LNG: TESLARATI

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({});

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 has added a Model Y key fob to its online shop that’s unsurprisingly no different than the Model 3 key fob. At a cost of $150 per key fob, the device provides the convenience of gaining access to your Model Y without the need to physically depress the key fob button.

Tesla describes the Model Y key fob as follows on its online shop:

“No hands required. Locking and unlocking your Tesla has never been easier. Keep your key fob in your pocket and simply pull on the door handle for easy entry. Same with the trunk. Your key fob is automatically enabled when you pair with your vehicle.

Gift box includes key fob and coin cell batteries.”

Unlike earlier versions of the Model 3 key fob which required owners to manually click to lock and unlock their vehicle, which Tesla later updated to include automated unlocking based on key fob proximity to car, the Model Y key fob also includes this “passive entry” capability. Walking up to the vehicle with the key fob will unlock the vehicle, which includes unlocking of Model Y’s power liftgate.

Credit: Tesla

Credit: Tesla

Credit: Tesla

Credit: Tesla

The new Model Y compatible Key Fob is nearly identical to the Model 3 exclusive Key Fob that Tesla released in November 2018. The sleekly-designed fob will come in a sturdy collector’s box, dawning the vehicle’s logo. The Model 3 key fob was subjected to a quick sell-out due to demand, suggesting that anyone who requires the fob for the newly released Model Y or is merely looking to have one for their Model 3 should order one as soon as they can.

The Key Fob adds an amount of convenience for Tesla owners as the device can be placed in a pocket to allow for easy entry into the vehicle by simply pulling the car handle. The Model 3 initially did not come standard with a fob, and owners were forced to use either the Tesla mobile app or the included Tesla key card.

The new Tesla Model 3 and Model Y compatible key fob is available on the Tesla store, here.

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

Local Chinese media recently shared a video showing the safety precautions Tesla has in place at its Giga Shanghai facility. Based on the short video, Tesla China appears to be adopting a proactive stance against COVID-19, using a variety of initiatives that would allow the company to help prevent the spread of the coronavirus among its employees. 

Giga Shanghai is currently back in full operations following a government-mandated shutdown during the height of the initial COVID-19 outbreak in China. After the shutdown was lifted, Giga Shanghai gradually resumed operations, until it was able to return to full activities. Today, Gigafactory 3 appears to have returned to full form, with construction at the Phase 2 zone even accelerating. 

But even if the initial wave of coronavirus cases has already peaked, Tesla China is still adopting several important precautions for its employees. As indicated in the video, Tesla actively checks its workers’ body temperatures as soon as they arrive at the electric car production facility. The entire Gigafactory 3 complex is also disinfected regularly, and employees are being required to have lunch in isolation to practice social distancing. 

Perhaps most interestingly, Tesla China has also stopped allowing its employees to share apartments, providing isolated accommodations instead. Overall, these precautionary measures could ultimately protect Giga Shanghai’s employees from contracting COVID-19, which is still spreading actively in other countries. 

Tesla China’s precautionary measure will best be adopted by the electric car maker in its Fremont factory, Giga New York, and Gigafactory Nevada as long as the facilities remain operational. The United States is currently dealing with the effects of the coronavirus, and several areas have already rolled out a “shelter in place” lockdown. Among these are six Bay Area counties on Monday, which affects Tesla’s Fremont factory. That being said, Alameda County has declared Tesla as an “essential business,” and thus, the Fremont factory will be allowed to remain in operation, at least for now. 

Responding to the county’s decision, Elon Musk has advised workers at the Fremont factory to stay home if they are feeling unwell, though he also noted that he would be reporting to work as usual. “If you feel the slightest bit ill or even uncomfortable, please do not feel obligated to come to work. I’m going in on Thursday unless anything changes,” Musk wrote in an email shared to the Los Angeles Times. At the end of his email to employees, Musk noted that “I’d rather you were at home and not stressed, than at work and worried.”

With the Fremont factory still in operation despite the ongoing lockdown due to the COVID-19, Tesla would best adopt the precautionary measures it adopted at its Giga Shanghai plant. Tesla, after all, stands as one of the only automakers with direct experience in how to run a factory safely amidst the coronavirus outbreak. The company would therefore best be served by utilizing this experience to its utmost potential. 

