LNG: TESLARATI

Tesla CEO Elon Musk confirmed his attendance at the upcoming Giga Berlin groundbreaking ceremony. The event is expected to take place in the latter part of March 2020.

Economic Minster Jörg Steinbach requested Musk’s presence at the groundbreaking of the Giga Berlin site later this month. The date was revealed in Steinbach’s interview with German media outlet Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Musk recently noted on Twitter that he would “Definitely” be in attendance, just as he was for Giga Shanghai’s groundbreaking ceremony in January 2019.

In addition, it was announced by Steinbach that Tesla will receive around 280 million euros in funding from the State of Brandenburg according to Handelsblatt. The funding is an incentive for Tesla as the company will be creating additional jobs in a region that has been recognized as “structurally weak” by German media.

Steinbach stated the possible amount of funding Tesla could receive will be decided by the European Union Commission. The exact figure that will be given to the electric car maker is unknown as of writing, and it could take up to a year to decide how much funding is ultimately set aside for the project.

Steinbach has been one of Tesla and Musk’s most vocal supporters since the CEO announced the company’s intentions to bring a Gigafactory to Berlin.

After recognizing the possible economic growth and opportunity it would give young German workers, Steinbach has rejected any sort of criticism that has come Tesla’s way. This includes those who oppose Tesla receiving this influx of funds from Brandenburg.

State Governments set incentives into place so companies are encouraged to create jobs in regions that are not fully developed. Brandenburg state is responsible for an estimated four billion euros of incentives that it may use to convince companies to establish a presence in the area.

So far, Tesla’s plans for Giga Berlin have been received with enthusiasm by most Brandenburg citizens. A survey conducted by Berlin local news outlet Märkische Allgemeine found that 82% of residents are supportive of the planned factory, while only 15% are against it. About 62% of the respondents surveyed feel Giga Berlin will benefit Brandenburg “a great deal.”

Tesla Giga Berlin is expected to create around 12,000 jobs once it is operational. As for Steinbach, he believes Tesla’s success in Brandenburg could lead to more German locations in the future. “I hope that in twenty years you will look at Brandenburg the same way you look at Bavaria today, so that we will be among the top 3 of the federal states,” he said.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Tesla CEO Elon Musk recently confirmed that the company is hoping to finish some valuable improvements on Autopilot’s core foundation code and 3D labeling to roll out better functionality for its fleet of vehicles. Apart from this, Musk also remarked that a “Reverse Summon” function may be rolled out soon.

Musk was asked via Twitter by Tesla enthusiast and Resonant Aero founder Anner J. Bonilla when the beta for Reverse Summon will be available. Musk noted that the feature is indeed coming soon, and teased that upcoming improvements will also usher in some improved visualizations on vehicles’ displays.

We need to finish work on Autopilot core foundation code & 3D labelling, then functionality will happen quickly. Not long now.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 2, 2020

It remains to be seen if “Reverse Summon” is an upgraded form of Tesla Autopark, a function that was released in March 2017. Considering the “Reverse Summon” moniker, it appears that the upcoming feature will involve vehicles dropping off their passengers and heading to a parking spot without a driver. With this, Reverse Summon could practically be a mirror function of Smart Summon, which allows vehicles to pick up their passengers from a parking spot without a driver.

According to Tesla’s dedicated Autopilot AI webpage, it optimizes its code by looking at throughput, latency, correctness, and determinism so the software will be tightly integrated with its hardware. Such improvements in the core foundation code of Tesla’s Autopilot will allow it to maximize the potential of its hardware and process high-fidelity representation of the environment so the car can eventually achieve Full Self-Driving capabilities.

These improvements to Tesla’s Autopilot and the introduction of new features such as Reverse Summon will likely capitalize on the innate capabilities of Hardware 3, the company’s custom self-driving computer. Hardware 3 is a big part of Tesla’s rollout of its feature-complete FSD, which Musk noted will likely happen within the next few months. Musk mentioned this in the Q4 earnings call.

