Tag Archives: Elon Musk

Musk New Plan: Space Bridge to Mars

01 Monday Apr 2019

Posted by in April Fools Day, Business, Donald Trump, Exploration, Government, Mars, NASA, Space, SpaceX, Technology, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

[1 April 2019 – Hawthorne, California] Forget rockets, Elon Musk announced a major change in his goal to colonize Mars: Build a space bridge with a 3D printer. Musk latest Tweet indicates he’s serious with a prototype by the end of this Summer.

Space Bridge Starts Twitter Storm

Reaction on Twitter was quick and enthusiastic.

But there were a few who had doubts:

But SpaceX fans quickly shot down the naysayers:

Another SpaceX fan quickly put up a professional artist’s rendering of what the space bridge and 3D printer might look like:

NASA All For Space Bridge

Coming out from an outdoor meeting with President Donald Trump at the Mar-a-Largo Club, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said,

This is exactly why we need business thinkers and wealthy people running NASA! This is the type of out-of-the-box thinking that scientists and engineers would reject before we’ve had a few billion tax dollars spent by private companies to try and make it work.

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine

Bridenstine also indicated that Trump would declare a national emergency to get the funding for the space bridge. Press Secretary Sarah Sanders allegedly mumbled in the women’s bathroom at Mar-a-Largo Club that someone might, someday, issue a press briefing regarding the Space Bridge, maybe.

The online space news site, Space.com immediately posted an article praising Musk for his vision and wisdom. Space.com Senior Editor Ima Dunsel said, “We have no evidence of superior beings, but with Elon Musk, who needs them?” Other online space news sites voiced similar praises for Musk’s idea. 

It is as yet unclear as to what material would be used for the bridge, but as one SpaceX fan put it, “There is no doubt that SpaceX will get this done.” Another tweet suggested that other space corporations should, “…just die now and get it over with..,” as SpaceX has trumped them all.

No Pressure, But If the Falcon Heavy Fails, So Does SpaceX

31 Sunday Mar 2019

Posted by in Business, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Human Resources, jobs, labor, Management Practices, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Science Fiction, Space, SpaceX, Technology, The Tipping Point, US History, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

SpaceX has put themselves in a corner. Next week’s launch of the new Block 5 Falcon Heavy has to go almost flawlessly or much, if not all, of what they have will go down in flames with the rocket.

SpaceX 1 September 2016 Static Test Explosion – Ignition

SpaceX’s Financial State

SpaceX played a risky game last year focusing on making money in commercial launches. That should have been a big boost to their revenue stream, but in January they announced layoffs. SpaceX also announced a sudden cut in the number of launches in 2019. [Source:  Business Insider 21 Jan 2019 – Dave Mosher] That might indicate that SpaceX was offering bargain prices to its customers to land contracts but losing money in the process.

One line in a statement made to Business Insider by a SpaceX representative regarding the layoffs is telling:

This action is taken only due to the extraordinarily difficult challenges ahead and would not otherwise be necessary.

SpaceX Statement

Taken at face value, SpaceX’s rationale for the massive layoffs in its rocket manufacturing division sounds like a proactive business strategy, but why be so forceful in the justification? They insist that the “only” reason for the layoffs is for the “challenges ahead.” SpaceX then repeats itself at the end of the sentence by saying, “and would not otherwise be necessary.”

SpaceX 1 September 2016 Static Test Explosion – Upper Booster Engulfed

The Organization Doth Protest Too Much

The defensiveness of the statement indicates that the layoffs are necessary because SpaceX is already in trouble. By saying the layoffs were to prepare for a grim future, they may have confirmed that they were a reactionary, not proactive move. 

SpaceX 1 September 2016 Static Test Explosion – Entire Rocket/Pad Engulfed

The Falcon Heavey Gambit

Up to now, SpaceX has landed customers on bargain pricing, but it is likely that they desperately need to attract customers that can pay top dollar. Enter the U.S. military. SpaceX has yet to gain the full confidence of the U.S. Air Force for their military satellites. Elon Musk may have thought that one successful launch using the old Block 4 boosters would have the U.S. military eating out of their hand, but that didn’t happen.

Now SpaceX desperately needs another spectacular success of the Falcon Heavy to convince those with deep pockets that their bird is equal or better than the competition.

But what if the next Falcon Heavy launch is a failure?

SpaceX 1 September 2016 Static Test Explosion – Upper Stage with payload fall to the ground

What’s at Risk for SpaceX

It is unlikely that SpaceX will experience the worst-case scenario of the complete loss of the Falcon Heavy and its Arabsat 6A satellite, but what would happen if the nightmare happened?

