Tag Archives: SpaceX

Inspiration4: A Waste of Space Exploration

14 Tuesday Sep 2021

Posted by in Business, Ethics, Exploration, Politics, Public Image, Soviet Russia, Space, SpaceX, Starlink, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

I’m a supporter of space exploration. In fact, I believe that space exploration is the stimulus we need to advance our economy, our technology, and our educational systems. It’s an understatement to say I’m a fan of space exploration, but SpaceX’s latest public relations stunt, Inspiration4, is not space exploration. It’s a waste of space exploration.

A Soviet-style glorification campaign

Glorifying Them to Glorify SpaceX

One might have sympathy for the three passengers of the Inspiration4 crew that have been gifted the ride. They have had to endure countless posed photo sessions for SpaceX. They also have probably signed a confidentiality waiver that restricts them from making any statements without SpaceX’s approval.

However, they are getting a three-day joy ride in space. That is probably worth selling their souls for as a trade, but the winner in this bargain is SpaceX. 

Desperate For Attention

SpaceX has a major problem and it started in 2019. From 2012 to 2018, SpaceX was growing its customer payload business. In 2018, they had 21 launches for commercial or government customers. They also hadn’t had a failure in over two years. That changed in 2019 when they dropped to eleven customer payload launches.

SpaceX ramped up its Starlink program as customer contracts collapsed. Those launches were paid for by SpaceX but every booster landing kept them in the news. The next year they only had twelve customer-paid launches but SpaceX launched 14 Starlink missions. That gave them the appearance of being a successful for-profit company even though less than half of their launches were actually revenue-producing.

The Inspiration4 mission gives them three things they desperately need: 1) public attention, 2) another rocket launch to add to their tally and, 3) revenue.  SpaceX is playing out its role in a 70s-style movie as the dystopian corporation. It will do anything to look successful.   

Ah, Uhm,…Inspiration4 is…Ah, Important Because…

What the mission lacks is a reason to do it. Space.com writer Mike Wall wrote an article (Why SpaceX’s Inspiration4 Private Mission to Earth Orbit is so Important) this week attempting to explain the importance of the Inspiration4 mission. It was a hard sell.

Wall said that the mission hoped to raise $200 million for St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. The billionaire Inspiration4 crew member Jared Isaacman has promised to put up $100 million to the charity. The rest of the money was to be raised through the raffle of two of the seats on Inspiration4 and donations. The seat raffle fell well short of its goal.

The article points out that this will be the first mission without a professional astronaut chaperoning the crew. From launch to splashdown, SpaceX will control the flight. Wall suggests that this will open the door for space tourism and then later admits:

Orbital space tourism will almost certainly be the exclusive province of the extremely wealthy for a long time to come…

He also notes that SpaceX will gain new clout as a space tourism company but in 16 paragraphs, Wall fails to make a convincing argument for the need of the mission. He suggests that we should all have a feel-good moment because of Inspiration4 and then begins his closing with a shrug:

We don’t know what our current moment will lead to.

Wall was attempting to be positive about the mission but the reality is that this mission is all about what is going on behind the curtain at SpaceX. It is a waste of space exploration.

SpaceX COO Shotwell: It’s the Fault of Those Pesky Space Lasers

27 Friday Aug 2021

Posted by in Business, Ethics, Exploration, NASA, Politicians, Public Image, Public Relations, Social Media Relations, Space, SpaceX, Starlink, Technology, US Space Program, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Shotwell and Space Lasers

On Monday, 24 August, SpaceX’s President/Chief Operating Officer Gwynne Shotwell felt the need to explain why SpaceX hasn’t had a Starlink mission since late May. Her response seemed to be taken from the playbook of Georgia’s Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene in 2018 when she suggested the cause of the wildfires in the West: It’s the fault of space lasers.