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

CEO Elon Musk says that SpaceX continues to evolve the design of its next-generation Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy rocket booster, a process of continuous improvement the company has successfully used for a decade.

Designed to place more than 100 metric tons (220,000 lb) of payload into Low Earth Orbit (LEO), Starship would effectively double (and possibly triple) the expendable performance of SpaceX’s existing Falcon Heavy rocket. Critically, it would be able to dramatically outclass Falcon Heavy (and Falcon 9 even more so) in a fully reusable configuration, meaning that both the Starship upper stage and Super Heavy booster could be recovered and reused.

Since SpaceX first publicly revealed its next-generation launch vehicle and Mars ambitions in September 2016, the path to realizing the dream of a fully-reusable super heavy-lift launch vehicle has been decidedly windy. After making the radical decision to move entirely from carbon composites to stainless steel in late 2018, the Starship design has remained relatively similar, coalescing around a specific concept that has matured to full-scale tank tests. Now, Musk says that Super Heavy’s design was tweaked slightly to make the booster even taller than before, while he later noted that Starship’s design also continues to “[evolve] rapidly.”

According to Musk, the Super Heavy booster will be stretched by a steel ring or two, reaching a new height of ~70m (230 ft). In other words, Starship’s first stage alone will measure as tall as the entirety of a Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy rocket – first stage, second stage, and payload fairing included. Powered by up to 37 Raptor engines, a Super Heavy booster could produce more than ~90,000 kN (19,600,000 lbf) of thrust at liftoff – an incredible 12 times as much thrust as SpaceX’s workhorse Falcon 9 rocket.

Starship, meanwhile, will be a beast of an orbital-class upper stage on its own, measuring at least 50m (165 ft) tall and weighing some 1350 metric tons (3 million lb) fully-fueled. Stacked on top of Super Heavy, a Starship ‘stack’ would reach a staggering 120m (395 ft) and weigh more than 5000 metric tons (11 million lb) once loaded with liquid oxygen and methane propellant.

In simple terms, Starship/Super Heavy should be the tallest, heaviest, and most powerful launch vehicle ever assembled once it heads to the launch pad for the first time. While SpaceX is making great daily progress its ever-growing South Texas rocket factory, built up from next to nothing in a matter of months, it could still be quite some time before that milestone is within reach.

SpaceX’s process of continuously tweaking and improving the design and production of its rockets does typically have that effect. However, it’s more a symptom of the company’s approach to hardware and software development. Instead of working slowly and carefully from nothing to a preconceived finished product, SpaceX typically seeks to design, build, and test the minimum viable product, gradually improving (or entirely replacing) past ideas, designs, and hardware until overarching goals are fully achieved.

With Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, this meant beginning with Falcon 1, a dead-simple proof-of-concept rocket. After successfully reaching orbit, SpaceX expanded its Falcon 9 development program, itself focused initially on the minimum viable product – a full-scale expendable rocket. Since Elon Musk founded SpaceX in 2002, the goal has always been to build a fully-reusable rocket – the company has simply chosen the far more sustainable and practical approach of tackling only a select few problems at a time.

The Starship and Falcon development programs aren’t directly comparable but it’s safe to say that Starship is currently still in the very early stages of hardware development. Shortly after revealing Super Heavy’s height growth, Musk noted that Starship’s design is also being tweaked.

Sketching out a rough series of upgrades that could feasibly be made to the reusable spacecraft’s currently design, Musk thinks that Starship’s conical tank domes (and thus Super Heavy’s, too) could be flattened. That might allow an extra ~3m (10 ft) of propellant tank space to be squeezed into the same 50m Starship length, improving performance by simply using the vehicle’s fixed volume more efficiently.

With a nascent factory quite literally churning out Starship hardware, these tweaks are a whole different animal. Thanks to data and insight gathered from testing actual full-scale Starship tanks, up to and including fully-assembled tank sections, SpaceX will be able to guide its continuous improvement with even greater precision, honing in on the next-generation rocket’s orbital launch 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({});