No space cred for the Falcon Heavy. The Falcon Heavy would not be in consideration for heavy-lift payloads by the military, nor private customers at any price.

No human-rating cred for Block 5 redesign. NASA requires seven successful launches of the Block 5 booster without a significant redesign to gain a human rating. The 15 November 2018 launch of Booster 1047 was the first with newly designed tanks. Since then, SpaceX has had six launches with the new design. The Falcon Heavy would be the seventh launch. Failure would mean another delay in obtaining the human rating for the Block 5 booster.  

Loss of two Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters and one Block 5 core. The two side boosters would be the biggest loss. They are planned to be reused on the next Falcon Heavy flight in July. That flight would have to be delayed for months and SpaceX can’t afford that delay. Remember that layoff? That hit the rocket manufacturing plant the hardest.

More expense with no revenue. Insurance would cover most, if not all, of the loss of the vehicle, but it’s not going to provide more revenue. More cuts would have to follow, pushing back the launch schedule even farther.

Loss of pad, more delays. It would be bad if SpaceX lost the vehicle in flight, but in the worst-case scenario, the loss would occur on the pad. It could be a year or more to rebuild the launch pad. The destruction of the pad and the two side boosters would bring into question whether SpaceX could make the contracted cargo deliveries to the ISS.

Testing of the Dragon 2 crew capsule flights would be jeopardized. If the April launch of the Falcon Heavy fails, Boeing would probably be able to coast into NASA’s crew capsule contract.

Enough Pessimism, What If the Falcon Heavy Flies!

A win for SpaceX would be a successful launch and recovery of at least the two side boosters, but that only buys them three months. The April Falcon Heavy launch is Act I of a two-act play. Act II is a follow-up flight in July of the Falcon Heavy reusing the two side boosters from the April launch. Part of the show is to demonstrate that the boosters can be turned around and relaunched in a matter of weeks.

The U.S. Air Force may give SpaceX a heavy-lift contract even before the July flight of the Falcon Heavy; however, it is likely that they will negotiate a below market price and it may be contingent on both the April and July flights meeting all expectations.

False Bravado

Less than a year ago Elon Musk was boasting that in 2019, SpaceX would have a 24-hour turnaround on a Block 5 booster. [Source: NASASpaceflight.com 17 May 2018 – Michael Baylor] Eight months later SpaceX was cutting their labor force by ten percent. Rather than two launches of the same booster in 24 hours, this year SpaceX is struggling to have more than one launch per month. 

SpaceX fans worship Elon Musk’s great vision but there is a fine line between vision and false bravado. Musk is known to continually overstep that line. Now one misstep with next week’s Falcon Heavy launch and SpaceX is risking a lot more than the loss of one satellite.

Is Space.com a Soviet-Style News Agency for SpaceX

29 Friday Mar 2019

Posted by in Business, Communication, Communism, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Human Resources, Information Technology, Internet, jobs, Journalism, labor, Management Practices, Marketing, Mars, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Science Fiction, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Soviet Russia, Space, SpaceX, Technology, United States, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Space.com is in love. They are head-over-heels in love with SpaceX. Reading the articles posted by Space.com writers one might think that SpaceX has already landed on Mars, colonized the Moon, and cured the common cold. It’s not that Space.com writers present false information about SpaceX, it’s just that they tend to overlook…well, almost everything negative.

This style of almost compulsory cheerleading of SpaceX by an alleged news source is reminiscent of the type of reporting from the Soviet days of TASS (Telegrafnoye agentstvo Sovetskogo Soyuza,) Russia’s official news source. From 1925 to 1992, Soviet intelligence agencies often used TASS to put out positive news and disinformation, including crafted stories praising the Soviet space program. For decades, TASS was the mouthpiece for the Soviet government reminding Soviet citizens that the Soviet government was always correct even when they were wrong.

A Fake Starship Prototype?

Space.com demonstrates the Soviet-like reporting in one of its latest articles on SpaceX. Writer Lee Cavendish published an article [Space.com 29 Mar 2019] that gushed about SpaceX’s Starship Hopper. He began his piece as follows:

SpaceX continues to amaze in popularizing space exploration. Not only is it doing fantastic work in reaching and exploring space…

Lee Cavendish for Space.com

For his article, he used this artist’s rendering of the Starship…

Artists rendering of SpaceX’s Starship used by Space.com

However, this is what the actual craft looked like at the test site in January before the top blew off in the wind…

…and this is what it looked like after it fall down, go boom….

