LNG: TESLARATI

SpaceX has suffered its second rocket landing failure of 2020 despite the fact that both lost Falcon 9 boosters successfully launched 60 Starlink satellites, an anomaly that CEO Elon Musk says will need a “thorough investigation”.

After a rare last-second launch abort on March 15th and a three-day range-related delay, Falcon 9 booster B1048 lifted off with 60 upgraded Starlink v1.0 satellites on its fifth orbital-class mission. At least for the first two and half minutes, the booster performed precisely as intended, carrying a fueled upper stage and its ~16 metric ton (36,000 lb) payload to an altitude of 55 km (34 mi) and a velocity of 1.8 km/s (1.1 mi/s). However, about 10 seconds before the booster reached main engine cut-off (MECO) and stage separation, something went wrong.

While there is some ambiguity in his response, according to Musk, at least one of Falcon 9 B1048’s nine Merlin 1D engines performed an early shutdown before MECO. The rocket’s computer immediately accounted for the anomaly, extending the remaining eight-engine booster burn 5-7 seconds beyond the nominal timeline to ensure mission success. While the booster’s loss is still disappointing and the premature engine shutdown more than a little concerning, it’s critical to remember that mission success was ensured. Just 15 minutes after liftoff, the rocket’s upper stage successfully spun up and deployed another 60 Starlink satellites, bringing SpaceX’s operational constellation to an incredible ~350 satellites.

Based on live views available from SpaceX’s launch webcast, it appears that Falcon 9’s “early engine shutdown” is more of a euphemism for a fairly violent engine failure that triggered an instantaneous cutoff, preventing damage elsewhere. While SpaceX would certainly rather avoid in-flight engine failures, Falcon 9’s nine Merlin 1D booster engines are installed inside an aluminum ‘octaweb’ structure that transmits their thrust to the rest of the rocket but also effectively quarantines each engine in a blast-proof bunker.

Nevertheless, the rocket’s highly-attuned software and affected octaweb engine bunker did their jobs, instantly shutting the failing engine down while also preventing the explosion and resulting shrapnel from damaging the rest of the rocket. More likely than not, B1048’s autonomous decision to always put mission success before booster recovery lead the booster to expend a majority of the propellant needed for its landing attempt to make up for the 10 or so seconds operating at only ~89% thrust.

As a result, B1048 may have simultaneous subjected itself to a much more extreme atmospheric reentry and run out of propellant before it could complete (or maybe even start) its drone ship landing burn. There’s also a chance that the engine that failed was one of the three engines required for reentry and landing burns, an asymmetry that would be impossible to overcome on the fly. Ultimately, the booster likely impacted the ocean at a near-supersonic velocity, smashing it into aluminum confetti. Thankfully, the late B1048 had a record-breakingly productive career as an orbital-class booster, placing dozens of tons of payload into orbit over five successful launches. Its loss is regrettable but the booster has more than earned its keep.

Aside from two twice-flown Falcon Heavy Block 5 side boosters of unknown status and 2-3 new boosters assigned to critical NASA and US Air Force missions, SpaceX’s fleet is now down to just three flightworthy Falcon 9 boosters. This could dramatically limit its options for near-term commercial flights, as none of those rockets – even assuming flawless launch and landing debuts – will likely be ready for their first reuses until May or June. Meanwhile, B1051 and B1049 have three and four missions under their respective belt and both completed their last launches just 50-70 days ago, while B1059 flew for the second time just two weeks ago. Despite the fact that it successfully completed its fifth mission, B1048’s in-flight engine failure will almost certainly delay upcoming launches, although the degree of those delays is up for debate.

Up next for SpaceX is SAOCOM 1B, an Argentinian radar satellite set to become the first payload launched into a polar orbit from the US East Coast in half a century. Before B1048’s anomaly, the mission was scheduled to launch no earlier than March 30th and could use any of unassigned boosters described above

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({});

The advent of full self-driving technologies may soon get a boost from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). In a recent announcement, the agency stated that it was proposing sweeping changes to safety requirements in the US that could, in turn, accelerate the development and rollout of autonomous vehicles without human controls. 