Taking a page from Marjorie Tayor Greene

Methinks the SpaceX Lady Doth Protest Too Much

At the 36th Annual Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Shotwell participated in a panel discussion about the pros and cons of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) technology. She volunteered that SpaceX has ‘paused’ the Starlink program. She said that the company has been struggling to launch Starlink missions because “…we wanted the next set to have the laser terminals on them…” 

This panel discussion was not to discuss why SpaceX has not launched a Starlink mission in three months (the last Starlink launch was 26 May) and considering the pain that the company goes through to craft their message, the acknowledgment of the problem and its cause, was not accidental. SpaceX is aware that their lack of appearance on the launch pad is not going unnoticed. 

“…Better-Than-Nothing Beta Service…”

Shotwell spent a good portion of her time on the panel offering excuses for SpaceX’s underperforming Starlink internet service. She noted that the beta program has been nothing to brag about, stating for those that hadn’t tried it, “…we’ve rolled out better-than-nothing beta service…”

Lowering expectations while patting themselves on the back is a strategy that SpaceX has developed into a fine art. The occasional self-deprecating comment to disarm any question of overstating the capabilities of their programs in the past or shortfalls in what they promised has won over many who see SpaceX as the darlings of space exploration.

Facts Ignored By Shotwell

Shotwell could have given several reasons for the three-month lag in SpaceX launches; however, her comments raise several questions about what is really happening with the company and Starlink.

One:  Lack of Flight-Ready Boosters

As of 1 July, SpaceX had eight usable boosters (1049, 1051, 1058, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, and 1067.) One of those boosters (1051) had completed the design limit of ten flights, but SpaceX mastermind Elon Musk had stated that implied that they would not refurbish boosters beyond the ten flights and would fly them until they break.

All of those boosters had flown a mission in either May or June. The average turnaround time for a Block 5 booster in 2021 is 95 days or roughly three months. Twice SpaceX’s turnaround time for a booster was 27 days; however, occurred early in the year. The turnaround time in the May and June missions all exceeded 60 days.

In addition, two of the boosters (1049 and 1051) were moved to Vandenberg Space Force Base (VSFB) after their last flight. This added to the turnaround time.

Based on the turnaround history for SpaceX’s boosters, it would be extremely unlikely that they could have had any boosters ready for launch in July even though they tentatively scheduled booster 1049 to launch on a polar orbit launch for the Starlink satellite system.

Shotwell’s comment about the delay may be targeted toward that flight and the next polar orbit flight (Booster 1051?) from VSFB. It does not explain the total absence of all SpaceX launches in July and most of August.

Two:  Cheap Lasers Causing Problems?

In April of this year, Shotwell explained that the first prototype lasers had been too expensive and they were going with cheaper lasers for the next Starlink satellites.

The first ones that we flew were very expensive. The second round of technology that we flew was less expensive,” she said…A third generation of laser intersatellite links will start flying “in the next few months…being “much less expensive” than earlier versions.

Shotwell quoted in SpaceNews

Perhaps cheaper lasers are not a better solution?

Three:  Shotwell’s Credibility Gap

The Chief Operations Officer is either not always well informed or she is prone to exaggeration. In either case, she is not the most credible source of information on SpaceX. 

In May of 2019, she boasted that SpaceX would have three to seven Starlink missions and 18 to 21 other missions for 2019. For all of 2019, SpaceX had only two Starlink missions and eleven other missions for a total of thirteen. She projected twice the number of launches than SpaceX actually had in 2019…and she did it five months into the year.

Rocket launches are not a plan-on-a-Monday-launch-on-a-Friday type scenario. They involve years of planning and coordination with multiple players before the rocket engines ignite. Someone that is well informed should be able to know where each mission is in the process and how many of those missions will be ready for launch in the next few months. As Chief OPERATIONS Officer, it would seem her job would involve having a realistic idea of what was feasible in the current year.

In September of the same year, she said she hoped for 24 Starlink launches in 2020. SpaceX had only 14.

Four:  Starlink is a White Elephant Waiting to Die

While SpaceX continues to press the magic of Starlink’s future, the reality is that it is costing them big money to keep putting up satellites that can only be characterized as “better than nothing.”