“And what isn’t obvious regarding Autopilot and Full Self-Driving is just how much work has been going into improving the foundational elements of autonomy… like the core autopilots in Tesla or Autopilot software and AI team is just is I think very, very strong in making great progress. And we’re only beginning to take full advantage of the Autopilot hardware and the FSD hardware,” Musk said.

Tesla’s endgame with its Hardware 3 rollout is the introduction of its full suite of FSD features. Upcoming features such as Reverse Summon may seem quite minor in the grand scheme of things, but these upgrades add valuable contributions to Tesla’s pursuit of full self-driving nonetheless.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The Tesla Cybertruck is arguably one of the most controversial vehicles to come out of the auto industry in recent years. Designed unlike any other pickup in the market, the Cybertruck was so polarizing that it resulted in both acclaim and outright hate when it was unveiled. Yet if the results of a recent analysis from Loup Ventures are any indication, it appears that the Cybertruck may be more welcome in the mainstream market than previously thought.

Following the Cybertruck’s unveiling last November, Loup Ventures Managing Partner Gene Munster remarked that the all-electric truck’s radically-different design would likely end up discouraging conventional pickup owners from buying the vehicle. More recent observations from real truck owners in the midwest have proven this thesis wrong.

In a recent update on Loup Ventures’ official website, Munster noted that after speaking with several construction professionals who use pickup trucks for their work, it is now evident that Tesla actually hit the mark with the Cybertruck pretty well. Among the 22 truck owners who were part of the firm’s analysis, 2/3 were positive or at least neutral when it comes to all-electric pickups. Ten even noted that their next vehicle would be electric.

Five of the pickup truck veterans actually stated that they plan to purchase a Tesla Cybertruck within the next five years, higher than the firm’s expectations. The Cybertruck’s brutalist design also seemed to be a complete non-issue for the vast majority of the construction professionals in Loup Ventures’ analysis. When asked if they will be embarrassed to show up to work site in a Cybertruck, for example, only 3 of the 22 said that they would have reservations about the vehicle’s design.

These results crush some of the bearish points against the Cybertruck that emerged since the vehicle’s unveiling. The idea that the pickup will be considered embarrassing by professionals due to its design, for one, was pushed by TSLA bears ardently due to the vehicle’s brutalist, sci-fi theme. Yet if Loup’s findings are any indication, it appears that the Cybertruck’s polarizing looks will not turn off the vast majority of buyers at all.

This is not to say that Tesla has no area of improvement with the Cybertruck’s marketing. If any, it appears that the electric car maker needs a better strategy when it comes to informing potential customers of the all-electric truck’s price. When Loup Ventures asked the construction professionals about their estimates on the Cybertruck’s compared to a base, $29,000 Ford F-150, the average quote from the longtime pickup buyers was $84,000. The median of the truck owners’ estimates about the Cybertruck’s cost was $80,000, and it ranged from $45,000 to $220,000. This is very far from the actual price of the Cybertruck, which starts below $40,000 with basic Autopilot.

If there’s anything that can be determined from Loup Ventures’ recent analysis, it is that the Cybertruck may actually end up tapping into a much larger market than initially expected. While the vehicle seems to be designed for a niche segment, its price and features might be enough to make it a compelling alternative for petrol-powered pickups like the Ford F-150. With these results in mind, Munster has adjusted Loup’s estimates for the vehicle, with the finance veteran stating that the truck will likely account for 15% of Tesla’s units in its fully ramped year, far more than the firm’s initial 5% estimate.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

SpaceX’s newest Starship spacecraft prototype unintentionally lifted off during a critical test at the company’s Boca Chica, Texas facilities – a development that was almost certainly unplanned.

On February 26th, under the cover of an incredibly thick fog bank, SpaceX carefully transported its second full-scale Starship prototype – measuring some 30m (100 ft) tall and 9m (30 ft) wide – to its Boca Chica, Texas launch and test pad, situated just a mile or so down the road from an ever-growing rocket factory. After just two days of last-second work spent outfitting the giant rocket tank with a few additional sensors and fully connecting it to ground systems (electricity, communications, and fluids), SpaceX kicked off the second cryogenic ‘proof’ test of an integrated Starship tank section.