As noted in a Financial Post report, the NHTSA is proposing to rewrite 11 safety standards for full self-driving cars related to the vehicles and their traditional manual control requirements. These would affect rules for occupant protection, steering controls, glazing materials, door locks, side-impact protection, seating systems, roof crush resistance, and child restraint anchorage systems. The agency notes that these rule changes are designed to accommodate vehicles that are not designed for human passengers, such as autonomous delivery robots from Nuro Inc.

In its proposal, the NHTSA stated that “as much of this potential is currently unsubstantiated and the impacts unknown, the agency believes the most prudent path forward is to remove unnecessary barriers to innovation while ensuring that occupants continue to receive the same protections afforded by existing regulations.”

The proposal from the NHTSA is set to be open for public comment before the revisions could be introduced. That being said, the changes have not exactly been met with immediate acceptance. In a statement to the business publication, Jason Levine, the head of the Center for Auto Safety, shared some criticism on the NHTSA’s proposal for the FSD rule revisions, which were suggested during a pandemic. 

Levine noted that the NHTSA should not “remove regulatory safeguards for technology (that) even DOT acknowledges has not been proven and may, in fact, be unsafe.”

The concerns of the Center for Auto Safety head aside, the NHTSA’s proposal for the rule revisions show that the agency is fully acknowledging the importance of self-driving technology to the transportation sector as a whole. While the suggested revisions only accommodate vehicles that are not designed for human passengers for now, it may not be too long before the agency introduces more defined rules for autonomous passenger cars as well. 

The introduction of defined rules for autonomous passenger vehicles is required before mainstream self-driving cars could be deployed appropriately. Numerous companies are actively developing full self-driving technologies, from tech-backed companies like Waymo to automakers like Tesla, whose FSD computer is specifically designed to support driverless operations. 

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

One of SpaceX’s first upgraded Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters is ready for its second attempt to set a reusability record after its March 15th Starlink launch attempt aborted at the very last second.

Now scheduled to send SpaceX’s sixth batch of 60 Starlink satellites into orbit no earlier than (NET) 8:16 am EDT (12:16 UTC), March 18th, the mission will be Falcon 9 booster B1048’s fifth. Just four months ago, the booster successfully launched the first 60 upgraded Starlink v1.0 satellites, also becoming the second SpaceX rocket to fly four times. While B1049 – B1048’s predecessor – was first to reach the four-flight milestone in May 2019, B1048 is now on track to take the next leap forward for Falcon 9 reusability.

First noted shortly after the abort on SpaceX’s March 15th launch webcast, the company later clarified that what could have been attributed to hardware failure was likely just an issue with software or sensors. Milliseconds before liftoff, Falcon 9’s autonomous flight computer seemingly didn’t like what it saw while interpreting the telemetry flowing in from the ignition of B1048’s nine Merlin 1D engines. Whatever the specific trouble, Falcon 9 believed that one or several of those Merlin 1D engines were producing more thrust than they should.

While likely oversimplifying what is a spectacularly complex logic system, the flight computers that control Falcon launch vehicles from T-1 minute to mission completion have to treat the messy uncertainty of reality through a black and white lens. Lacking the ability to heuristically interpret the data they process, the computers instead rely on algorithms that filter thousands of channels of telemetry into a handful of simple categories. If that data aligns with the computer’s expectations, things are okay. If the data doesn’t agree with the plan, things are not okay. There are, of course, many more levels of complexity, but the concept of operations remains mostly the same.

