload relative to the cost of launch. For a rocket on its fifth-ever launch, DARPA reportedly spent no less than $25M to fund the development of the experimental R3D2 smallsat, while – as mentioned above – the cost of Electron’s launch could have been as low as ~$6M from ink to orbit.
  • In slightly different terms, Electron has now launched a payload that could be 4-5X more valuable than itself after just three prior launch successes and less than two years after beginning operations.
  • While ~$30M would not be a huge loss for a military agency like DARPA (FY19 budget: $3.4B), DARPA’s trust in Electron demonstrates impressive confidence in not just Electron, but also Rocket Lab’s standards of manufacturing, operations, and mission assurance.
• Relative to a vehicle like Falcon 9 or Atlas V, Electron’s R3D2 mission would be comparable to launching spacecraft worth ~$250M to $500M after just five launches. Both larger rockets accomplished similar feats, but small launch vehicles are historically known for less than stellar reliability.

Go[ing] forth and conquer[ing]

• Put simply, Rocket Lab has managed to build what appears to be a shockingly reliable small launch vehicle with a budget that would make Old Space companies whimper, all while offering a potential cadence of dozens of annual launches at per-launch costs as low as $6M.
  • While the cost-per-kg of a $6M Electron launch is still extremely high relative to larger rockets and rideshare opportunities, what Rocket Lab has achieved is nothing short of spectacular in the commercial spaceflight industry.
  • If there ever was an actual ‘space race’ to fill the small launch vehicle void created by the growth of small satellite launch demand, Rocket Lab has won that race beyond the shadow of a doubt. There is still plenty of room for competition and additional cost savings from a customer perspective, but Electron is so early to the party that future competition will remain almost entirely irrelevant for the better part of 2-3 more years.
• According to CEO Peter Beck, the company’s ambition is to sustain monthly Electron launches in the nine remaining months of 2019. Flight 6 hardware is likely already on its way to Rocket Lab’s Mahia, New Zealand Launch Complex 1 (LC-1).

Mission Updates

• The second launch of Falcon Heavy – the rocket’s commercial debut – is still scheduled to occur as early as April 7th, but a slip to April 9-10 is now expected. The massive rocket’s static fire – the first for a Block 5 Falcon Heavy – is set to occur as early as Wednesday, April 3rd.
• After Falcon Heavy, Cargo Dragon’s CRS-17 resupply mission is firmly scheduled for April (April 25th), while the first dedicated Starlink launch is now NET May 2019.
• In late May, SpaceX could launch Spacecom’s Amos-17 spacecraft, effectively free to the customer as part of a settlement following the tragic Amos-6 Falcon 9 anomaly that destroy the rocket, satellite, and large swaths of the LC-40 pad in September 2016.

Photo of the Week

The Porsche Taycan is nearing its official reveal, and the German carmaker is currently conducting the all-electric car’s final tests. As the vehicle’s last details get ironed out, auto publication CNET Roadshow was able to get an opportunity to ride shotgun in one of Porsche’s Taycan prototypes in Sweden, to experience the company’s next-generation vehicle firsthand.

The publication was able to take a ride in a test mule of the Taycan’s top-tier variant, a version speculated to be dubbed as the “Taycan Turbo.” Just as revealed in previous sightings, the Taycan Turbo boasts 600 horsepower with an all-wheel-drive powertrain that enables 0-60 mph times of less than 3.5 seconds. Over the course of the drive, several aspects of the vehicle became quite noticeable.

The Porsche Taycan will utilize a regenerative braking system that is quite different from those used by popular electric cars like the Tesla Model S, which engage their regen braking when the driver releases the accelerator. The Taycan does not do this, as the vehicle only coasts when the accelerator is released. The Taycan’s regenerative braking only happens when drivers press lightly on the brake pedal. When the brakes are pressed harder, the Taycan’s hydraulic brakes are engaged.

Bernd Propfe, director of the Taycan’s platform product line, described the process to the publication. “Coasting is the most energy-efficient way to do it, because braking always goes along with a loss of energy, because no engine has a 100 percent ratio. We strongly believe that the customer, if he wants to brake, he should hit the brake,” he said.

While such a strategy will make one pedal driving impossible with the Taycan, the vehicle’s regenerative braking process is distinctly on-brand. Porsche prides itself as a maker of drivers’ cars, and requiring its customers to actively use both the accelerator and brake pedal while operating the Taycan could be considered part of the all-electric sedan’s genuine driving experience.