…and finally, this is what it looked like for this week’s tests:

A test of a Starship, or a silo with legs?

It’s understandable why the artist’s rendering was used and not images of the real thing. SpaceX didn’t even bother to put the top half of the Starship back on for the test.

Not an expert, but doesn’t that seem to be a wimpy propulsion system?

Close-ups of the bottom of the Starship would indicate that almost no effort was put into making this ‘prototype’ anything but a show for the public. From top to bottom this doesn’t look like anything that can get off the ground, which is may be why Space.com used an artist’s rendering.

Is Space.com Ignoring the Problems?

SpaceX has glaring problems and yet, Space.com has nothing but praise for the company. This week I wrote two articles detailing their problems (SpaceX’s Implosion and SpaceX 2019 Launch Schedule Realities] and yet, space-focused media outlets like Space.com seem to have a blind eye regarding the issues that seem to be obvious.

Among the issues that seem to be ignored are:

  • Hidden costs of relanding the boosters (30% fuel reserved for relanding reducing lift capacity, cost of boosters built for reentry and landing, cost of maintaining an ocean landing pad, costs of launch delays because of weather conditions at the ocean landing pad, cost of transportation of reused booster, costs of refurbishment of a booster, etc.)
  • Reduction of 10% of their workers when they should be expanding
  • Failure to test a Block 5 version of the Falcon Heavy before launching for a paying customer
  • A lack of progress on Dragon 2 and Falcon Heavy testing for most of 2018
  • Drastic reduction in 2019 launch schedule
  • Significantly underpricing the cost of a mission while apparently in a financial crisis
  • A silly prototype test of the SpaceX Starship
  • Overhyping an unmanned test of the Dragon 2 crew capsule that was essentially a mimic of a cargo delivery to the International Space Station (ISS)

Space.com:  SpaceX’s Public Relations Team

Instead, Space.com publishes an unending series of articles that 1) sing praises of SpaceX, 2) seem to be expanded versions of a SpaceX public service announcement, and/or 3) are based on an Elon Musk Tweet. At times the articles cover the same topic as reported by another Space.com writer or sometimes the same writer will cover the same topic, only days apart.

Below is a list of articles that Space.com has published regarding SpaceX in the last 35 days:

  1. Meet SpaceX’s Starship Hopper [Space.com 29 Mar 2019 – Lee Cavendish]
  2. SpaceX’s Hexagon Tiles for Starship Heat Shield Pass Fiery Test [Space.com 22 Mar 2019 – Tariq Malik]
  3. You Can Watch SpaceX’s Starship Hopper Tests Live Via a South Texas Surf School [Space.com 22 Mar 2019 – Sarah Lewin]
  4. SpaceX Preparing to Begin Starship Hopper Tests [Space.com 18 Mar 2019 – Jeff Foust]
  5. SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Megarocket to Fly 1st Commercial Mission in April: Report [Space.com 18 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
  6. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Demo-1 Test Flight in Pictures [Space.com 8 Mar 2019 – Hanneke Weitering]
  7. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Looks Just Like a Toasted Marshmallow After Fiery Re-Entry [Space.com 8 Mar 2019 – Tariq Malik]
  8. SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashes Down in Atlantic to Cap Historic Test Flight [Space.com 8 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
  9. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Success Heralds ‘New Era’ in Spaceflight [Space.com 8 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
  10. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Left Its ‘Little Earth’ Behind on Space Station [Space.com 8 Mar 2019 – Hanneke Weitering]
  11. SpaceX Crew Dragon Re-Entry May Be Visible Over Some of Eastern US [Space.com 7 Mar 2019 – Joe Rao]
  12. Astronauts Pack Up SpaceX’s Crew Dragon for Return to Earth [Space.com 7 Mar 2019 – Meghan Bartels]
  13. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Homecoming Friday May Be Toughest Part of Its Mission [Space.com 6 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
  14. VP Mike Pence Hails SpaceX Crew Dragon Success at Space Station [Space.com 6 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
  15. ‘Little Earth’ on SpaceX Crew Dragon Gives Boost to Celestial Buddies [Space.com 4 Mar 2019 – Robert Z. Pearlman]
  16. New ‘Celestial Buddies’ Earth Plush Is Even Cooler than SpaceX’s ‘Zero-G Indicator’ [Space.com 4 Mar 2019 – Kasandra Brabaw]
  17. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Docks at Space Station for First Time [Space.com 3 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
  18. Trump Hails SpaceX Crew Dragon Launch, Says NASA’s ‘Rocking Again’ [Space.com 3 Mar 2019 – Tariq Malik]
  19. SpaceX Adds Adorable ‘Zero-G Indicator’ Inside the Crew Dragon [Space.com 2 Mar 2019 – Hanneke Weitering]
  20. Elon Musk Was Emotionally Wrecked by SpaceX’s 1st Crew Dragon Launch Success — But In A Good Way [Space.com 2 Mar 2019 – Tariq Malik]
  21. SpaceX Crew Dragon Launch Heralds ‘New Era in Spaceflight,’ NASA Chief Says [Space.com 2 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
  22. With SpaceX and Boeing, Commercial Crew Launches Will Boost Space Station Science [Space.com 1 Mar 2019 – Meghan Bartels]
  23. It’s Just About ‘Go’ Time for SpaceX’s 1st Crew Dragon Spaceship [Space.com 28 Feb 2019 – Tariq Malik]
  24. SpaceX Is Launching a Spacesuit-Clad Dummy on 1st Crew Dragon [Space.com 27 Feb 2019 – Mike Wall]
  25. NASA, SpaceX ‘Go’ for 1st Crew Dragon Test Flight on March 2 [Space.com 23 Feb 2019 – Mike Wall]