However, the telemetry itself is also a potential point of failure – bad data could lead the flight computer astray, concluding that things are okay when they aren’t or vice versa. To handle that potential failure mode, SpaceX relies on multiple strings of telemetry (and even multiple computers), all gathering and analyzing the same things simultaneously. If one of several redundant sensors starts to disagree with its brethren, reporting different data back to Falcon 9’s flight computers, it’s apparent that the sensor – not the thing it’s measuring – is likely at fault. Still, out of an abundance of caution, SpaceX avionics typically treat most “out-of-family” sensor readings as reason enough to delay or fully abort a launch. When a launch delay can be little more than an annoyance with a negligible cost, it’s almost universally better to be safe than sorry.

With Falcon 9 B1048’s March 15th false start, the rocket’s computer appears to have received conflicting readings from the same family (or families) of engine thrust sensors. While, as noted above, the fault almost certainly lay in an engine sensor or two and not in the engines themselves, the flight computer chose caution over expedience and halted the launch milliseconds before it would have otherwise commanded clamp release and lifted off.

Confirmed by SpaceX delaying the Starlink V1 L5 mission by just three days, the issue was almost certainly software or sensor-related. Given that SpaceX continues to push the envelope of launch vehicle reusability, it’s honestly more surprising that aborts like these aren’t more common. Instead, the reality is that Falcon 9 Block 5 – aside from delays from the occasional upper stage fault – almost never suffers hardware-related aborts when compared to the rocket’s prior iterations.

Featuring the second-ever flight-proven Falcon payload fairing, Falcon 9 B1048 will hopefully become the first SpaceX rocket to complete five orbital-class launches and landings. With more than a little luck, there’s also a smaller chance that the mission could mark the first time SpaceX successfully catches both fairing halves with twin ships Ms. Tree and Ms. Chief.

Tune in for SpaceX’s second Starlink V1 L5 launch attempt around 8am EDT (12:00 UTC) to catch the potentially record-breaking launch and landing live.

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({});

Just a day after an Alameda County spokesperson declared in a statement to the Los Angeles Times that Tesla is an “essential business” and thus allowed to remain in operation amid the C-19 outbreak, the county’s Sheriff’s Office has taken an opposing stance. In a recent update on Twitter, the Alameda County Sheriff declared that Tesla is not an essential business at all and that the company will only be allowed to maintain minimum basic operations. 

“Tesla: Tesla is not an essential business as defined in the Alameda County Health Order. Tesla can maintain minimum basic operations per the Alameda County Health Order,” the county sheriff tweeted. 

Notes from the Alameda County Health Order define “minimum basic operations” as a company strictly complying with Social Distancing Requirements for those who are still reporting to work. Activities that would still be allowed include those that “maintain the value of the business’s inventory, ensure security, process payroll, and employee benefits, or for related functions.” Companies must also provide workers the option to continue their employment remotely. 

With these in mind, Tesla’s Fremont factory would not be allowed to continue making electric cars, at least until the “minimum basic operations” rule is lifted. This could come as a blow to Tesla, considering that the company is prone to engaging in widespread end-of-quarter production and delivery efforts to optimize its quarterly numbers. It should be noted that the adverse effects of the C-19 shutdowns are not and will not be limited to Tesla alone. 

Automakers such as Volkswagen and Daimler in Europe have closed down their production facilities for at least two weeks. That being said, the Detroit 3 will remain operational for now, despite confirmed coronavirus cases among their employees. Amidst reports that a worker from Warren GM, Dearborn Ford, and the Fiat-Chrysler Kokomo Transmission Plant in Indiana have been tested positive for the C-19 virus, the Detroit 3 have decided to implement safety measures instead while keeping production activities ongoing. 

In a statement on Tuesday, the UAW stated that the three automakers would be implementing a “rotating partial shutdown of facilities, extensive deep cleaning of facility and equipment between shifts, extended periods between shifts and extensive plans to avoid member contact.” 

That said, UAW President Rory Gamblet has noted in a statement to Automotive News that the union asked for a pre-emptive two-week shutdown based on the World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines. Unfortunately, Gamblet said that the automakers “were not willing to implement this request” and asked for 48 hours to come up with a concrete plan of action. 