Also unique in the Taycan is the vehicle’s two-speed transmission at the rear. Electric cars like the Model S utilize a single gear transmission, partly due to the power generated by the vehicle’s electric motors. Tesla attempted a two-speed transmission in the original Roadster back in 2008, only to abandon the design after the transmission units showed a tendency to self-destruct just a fraction into the all-electric sports car’s lifespan. If Porsche’s design with the Taycan is any indication, it appears that the German carmaker is confident that it can use a two-speed transmission for the all-electric four-door sedan without compromising anything.

Propfe proved quite secretive when it came to the Taycan’s sound, only stating that it will be digitally created and it will change depending on the specific mode of the all-electric car. The platform line director added that the Taycan’s sound is still very much in development. Fortunately, this sound was captured recently in a sighting of a Taycan test mule in Copenhagen, Denmark. While taking off on a parking lot ramp, the Taycan gave off a truly unique noise that invoked a mix between a traditional high-performance sports car and a spaceship.

The Taycan’s sound is best heard firsthand. Make sure to keep the volume up.

And here’s CNET Roadshow‘s segment on its first ride with the Taycan.

The Tesla Semi might be receiving a lot of interest from companies and the electric vehicle community as a whole, but an automotive technology expert from Germany is not that impressed. In a statement, Chair of Automotive Engineering at the Technical University of Munich Markus Lienkamp criticized all-electric trucks like the Tesla Semi, stating that such vehicles are pretty much pointless in the economic and ecological sense.

“The battery for a Tesla Semi must have a capacity of about 1000 kWh, per 100 kilometers about 130 kilowatt-hours. This is technically not easily feasible and it’s also pointless both economically and ecologically,” he said.

Lienkamp’s scathing criticism comes on the heels of a study from Transport and Environment, a consortium of European environmental organizations that conducted a study comparing the energy consumption and environmental costs of conventional diesel trucks and their all-electric counterparts. Two diesel trucks were used for the study: one with an average consumption of 33 liters per 100 kilometers (around 7 mpg) and a more aerodynamic truck with a consumption of 22 liters per 100 km (10.69 mpg).

The results of Transport and Environment’s study found that diesel trucks consume between 2.2-3.3 kilowatt-hours per kilometer, far above the consumption of an average electric truck, which requires 1.44 kWh per km. Electric vehicles that are designed from the ground up for maximum efficiency such as the Tesla Semi require just 1.15 kWh per km. The study’s authors concluded that overall, using all-electric trucks reduces energy consumption by a factor of 1.5-2.9.

All-electric trucks surpass diesel trucks in terms of efficiency as well. The study revealed that a diesel truck engine has an efficiency of 20-45% on long-haul routes and a measly 10% in city traffic. In comparison, electric trucks have a 90% efficiency for long routes and 75% in urban traffic. Lienkamp is not convinced, arguing that the source of the electricity used by vehicles like the Tesla Semi affects efficiency.

“The efficiency of the electricity mix used for the truck battery is important. If the energy comes from a gas-fired power plant, for example, the overall efficiency quickly drops back to 40%. If, on the other hand, 80% to 90% of the electricity comes from renewable sources, as planned in the EU for 2040, long-distance trucks would be attractive from an ecological point of view,” he said.

The authors of the study maintained that electric trucks are cheaper to repair and maintain simply because they have fewer moving parts. Even brakes will rarely need replacing, thanks to systems like regenerative braking. While these are compelling advantages, Lienkamp stated that “for distances of 500 kilometers and beyond, battery-powered trucks simply won’t make any economic sense until 2030,” adding “with electric vehicles, the cost of trying to reduce CO2 levels is simply too high.”

It should be noted that the Tesla Semi, at least in its upcoming iteration, is not designed to enter the long-haul market that is dominated by trucks that can go over 1,000 miles in one full tank. Rather, the Tesla Semi is designed to compete in short-range routes that range from 300-500 miles. From this perspective, it becomes difficult to argue against the Tesla Semi.

The Tesla Semi is a Class 8 truck, and with its four Model 3-derived electric motors, the all-electric long-hauler is capable of sprinting from 0-60 mph in just 5 seconds without a trailer. With a full load, the Semi can reach highway speeds in 20 seconds, far quicker than conventional diesel trucks. The Tesla Semi is currently undergoing real-world tests, in preparation for its production, which is expected to start either this year or sometime in 2020.