An opaque layer of frost quickly developed on the ship’s mirror-smooth hull, effectively serving as a giant gauge for the liquid nitrogen pooling inside it. About an hour after faux-propellant (liquid nitrogen) loading began, Starship SN01’s liquid oxygen tank violently burst, causing the entirety of the vehicle’s 30-40 metric ton (65,000-90,000 lb) bulk to launch several dozen feet into the air. Stacked atop the oxygen tank, SN01’s methane tank – likely pressurized with nitrogen or oxygen gas – shot off like a house-sized bullet when the rest of the tank section impacted the ground, flying some 150-300+ meters (500-1000 ft) from the pad.

Long-time Boca Chica resident, photographer, and videographer Mary (also known as “bocachicagal” on forums) captured the seemingly unintentional Starship failure in spectacular detail on February 28th. Given how high the heavy vehicle jumped after its aft tank dome failed, as well as how fast the house-sized methane tank flew after it breached, it’s safe to say that both were significantly pressurized before the anomaly.

What’s unclear is what exactly went wrong with Starship SN01 and whether SpaceX expected it to fail during the test. Known as a cryogenic proof test, SpaceX pressurized the ship’s tanks with liquid nitrogen and a gas of some kind in an effort to verify its structural integrity and determine if it was safe to proceed to more risky tests. According to CEO Elon Musk, Starship SN01 was actually meant to support a full wet dress rehearsal (WDR) with liquid oxygen and methane, followed by a Raptor engine static fire test shortly thereafter.

That plan is clearly moot, now, and also seems to indicate that SpaceX is likely somewhat surprised about the outcome of SN01’s first proof test. Thankfully, this particular Starship was built quickly (and thus likely cheaply), coming together in an unfathomable four weeks. Additionally, SpaceX’s second serial Starship prototype (SN02) is already well on its way to the launch pad, with multiple sections of stacked steel rings in work. Based on the four or so weeks SN01 took to go from first weld to pressure test, SN02 could be just two or three weeks away from its own proof test debut.

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

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

A new photo of a Tesla Model Y with a person standing beside it is the best look yet at how the all-electric crossover stacks up in height, and all-around size when compared to the Model 3 sedan and Model X SUV.

Jason Yu snapped a photo of himself standing directly next to a gorgeous Deep Blue Metallic Model Y that he spotted at the Westlake Center in Daly City, California. Standing just over 5 foot 7 inches tall (170 cm) plus an additional .75 inch from the height of his shoes, according to Yu, the Model Y looked closer in size to Tesla’s Model X than its sibling Model 3.

Tesla has not published the dimensions for the Model Y, only noting that it is approximately 10% larger than the Model 3. However, a recent sighting revealed that Model Y has a height of 62.5 inches (158.8 cm). By comparison, Tesla Model 3 has a height of 57 inches (144.8 cm) and appears notably smaller when compared against Yu’s stature.

Yu notes that he was standing 1 inch away from the vehicle and wearing identical shoes in both instances of the photo.

While Yu appears significantly taller than the height of the Model 3, another selfie taken with a Model X tells a different story.

Tesla’s flagship Model X is the company’s largest vehicle to date that’s in production. Standing at 66.3 inches in height (168.4 cm), Model X isn’t much taller than the Model Y with 20″ induction wheels that was captured by Yu. This doesn’t come as much of a surprise, considering both Model X and Model Y are available in a 7-seat configuration with three rows of seating. In both vehicles, the third row of seats can be folded down to create an expansive rear trunk space. A recent sighting of a Model Y reveals a rather large rear cargo space.

Alright, here is a comparison of me standing next to a Model Y vs a Model X. If you want to see me stand next to another vehicle with my yang gang hat, let me know. #ModelY #ModelX #YangGang @Tesla https://t.co/nfQOVjJqaH pic.twitter.com/7NqDxowVKD

— Jay Yu (@jayzilla711) February 29, 2020

Tesla is set to begin first Model Y deliveries to customers as early as March 15. Available in both a Long Range configuration that’s capable of 315 miles per single charge and a 280-mile Performance variant, Tesla’s all-electric crossover is expected to be the company’s biggest seller to date, besting Model 3 in popularity.