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

Tesla will continue to support essential business functions at its Fremont factory in the Bay Area, as the County-mandated Coronavirus lockdown continues to shut down “non-essential” businesses across the region.

In an email sent to employees on Wednesday, the company’s North American head of Human Resources Valerie Capers Workman notes that Tesla does has yet to obtain a “final word” from the City, County, State and, Federal Government on the status of their operations and will continue to operate with essential employees. The company is asking employees that are not feeling well, and those reluctant to come to work, to use any accrued paid time off and stay at home. For those short on PTO, the company is allowing employees to borrow up to 80 hours.

“If you are not feeling well, please stay at home and use PTO. If your PTO balance is low, you can borrow up to 80 hours (2 weeks), after you exhaust your PTO balance. Please inform your manager and follow the normal procedures for sick time.If you cannot or are reluctant to come to work, you can also use your PTO,” reads the email.

In addition, Tesla clarifies its stance on maintaining operations at its Fremont, California factory, noting that employees that are in an essential role within production, deliveries, and other critical functions, should continue to report to work.

“There are no changes in your normal assignment and you should continue to report to work if you are in an essential function: production, service, deliveries, testing and supporting groups as discussed with your manager.”

Today’s email comes on the heels of Monday’s announcement of a “shelter in place” lockdown for the San Francisco Bay Area to fight the spread of the coronavirus. The mandate, which required seven counties including Alameda County where Tesla operates its North American car factory, called for residents and workers that do not support a critical role in food, medical, and non-essential services to stay home.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk notified employees in an email sent Tuesday that he intended to work but it was OK to stay at home. “I’d like to be super clear that if you feel the slightest bit ill or even uncomfortable, please do not feel obligated to come to work,” said Musk in his email to employees. “I will personally be at work, but that’s just me. Totally OK if you want to stay home for any reason.”

Still, the Silicon Valley-based electric car company came under pressure later that evening after the Alameda County Sheriff called out Tesla for being a non-essential business. The tweet posted by the county Sheriff’s department seemingly addressed Tesla’s relationship to the new ordinance, while indicating that the company can maintain basic operations.  “Tesla can maintain minimum basic operations per the Alameda County Health Order.”

As of Tuesday, Tesla continues to maintain basic operations at its Fremont factory. While the company reels in the widespread consumer and economic impact of the global COVID-19 on its outlook, the Elon Musk-led electric carmaker is expected to continue operations under well-defined guidelines. Tesla had begun first deliveries of its newest Model Y crossover days before the announced lockdown.

“We still do not have a final word from the City, County, State and, Federal Government on the status of our operations. We have had conflicting guidance from different levels of government,” notes Workman in her email to staff.

The full email, obtained by CNBC, has been provided below.

Hi Team!

We still do not have a final word from the City, County, State and, Federal Government on the status of our operations. We have had conflicting guidance from different levels of government. Until then, we are operating with Essential Employees only while all others are working from home, and working to incorporate all CDC guidelines into our operations. There are no changes in your normal assignment and you should continue to report to work if you are in an essential function: production, service, deliveries, testing and supporting groups as discussed with your manager. If you are not assigned to support an essential function, your manager might suggest a temporary relocation to support essential functions, or you may need to be on call. If you are not feeling well, please stay at home and use PTO. If your PTO balance is low, you can borrow up to 80 hours (2 weeks), after you exhaust your PTO balance. Please inform your manager and follow the normal procedures for sick time. If you cannot or are reluctant to come to work, you can also use your PTO. Please inform your manager. You can also take unpaid time off, after your exhaust your PTO. You will not be penalized for your decision. There will be no disciplinary action for attendance based on health or impossibility to come to work. We will communicate with everyone again tonight and we appreciate all you are doing to keep safe social distance.

Thank you!