Why?

The question is why? Why do Space.com writers seem like they are part of a Soviet-style news agency? One reason is that perhaps they are just fans of SpaceX and Space.com has become a SpaceX fansite. Another possibility is that their access to information regarding SpaceX is conditional on cooperation with the company. It may be as simple as an article that is critical of SpaceX will result in he or she being blacklisted. Maybe the writers are enamored with and afraid of SpaceX at the same time.

Regardless, it would seem that Space.com is not a reliable source of unbiased information. In 2003, Space.com won an award from the Online Journalism Association for coverage of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. That was over 15 years ago. Maybe they haven’t won another award because they actually have to do journalism to be considered.

SpaceX’s Implosion

26 Tuesday Mar 2019

Posted by in Business, Communism, Crisis Management, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Government, Management Practices, Mars, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Soviet Russia, Space, SpaceX, The Tipping Point, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

SpaceX on Self Destruct

Elon Musk is the Wizard of Odd desperately telling the public to pay no attention to the SpaceX problems behind the curtain. Admittedly, the bad news at SpaceX is usually buried by Musk’s talent to distract attention by offering some new Tweet that causes his fan club and space mediaites to swoon, but even Musk is challenged by the train wreck in progress. 

SpaceX Starship Down – Image credit: Evelyn Janeidy Arevalo

Image credit: Evelyn Janeidy Arevalo

First, the Good News

SpaceX has successfully launched three rockets this year. The three bright spots of those launches are:

  • the 2 March the Dragon 2 capsule demo (no crew) flight to the International Space Station (ISS) and back
  • the 22 February, third launch of a reusable Falcon 9 (F9) Block 5 booster
  • three successful launches

Successful launches might seem to be a basic expectation but in the case of SpaceX, the lack of a launch failure is great news.

SpaceX Downsizing Nightmare

The most alarming news is that SpaceX has laid off about 10% of its employees. In an article in Business Insider, [21 Jan 2019] Dan Mosher reported the according to a notice required by California law, 93% of those jobs eliminated were front line workers and only 7% were managers or supervisors. This cuts into the core of SpaceX’s ability to put a product into space.

This also means that SpaceX’s effort to develop new technology will be impacted as experienced workers have now left the company taking their knowledge and skills with them.

2019 SpaceX Schedule in Retreat

In 2015, SpaceX had 7 attempted launches with one failure. In 2016, SpaceX had 8 attempted launches with no failures, but one rocket blew up on the pad during a static fire test. In 2017, they had 18 attempted launches and no failures. In 2018, they had 21 attempted launches and no failures. [Source:  Wikipedia – Launches]

This year SpaceX has only had three launches in the first quarter, and only 10 launches scheduled for the remainder of 2019. [Source:  Spaceflight Now 25 Mar 2019] This means that SpaceX will have no more than 13 launches this year which almost a 40% drop in launch attempts from last year. Another source lists 14 [See Wikipedia – Launches above] remaining launch attempts this year; however, SpaceX has some obvious launchpad [Source:  NASA Spaceflight.com 6 Mar 2019 – M. Baylor] and booster reuse conflicts that would make that schedule nearly impossible. 