The Elon Musk-led electric car company is projecting over 500,000 vehicles delivered in 2020, helped by increasingly better production efficiencies, streamlined vehicle design, and plans to continue Gigafactory deployments across the world.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

SpaceX has been awarded a $117 million launch contract for NASA’s Psyche mission that will study a unique metal asteroid between Mars and Jupiter.

The NASA mission to loft a 5,750-lb. (2,608-kg) spacecraft atop of SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Rocket will study a mineral-rich asteroid named 16 Psyche. The mission is expected to take place sometime in 2022 and launch from NASA’s historic Launch Pad 39A in Cape Canaveral, Florida.

Falcon Heavy will launch @NASAPsyche! The mission, for which @NASA requires the highest level of launch vehicle reliability, will study a metal asteroid between Mars and Jupiter to help humanity better understand the formation of our solar system’s planets https://t.co/mvrgx6dvaW pic.twitter.com/FqMaRKscQ4

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) February 28, 2020

Psyche is an intriguing, metallic world orbiting in the asteroid belt, between Mars and Jupiter. Most asteroids are made of rock and ice, but not Psyche — it’s composed of iron and nickel. That’s what makes it an interesting target. 

Scientists want to study it because they believe Psyche could provide insight into how planets form. Terrestrial bodies, like the Earth, have metallic cores deep in their interior, below the outer layers like the mantle and crust. Psyche could be one of these metallic cores: the remnant of a violent collision with another planetary body billions of years ago.

We’re unable to study the Earth’s core directly, so Psyche could provide a lot of insight into our own planet as well as how other rocky planets form.

The Psyche mission was selected in 2017 as part of NASA’s Discovery Program, which also includes historic missions like the Kepler Space Telescope, and the InSight Mars lander.

This mission is one of true exploration because scientists aren’t exactly sure of what we will find. Ground-based measurements indicate that Psyche could be as large as Mars, and is probably shaped like a potato. But is this hunk of metal the dead, exposed heart of an ancient protoplanet or could it be a weird iron-rich alien world?

The spacecraft is packing a suite of four instruments that will enable the science team to determine what happened to 16 Psyche over its lifetime. Right now the team postulates that Psyche is the metallic core of a planetary body that was destroyed billions of years ago through an incredibly violent collision with another world. There’s evidence to indicate that Psyche was once molten, and cooled after having its crust stripped away. 

Planetary impacts, such as a meteor slamming into the Earth, have been studied for as long as scientists have been studying planets. Understanding these events are a fundamental aspect of planetary science. They can tell us the age of a planetary surface, and much more. Historically, impact studies have focused on rocky worlds, and recently icy bodies. But what happens on a metal world? No one knows. 

If Psyche was once a molten world, as the science team believes, it could join the list of volcanic worlds in the solar system. We’re all familiar with the volcanoes that we see here on Earth. Mars had similar ones in its past, like Olympus Mons. But these are not the only types of volcanoes we see in our cosmic backyard. Icy worlds like Pluto and Ceres have evidence of cryovolcanoes.

These are different than what we see on Earth because they spew icy materials instead of lava. Psyche could be even more strange, with evidence of molten metals such as iron and nickel on its surface.

Psyche will test an experimental laser technology that will aim to improve communications with spacecraft over vast distances. It will also launch with two secondary payloads: Escape and Plasma Acceleration and Dynamics Explorers (EscaPADE), which will study Mars’ atmosphere and the process by which it’s being lost to space; and Janus, which will focus on binary asteroids and how they form.

This is SpaceX’s 8th contract from NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) and the first for Falcon Heavy. SpaceX’s workhorse, the Falcon 9 has several science missions under its belt, having launched NASA’s Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), and will launch the upcoming PACE mission, which is designed to study the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

February 29, “leap day”,  is an oddity on the calendar that occurs every four years in an attempt to sync up the Gregorian calendar (the calendar most of the world uses to keep time) with Earth’s rotation around the sun.