Valerie

Valerie Capers Workman | North America HR + AU/NZ/JP/KRRegistered In House Counsel

Do you have a tip you’d like to share? Email us at tips@teslarati.com or DM us @Teslarati.

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

Japanese electronics giant Sharp has filed a lawsuit against American electric car maker Tesla, alleging that the onboard communications equipment installed on the Model S, 3, and X are infringing on its patents. Sharp’s Tesla lawsuit comes not long after the Japanese firm also filed a case against TV-maker Vizio and smartphone-maker Oppo, also accusing them of patent infringement. 

As noted in a Nikkei Asian Review report, the Japanese electronics firm’s lawsuit against Tesla was filed in the Tokyo District Court. The company is also seeking an injunction against the import of Tesla’s electric vehicles, namely the Model S and Model 3 sedans, as well as the Model X SUV. 

Few details are known about Sharp’s claims against Tesla, though the firm’s mention of onboard communications equipment suggests that the alleged patent infringement involves the electric car maker’s infotainment systems, which provides primary access to its vehicles’ features.

This is quite interesting since Tesla’s cars have been equipped with the company’s updated infotainment system since May 2018. Even Tesla’s custom-built Hardware 3 computer has been rolled out to vehicles since last year. It is then a bit strange that Sharp would choose to file a case against Tesla at this point, considering that the Model 3, Model S, and Model X have been available in Japan for years. 

While the details about Sharp’s patent infringement claims against Tesla are scarce, the Japanese electronics giant has provided a lot of details about its grievances with the other companies it has recently sued. In Vizio’s case, for example, Sharp claimed that the TV-maker’s 70″ displays infringed on about 12 of its patents. Smartphone-maker Oppo, on the other hand, received a lawsuit from Sharp over alleged infringements on LTE patents. Both display technologies and LTE communications are present in Tesla’s electric cars. 

So far, a Sharp spokesman has declined to issue a comment about the firm’s patent infringement lawsuit against the American automaker. Tesla is quite the same, with the company not immediately responding to Reuters‘ requests for a comment. 

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

The first full review of the Tesla Model Y is an eye-opening look at how the company’s first all-electric crossover has the performance of a Porsche but with the practicality of a sport utility vehicle.

Throttle House’s James Engelsman had the opportunity to conduct a full review of a Tesla Model Y with the “Performance Upgrade”, which  includes:

• • Increased top speed from 145mph to 155mph
  • 21″ Überturbine Wheels
  • Performance Brakes
  • Lowered suspension
  • Aluminum alloy pedals

Some crossovers will never have the ability to feel like high-performance cars, according to Engelsman, because of their naturally high center of gravity. However, he notes the Model Y as almost solving this problem thanks to the excessive weight of the vehicle’s lithium-ion batteries that are located on the undercarriage of the car. Taking a corner at high speeds feels close to the Model 3 in Engelsman’s opinion, leading to the idea that driving in a “performance” fashion is possible in a crossover body type.

While the Model Y Performance configuration offers a 3.5 second 0-60 MPH acceleration rate, which is the slowest among Tesla’s Performance variants, it is “hardly slow,” according to Engelsman. The 0-60 time is faster than the $83,600 Porsche Macan Turbo, and the $81,100 Mercedes-Benz GLC 63S, and the same as the $78,295 Dodge Challenger Hellcat Redeye.

Credit: YouTube | Throttle House

Some of Engelsman’s personal favorites include the Model Y’s large glass roof, expansive trunk space, and reclining rear seats. The ample legroom and overall spaciousness of the vehicle will surely bring comfort to even some of the tallest passengers.

Tesla Model Y is currently available in a five-seat configuration. A seven-seat layout is expected to be available at the end of this year or early  2021. Model Y is being offered in a 316-mile Long Range variant, with a starting price of $52,990, and a 315-mile Performance version for $60,990.

Check out the full Tesla Model Y review by Throttle House below.