Regardless, SpaceX 2019 launch schedule will be dramatically smaller than 2018. The reduction is because SpaceX doesn’t have the resources and/or customer orders to maintain or grow its business. Either way, SpaceX is in trouble. 

SpaceX Begging for Contracts?

The layoff notice came three months after it was reported [Source:  Space News 10 Oct 2018 – S. Erwin] that SpaceX was excluded from $2 billion worth of U.S. Air Force heavy-lift rocket contracts that went to three competitors. Within two weeks of that announcement, Eric Ralph of Musk’s fan site, Teslarati, [25 Oct 2018] reported that SpaceX had quickly landed two private satellite launches for the Falcon Heavy, but he didn’t report the value of the contracts.

Musk is known for offering below bargain prices and grand claims to his company’s customers to attract business and this sudden rebound of two heavy-lift private contracts of an undisclosed value had all the trappings of Musk offer-they-couldn’t-refuse. 

This was followed last month in a Forbes [20 Feb 2019] article by Elizabeth Howell, reporting that SpaceX and veteran military contractor United Launch Alliance (ULA) each won a three rocket contract from the Air Force. The ULA contract was for $442 million, but the SpaceX contract was essentially a buy-two-get-one-free contract of $297 million.

SpaceX can’t afford to lose money and still launch rockets. If that is what has happened it is a strategy that will eventually destroy the company from the inside out.

The Falcon Heavy Gap

SpaceX’s spectacular Falcon Heavy debut last February has been followed by a year of silence. This behavior was characteristic of Musk’s tendency to rely more on grandiosity and less on substance in his business ventures. The Falcon Heavy test flight buoyed the company’s public image, but the lack of a follow-up test left the question of whether the first Falcon Heavy was luck or skill.

Next month, SpaceX will be the second launch the Falcon Heavy, but this will be for a paying customer. Caleb Henry, reporting for Via Satellite, [18 Sep 2015] said that SpaceX won the contract for the Arabsat 6A satellite three and a half years ago. According to Spaceflight Now [25 Mar 2019], the launch was originally scheduled for the first half of 2018, then delayed multiple times to the 7 April 2019 date. Since this contract was agreed upon two and a half years before the first Falcon Heavy flew, the customer committed to SpaceX on blind trust. In business, you don’t do blind trust contracts unless you’re getting an exceptional deal.   

Sandra Erwin of Space News [25 Mar 2019] reports that the U.S. Air Force will be closely monitoring the second launch of a Falcon Heavy rocket to evaluate SpaceX’s ability to perform as promised. This indicates that customers are still not sold on the Falcon Heavy. 

Booster Hype

Emre Kelly of Florida Today [5 Aug 2018] wrote that Musk has boasted that the Falcon 9 Block 5 booster will be the ultimate in cost savings. He has said that SpaceX will be able to launch, land, and relaunch it quickly with minimal refurbishment and inspection. He also claims that each Block 5 booster will be reused a minimum of 10 times, and up to 100 with ‘moderate refurbishment.’

However, the reality of the Block 5 boosters seems to suggest they are not as reusable as stated. The next scheduled launch [7 April] will use two new Block 5 boosters and a new Block 5 core booster. After that, the launch currently scheduled for 25 April will use a new Block 5 booster. The subsequent scheduled 16 May launch will be a second-time use of a Block 5 booster first flown earlier this month. The reuse of the Block 5 boosters isn’t evident in the SpaceX schedule.

Three F9 Block boosters seem to be retired (1046, 1047, and 1049) after a handful of launches. One booster (1054) was intentionally destroyed, one booster is planned to be destroyed (1048), and another failed to reland (1050.) The question about cost savings from reuse and minimal refurbishment remain for a private space organization offering bargain prices and laying off workers.

F9 Block 5 Boosters History/Status [Source:  Wikipedia – Boosters]

      • 1046 – Successfully launched and recovered 3 times/not schedule for further service
      • 1047 – Successfully launched and recovered twice/not scheduled for further service
      • 1048 – Successfully launched and recovered 3 times/scheduled for June 2019 launch and destruction
      • 1049 – Successfully launched and recovered twice/not scheduled for further service
      • 1050 – Successfully launched once, failed to land
      • 1051 – Successfully launched and recovered once/planned for relaunch [May 2019]
      • 1052 – Planned for next two Falcon Heavy launches [April, June 2019]
      • 1053 – Planned for next two Falcon Heavy launches [April, June 2019]
      • 1054 – Successfully launched once, no recovery
      • 1055 – Planned as Falcon Heavy core launch [April 2019]
      • 1056 – Planned for launch [April 2019]
      • 1057 – Planned as Falcon Heavy core launch [June 2019]

Too Many Irons, Too Little Fire

SpaceX is a horse with many riders, each pulling in a different direction. Instead of focusing on innovative spacecraft engineering, or heavy-lift rockets, or human-rated capsules, or commercial and military satellites, or deep space exploration, SpaceX tries to have its hand in it all. The result is a chaotic mess of programs that wax and wane in priority to the management of the organization.