One calendar year on Earth is 365 days long; however, the Earth actually takes 365.2422 days to lap the sun. That puts the planet roughly a quarter of a day behind at the end of each year.

To maintain consistency and ensure the seasons line up each year, an extra day was added to the already short month of February — a modification that happens every four years. But even this doesn’t fully solve the problem; additional tweaks are needed.

For instance, if a year is divisible by 100, there’s no extra day — unless the year is divisible by 400. That means that 1700, 1800 and 1900 did not have a leap day, but 2000 did. This adjustment ensures that Earth is as close as possible to the same point in its orbit in consecutive calendar years and keeps our seasons inline.

Unsurprisingly, Earth is not the only planet that needs leap days. The phenomenon could occur on other planets in our solar system as well as those around other stars. That’s because you can’t fit an exact number of spins into one trip around the sun for any planet. There’s usually going to be something left over. Leap days on other worlds, such as Mars,  could be more complicated than those here on Earth.

One year on Mars lasts for approximately 668.6 Martian days. (A Martian day is called a sols and equals 24 hours, 39 minutes, and 35.244 seconds.) Future inhabitants might decide that a year on the red planet will be described as 668 days. How do we adjust?

Over the decades, many different ideas for the Martian calendar have been proposed. The most popular one, called the Darian calendar, was created in 1985 by Tomas Gangale.

According to Gangale, the Martian calendar would feature 24 months, each named for the Latin and Sanskrit words for the constellation of the zodiac, like Sagittarius and Dhanus, and so forth. The first five months in each quarter would have 28 Martian days (or sols), with the sixth having only 27. Even-numbered years would total 668 days and odd-numbered years would have 669. The exception to that rule: even-numbered years that were divisible by 10.

Another option was proposed by Michael Allison, a retired NASA scientist. In his version, the Martian calendar would have 668-days divided into 22 months, each totaling 30 or 31 days, similar in fashion to Earth. To make sure the seasons lined up, all years divisible by five will have three leap days, bringing the total to 671.

So which of these calendars do scientists use to keep track of time on Mars? Currently, none.

Instead, they use two systems to keep track of time: one counts the number of Martian days since the start of a mission, and the other keeps track of where Mars was in its orbit at that time.

Right now scientists don’t care if the seasons line up perfectly with the calendar, but that may change when you add humans into the mix. NASA and other space agencies around the world have their sights set on Mars. Once humans land on the red planet and spend significant time there, we are going to need a common calendar to keep track of seasons.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The Tesla Model 3 grabbed the UK Car of the Year 2020 award after bagging the Best Executive vehicle category in February.

The Model 3 victory registered a back-to-back win for electric vehicles following Jaguar I-PACE’s win last year. It is also quite an achievement for a young manufacturer such as Tesla that snatched its first-ever win in the UKCOTY Awards.

“Game-changer is an often-overused phrase, but the Tesla Model 3 has shaken up the executive segment and got many brands thinking. Electric vehicles attract a broad spectrum of opinions, but it’s clear that with its technology, performance and range, the Model 3 is converting a lot of people,” said director of the UK Car of the Year Awards John Challen.

The panel of journalist judges consists of 29 respected individuals in the automotive field.

“Clean, crisp and technological inside, the Model 3 drives and performs like we think EVs should. Makes others in the sector feel stuffy and awkward,” said Tom Ford of Top Gear.

Other judges were all praises for the mass-produced electric sedan. Chris Knapman of CarGurus did not only gave his nod for the Model 3 being packed with features but for its “exciting ownership experience” as well. Paul Berker of Company Car Today and freelancer Guy Bird were in agreement that the electric sedan deserved the win for how it shakes the segment with its desirability and affordability.

The Tesla Model 3 bested eight other champions in different categories to win the overall title:

Best Supermini – Renault Clio

Best Small Hatch – Mazda3 

Best Luxury – Bentley Flying Spur

Best Estate – BMW 3 Series

Best Crossover – Kia e-Niro

Best Premium Crossover – Range Rover Evoque

Best Cabriolet – Porsche 911

Best Performance – Porsche Taycan

“A huge thank you to all the UK Car of the Year judges for choosing Model 3 as well as all of our UK owners. We are proud of what this car has achieved so far and with the upcoming 0% company car tax there is an exciting year ahead for EVs in the UK,” Tesla UK stated upon receiving its award at the Car of the Year 2020 event.