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

Tesla has published the Owner’s Manual for the Model Y, giving new owners a comprehensive guide on how to operate the company’s first all-electric crossover.

The Tesla Model Y Owner’s Manual goes online as the company begins first deliveries to customers throughout the nation, including first reports of customer cars making their way to buyers in California, Washington, Florida, New York, Utah, and beyond.

The vast majority of Model Y features are reminiscent of those found in its Model 3 sibling, although there are some key differences as follows:

• Tesla Model Y first in-depth REVIEW: How do the rear seats recline?
• Tesla Model Y first impressions: Size, rear seats, cargo space, and more
• Tesla Model Y vs. Tesla Model 3: What are the key differences?
• Tesla Model Y wireless phone charger
• Tesla Model Y power liftgate in action (video)
• Tesla Model Y key fob with passive entry

(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(«script»); scribd.type = «text/javascript»; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = «https://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js»; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(«script»)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

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

The auto industry is now feeling the weight on the ongoing C-19 pandemic, with veteran automakers Volkswagen and Daimler announcing that they will be suspending production in their European facilities. The news comes as updates from GM, Ford, and Fiat-Chrysler in the US revealed that workers from the Big Three automakers have tested positive for the coronavirus. 

Volkswagen’s update was announced by CEO Herbert Diess, who spoke to reporters on Tuesday. Diess stated that amidst the pandemic, Volkswagen has decided to suspend work at most of the company’s European factories for at least two weeks. These include facilities in Spain, Slovakia, and Italy, all of which will be halted by the end of the week. 

Frank Witter, chief financial officer at Volkswagen, explained the decision in a statement on Tuesday. “The spread of coronavirus is currently impacting the global economy. It is uncertain how severely or for how long this will also affect the Volkswagen Group. Currently, it is almost impossible to make a reliable forecast. We are making full use of all measures in task force mode to support our employees and their families and to stabilize our business,” he said.

Fellow German carmaker Daimler also announced that it would be suspending most of its production in Europe for at least two weeks in an effort contain the spread of the coronavirus. In a statement, Daimler remarked that the closures would be affecting the company’s car, van, and commercial vehicle facilities. 

“The suspension applies to Daimler’s car, van, and commercial vehicle plants in Europe and will start this week. With these closures, Daimler is helping to protect its workforce, to interrupt chains of infection and to contain the spread of the pandemic,” the automaker noted. 

Amidst the reports from Europe, American automakers Ford and GM have confirmed to The Detroit News that one employee from each automaker has tested positive for the coronavirus. The carmakers stated that both workers, one from Warren GM and the other from Dearborn Ford, are currently in quarantine and receiving medical attention. 

In a statement, Ford spokesman T.R. Reid remarked that the worker who tested positive for COVID-19 was working remotely when the virus was contracted. As a result, the employee is expected to not have spread the virus to co-workers at the Dearborn facility. 

“He was exposed after leaving the office several days ago. He was diagnosed before returning to the office. Has not been to the office or any Ford facility,” Reid said, adding that there is currently no need to close the Dearborn plant since the affected employee never returned to the office since contracting the virus. 

The General Motors employee who tested positive for the virus, on the other hand, was in the Cole Engineering Center when COVID-19 was contracted. GM’s medical team is currently contacting individuals that may have had direct contact with the employee in question. Once determined, the potentially affected workers will be advised to self-quarantine for two weeks. Public health officials have been contacted to help clean and disinfect work and common areas at the GM site as well. 

In a statement, GM noted that the company had been in contact with the employee who contracted the virus. “We have been in contact with the family and put our emergency response plan into action, building on the preventive measures we have already taken, which include directing employees at the Cole Technical Center and other sites to work remotely if possible,” GM stated.

A Fiat Chrysler employee from the company’s Kokomo Transmission Plant in Indiana has also tested positive for the coronavirus. Reports indicate that the FCA employee is receiving medical attention, and those who he came in contact with have been put in self-quarantine. 

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