It is a rebirth of the Soviet-style space program of secrecy and public image stunts without the financial resources or management style that produces high quality, successful programs. Musk’s volatile leadership [Source:  Reuters 30 Oct 2018 – E. Johnson, J. Roulette] has led to a space organization coming apart at the seams.

Will SpaceX’s Implosion Cost Lives?

Elon Musk seems to follow a path of metaphorically pushing harder on the accelerator when the charge on his high tech lithium batteries are running low. Musk has a reputation of lashing out at employees, demanding long hours, and pushing for strict deadlines. [Source:  CNBC 18 Oct 2018 – R. Umoh] The problem is that Elon Musk doesn’t make the rockets, his workers do. Soviet Russia learned the hard way that high pressure in the space industry adds high risk for those depending on the workers on the ground.

After a two year delay, 2019 is the year that SpaceX is supposed to put humans in space. That is not a task for an organization in distress.

SpaceX Falcon Heavy Defies the Odds

07 Wednesday Feb 2018

Posted by in Falcon Heavy, History, NASA, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Space, SpaceX, Technology, United States, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

I’m not a fan of SpaceX, nor of Elon Musk, but one can only observe yesterday’s Falcon Heavy launch with awe. It was brilliant. One thing that Elon Musk and I agreed on was that the chance it was not going to end in a massive fireball was slim. It is hard to convey how unlikely a successful launch was considering all the factors involved. The people working at SpaceX did at least one trillion things right to achieve the results of yesterday’s launch.

Taken from live feed of Tesla Roadster in orbit

Starman takes a test drive

SpaceX and Musk Had a Great Day

A sample of what went right:

  • Other than weather, the launch had no delays. That is unusual with a prototype rocket test.
  • An engine ignited and worked as intended. Multiply that by 27.
  • A side booster that was essentially a rocket in itself, did exactly what it suppose to do without any new issues common in a prototype test. Multiply that by 2.
  • The core booster functioned as intended and delivered the second stage and the payload, a Tesla car, into position for a boost into orbit.
  • A side booster completed a complex task of a powered relanding withing a few meters of the target zone. Multiply that by two.
  • A side booster was reused from a previous mission. Multiply that by 2.
  • The second stage booster fired its engines, times three, sending the payload into a heliocentric orbit that will extend beyond Mars, and near the Asteroid Belt.
  • A team of thousands of people performed their functions in synch allowing the payload to achieve orbit.

Hold My Beer and Watch This

The only small item that did not go as planned was the failed landing of the core booster on the Drone ship. The engineers have determined that only one of the needed three engines for landing had reignited. Until they can analyze the issue, I’m going with the explanation that the core booster was so excited about the success of the launch that it thought it would go for the biggest splash. It was successful.

Regardless, it was a minor misstep in a successful mission-impossible-type achievement.

Bye Bye Starman

Late on Tuesday the second stage of the Falcon Heavy successfully ignited for a third and final time sending ‘Starman’ (the alternate human in the spacesuit) and the Telsa Roadster into a heliocentric orbit that will take it to Mars and beyond. His orbit may last for over a million years, but the car won’t. All the exposed, non-metalic parts of the car will be no match for the radiation, heat, and cold of space. The paint job will suffer as well.

Starman’s out-for-a-drive orbit

Still, the pièce de résistance was the video of Starman in orbit above Earth. I’ll leave you with these images I captured from the live feed. Below that you can watch the video of the launch. Well done, SpaceX.

[COUNT TO 500:  496th Article in PAULx]

Zuma Mystery: It’s Classified and Invisible…Apparently

01 Thursday Feb 2018

Posted by in Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Ethics, Government, History, Honor, Management Practices, NASA, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Relationships, Science, Space, SpaceX, Technology, United States, US History, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On 8 January 2018 the top-secret USA-280 satellite, as known as Zuma, went up, but a funny thing happened on the way to orbit. It was launched to the northeast at a vector of approximately 51° off the equator. A rough course estimate would have taken Zuma south of Great Britain, across Europe (possibly over France, Italy, and Greece,) over Saudia Arabia, and to the Indian Ocean west and/or south of India. According to one unnamed source, that is where the flight of USA-280 ended.