It is also nice to take note that three of the nine champions in their respective categories were all-electric vehicles, proving that the quality and performance of EVs is not only nearing, but exceeding that of internal combustion cars. The Kia e-Niro grabbed the second place while the Porsche Taycan finished third together with the BMW 3 Series.

The UKCOTY Awards is an independent set of awards that put a spotlight on the best new cars in the UK market.

The Tesla Model 3 has won numerous awards in the past year or so. It took the “Car Of The Year” award from UK’s Parker’s Car Guides and was also named best electric car, best company car, and vehicle with best safety by the same publication. Meanwhile, Motortrend shortlisted the Tesla Model 3 as one of the three finalists for its 2020 Car of The Year award while also naming it as the best sports sedan on the market.

The Model 3 is also the only American-made car in Consumer Reports’ Top Picks of 2020.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

SpaceX recently debuted a new rocket engine test stand at its Central Texas development facilities and one specific aspect of the so-called ‘tripod stand’ could make life a lot easier for Starship’s Raptor engine engineers.

The success of SpaceX’s extremely ambitious Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy boosters hinges heavily on the prior success of a next-generation rocket engine the company is developing itself. Known as Raptor, the engine is likely one of the most complex ever developed, owing to its use of a combustion cycle that’s as challenging and unforgiving as it is efficient. That efficiency is the draw.

The decision to base the Starship launch system around methane and oxygen propellant – relatively dense, safe to handle, and easy to generate on Mars – means that it can never be as efficient as a rocket based on hydrogen and oxygen, the pinnacle of chemical combustion-based propulsion. For a methalox rocket as nominally reusable as Starship, going to extremes to eke even a smidge of extra efficiency out of its Raptor engines is a reasonable – if not necessary – decision. However, that pursuit of efficiency carries many hurdles with it, some of which can even be exacerbated by the equipment used to test those engines on the ground.

Raptor is less than unique in this particular case but SpaceX’s engine development and testing has matured to the point that the stands it’s relied on for static fires have become a detriment to the engine’s progress. Specifically, aside from Starhopper, all previous Raptor static fires have been performed with engines installed horizontally in test bays located at SpaceX’s McGregor, Texas development facilities. While in flight, Raptor engines will theoretically never experience wear and tear similar to the unique conditions imposed by horizontal testing – engine burns will almost invariably exert forces along a vertical (up and down) axis.

To almost anyone else, even other engine development companies, this might seem like an insignificant difference. Built around the full-flow staged combustion (FFSC) cycle and meant to be unprecedentedly reusable and reliable, the Raptor engine is not quite as forgiving. Since the engine’s inaugural full-scale static fire test just one year ago, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has noted several times that Raptor could benefit from new vertical test stands.

Speaking in October 2019, Musk stated that a new vertical test stand would “hopefully allow simplification of Raptor design, as pump shaft wear & drainage is better in vertical config.” More generally, testing Raptor engines vertically would also be “more representative of flight [conditions]”, allowing SpaceX to live up to its proven “test as you fly” philosophy.

Indeed, aside from Starhopper’s two successful test flights and a handful of static fires, Raptor has performed barely any vertical testing despite more than 3200 seconds of static fires completed with 18 full-scale engine prototypes in the last 12 months alone. Including subscale engines tested from 2016 through 2018, SpaceX’s Raptor engine has likely completed some 5000 seconds (>80 minutes) of test fires over the course of three and a half years of development.

Aside from allowing SpaceX engineers to potentially simplify the Raptor engine design and test the Starship engines in conditions much closer to what they will experience in flight, the addition of a new dedicated test stand – on top of two existing horizontal bays – should allow even more testing to be done in a given time-frame. The more testing that can be done, the more engines SpaceX can quickly qualify for flight, and given that every Starship/Super Heavy pair could require up to 43 new Raptor engines, SpaceX will need all the testing capacity it can get.

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

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});