Tag Archives: Elon Musk

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?