Zuma went down in the Indian Ocean?

Possible approximate flight path of Zuma

Elon We Have a Problem

The first hint that something was wrong is when Brian Mahlstedt, the launch narrator for SpaceX, paused for 90 seconds after announcing that the fairing (the cover around the satellite) would deploy “…any second..” and then changed the subject when he began talking again. This was also significant because he said that coverage of the launch phase of the would end AFTER the deployment of the fairings. Had the fairings deployed as scheduled it would not have crossed over into the coverage of the landing of the booster phase, which was what happened. 

The second hint was when SpaceX public relations (PR) didn’t spike the ball after the launch, praising its success.

By the next morning, sources were quietly saying that the satellite didn’t make orbit. Some seemed to suggest that the fault was with the SpaceX rocket. Some indicated the release platform of the satellite failed, keeping it connected to the upper stage as it fell back to Earth.

SpaceX came out with a qualified statement that didn’t deny the failure to achieve orbit but adamantly implied that the SpaceX rocket performed as intended. Northrop Grumman, the contractor for the super secret satellite and the release platform announced that it didn’t comment on confidential payloads. 

Disinformation Campaign

A few media sites suggested that maybe everything was fine and the satellite was safely in orbit. It was a tactic that a covert agency might employ to feed a few trusted sources with a disinformation campaign to calm the discussion of failure, and for the most part, it worked. Few follow-up reports have been made about USA-280.

The evidence, or lack of it, is telling a different story. Astronomy hobbyists, some highly skilled in finding and tracking human-made objects in orbit, have spent the past three weeks trying to find the ‘invisible’ satellite with no success. They have found a satellite lost over ten years ago, but no one has sighted the wayward Zuma satellite.

The Zuma Fairing Mystery?

The chronology of the fairing deployment is as follows: 

  • T+0:50 seconds (50 seconds after liftoff) – A SpaceX announcer begins a live and nearly continuous commentary regarding upcoming events with the Falcon 9 rocket, pausing only for those events to be confirmed by SpaceX control.
  • T+2:03 – SpaceX announcer pauses as four events related to second stage separation are about to begin.
  • T+3:06 – SpaceX announcer resumes commentary and confirms a successful second stage separation, and explains at T+3:15 that fairing separation “…should occur any second now” (ejection of protective nose shell around satellite.) He continues on to say that he will confirm the fairing separation after it occurs.
  • T+3:26 – SpaceX announcer begins a pause that lasts for one minute and thirty seconds.
  • T+4:57 – SpaceX announcer says, “Alright, so we’ll address the fairing deployment in a second once we have more information, but for now we’re going to shift our transition back to our secondary mission…”
  • T+5:17 – SpaceX announcer says, “…ah, quick sidebar here that we did get confirmation that the fairings did deploy.”

The launch of Zuma was delayed last November because of an issue with the fairing deployment. The question is whether the previous issue along with the 90-second pause in announcing the fairing deployment indicate there was an in-flight problem with the fairing.

Best Guess?

Everything is speculation. Based on what we know, this is my suggestion of the most likely scenario:

  • The fairing failed to deploy at the prescribed time, but it did deploy late. (That would fit SpaceX’s non-denial denial.)
  • The late deployment caused a decision to abort the flight so that it would come down in the Indian Ocean.
  • Had the abort been held off, the flight might have been able to continue, but point-of-no-return in the abort decision had been reached and the flight was terminated.

This would still allow SpaceX to claim its rocket performed ‘nominally’ and only fudge a little when not admitting the fairing issue. It would also suggest that there was disagreement during the ascent phase and that the incident is a sore spot for the parties involved…

…but you didn’t hear that from me.

[COUNT TO 500:  490th Article in PAULx]

Telsa Powerwall Has Product-Killing Questions Unanswered

04 Thursday Jan 2018

Posted by in About Reno, Branding, Business, Communication, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Green, Honor, Management Practices, Print Media, Public Image, Public Relations, Respect, Science, solar, Technology, Traditional Media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What is Tesla trying to hide about its Powerwall?

I have great respect for a person who pushes boundaries and engages in future-vision projects. We currently lack the great visionaries of the past who established our nations great growth in technology and commerce.

That said, I have no respect or love for someone who toys with great ideas in order to build up consumer and investor hopes for personal profit while remaining silent on the issues that may eventually kill the great idea.

Enter Elon Musk.

I have expressed my reservations about his idea to build a space program to go to Mars, and I have additional reservations about his Falcon Heavy booster that is scheduled to launch sometime later this month.

But it is Tesla’s ‘Powerwall‘ product that has gaping issues that seem to be ignored in all the hype and mystic of Elon Musk. Two issues have to do with lithium-type batteries and their limitations and dangers.

Fantasy Cycles?
Tesla has a ten-year warranty on their Powerwall system. That sounds great, but it is the same as saying if you leave raw fish on the counter at room temperature it will be safe to eat in a year.

There are rules in chemistry. Batteries are defined by these rules. Every battery has a limited lifespan even if it is not used. Batteries also have a limit to the number of discharge/charge cycles it can undergo before they are no longer effective in holding a charge.

Lithium-ion batteries are superior to other types of batteries because they hold more charge per kilogram and they can be recharged. This makes them a good choice for a home power application.

However, lithium-ion batteries begin to deteriorate the moment they have been built. They lose about 5% of their charge capacity per month, and even if they are never used the lifespan of a typical lithium-ion battery is two years.

According to one source, lithium-ion batteries in the Powerwall are limited to between 800 to 1000 discharge/charge cycles. Assuming the Powerwall undergoes only one cycle per day, its useful lifespan is less than three years. Considering that with both normal use, and the natural deterioration of the batteries in the Powerwall, it will fail in less than two years.

But they’re under warranty for ten years, so who cares?

The chemical limitations of the lithium-ion battery are a fact. If Tesla strategy is to deal with massive warranty claims, then both investors and customers should be made aware. If Tesla has come up with some miracle technology they need to explain how they have overcome the chemical limitations.

The danger is that Tesla is aware of the limitations and is preparing for an alternative strategy such as bankruptcy in three or four years after they have squeezed the profits out of the company. Without further explanation, an alternate business strategy is the most likely scenario.

Burn Baby Burn
There is a reason that the FAA required a ban on the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 tablets on commercial flights. Bad lithium-ion batteries.

Lithium-ion batteries can overheat and burn or explode under certain conditions. If punctured they can burst into a fire that cannot be stopped by normal fire suppression tactics. The only way to prevent a lithium-ion fire from doing severe damage to the materials around it is to have a non-burnable barrier that can withstand the heat of a lithium fire.

The Powerwall encased in a metal, temperature-regulated, weather-proof housing. To my knowledge, there have been two tests performed on the Powerwall and its casing. Both tests were performed by a trade organization known as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA.) The NFPA is not a government, nor regulatory agency, and no information was found as regarding Tesla’s involvement in the design or limitations of the test.

One test performed a test of overheating one cell group to the point of failure. The fire did not spread to the other cells. The second test applied a steady flame to the exterior of the Powerwall. In that test, all cells overheated and failed, but the Powerwall did not explode, nor did the internal lithium fire breach the casing; however, the Powerwall was not mounted on, nor near any combustible material.

The Powerwall does include a system of heating and cooling to keep the batteries within the range required to prevent failure leading to a fire; however, I cannot find any test of a complete cooling system failure in a hot environment, other than the controlled test done by Tesla and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA.)

I cannot find any testing as to the result of a puncture to the Powerwall. YouTube offers many videos on what happens when a lithium-ion battery is punctured. A puncture test of the Powerwall has not been released to the public, to my knowledge. 

If the Powerwall does not have extensive testing in various environmental situations then it may be impossible to know how dangerous the Powerwall is to mount on or near a wall that is combustible.

To my knowledge, Tesla is silent on this issue. On their website, I can find no information as to these issues about lithium-ion batteries or the safety testing done on the Powerwall casing.

In fact, Telsa is extraordinary reactive to journalists and media. In 2015, Tesla security guards used their ATV to reportedly ram a vehicle with journalists from the Reno Gazette-Journal, smashed their vehicle window, and cut their seatbelt to remove them, throwing them to the ground.

The journalists were taking pictures of the Tesla Powerwall plant under construction in Nevada. According to the newspaper’s attorney, Tesla security guards demanded the camera equipment and held the journalists against their will, created an alternate story that the journalist attacked them, and held them until the sheriff’s department arrived.

Image of inside of Reno Gazette-Journal’s vehicle after encounter with Tesla security guard

The incident suggests that Tesla is extremely sensitive to any unmonitored, unbiased release of information about its Powerwall product. The question remains: Why?