Doing The Math

Currently, they have launched 28 missions resulting in about 1,700 Starlink satellites in orbit. The full constellation will be as many as 42,000 according to FCC documents. Each satellite has a lifespan of five years. That means that every five years SpaceX will have to replace all 42,000 satellites in the constellation.

Currently, the Falcon 9 can carry 60 satellites at a time. So, to replace the entire constellation every five years SpaceX will have to launch 700 Starlink missions every five years. That’s 140 launches every year or 11 launches per month to replace the expired satellites. 

SpaceX’s response to this is that they hope to launch as many as 400 satellites per mission on the Starship booster. That brings the numbers down but it is still will require 105 Starship missions every five years or 21 launches per year just to maintain the Starlink system. This doesn’t include the ongoing cost of the ground support systems.

The numbers just don’t add up. This is a system that will cost billions to operate and maintain even if they can improve the quality of the better than nothing service. 

To Be Fair

Shotwell didn’t necessarily lie about the reasons for the pause in Starlink launches. She mentioned lasers and a shortage of oxygen as the reasons for the three-month pause. Those excuses may be valid; however, Starlink’s problems are bigger than lasers or a lack of oxygen…but Shotwell doesn’t talk about that because it might end their flying Starlink circus.

SpaceX Ran Out of Block 5 Boosters

23 Monday Aug 2021

Posted by in Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Falcon Heavy, Internet, Public Image, Public Relations, Saturn V, Science, Space, SpaceX, Starlink, Technology, United States, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The Barn Was Empty, SpaceX Ran Out of Block 5 Boosters

SpaceX activity has been quiet in July and August because they simply ran out of Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters. In June they successfully launched four of their seven pure revenue-producing flights of this year. That, combined with four launches in May for their white elephant Starlink program [SEE:  Must Sell Starlink], left them with nothing to put in the air. 

The Starship Stack Diversion

They did grab the attention of the SpaceX groupies by stacking a non-flightworthy Starship on a booster in Boca Chica. This allowed them to claim that they finally build a rocket taller than the Apollo Saturn Five rocket…of 50 years ago; however, SpaceX has still not launched a functioning rocket that can rival the Saturn Five.

Heavy lift Rockets and number of successful launches to date.

SpaceX Block Five Returns To Work?

Late this month, SpaceX has a launch scheduled to deliver a cargo ship to the International Space Station (ISS) if they have a booster ready. They currently have eight flyable boosters (1049, 1051, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, and 1067;) however, booster 1051 is beyond its ten flight limit¹ and both 1049 and 1051 are now in California awaiting Starlink polar launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base. The most likely candidate boosters for the ISS cargo ship are 1058 or 1063. Both were launched in May and have had three months be readied for flight.

[¹The Block 5 boosters were designed for ten launches without refurbishment. Recently, According to Spaceflight Now, Elon Musk stated that they would fly the boosters for the Starlink program beyond ten missions “…until they break…” indicating the risk of losing the payload is a low priority.]

2021 4th Quarter – What To Expect

There are 17 SpaceX missions rumored for the remainder of 2021. Some of these missions are definitely planned and a few actually have dates and/or boosters assigned. Here is a list of the missions:

August (yes, I know that it is not in the 4th Quarter)

28 August – ISS cargo ship from Kennedy Space Center (KSC) – Booster 1061

LIKELY – [NOTE:  At the time of publication, the booster had not been identified.] The only question on this launch is why the booster has not been determined. SpaceX has a policy of not offering details of missions to the public, but usually, the booster assignment is eventually revealed in public documents or by SpaceX unofficial sources. At this late date, it is assumed that the booster has been assigned and is ready to be mated with the cargo ship.

September

September (x2) – Starlink Polar from Vandenberg Space Force Base (VSFB) – Boosters 1049 and 1051.

LIKELY – This mission has been pushed back from July and August. Booster 1049 arrived at VSFB for this mission shortly after its last launch and recovery in May. If it doesn’t launch in September something is wrong. Booster 1051 arrived at VSFB a couple of weeks after 1049. It is possible both missions will be launched in September, but I wouldn’t be shocked if the 1051 mission didn’t happen until October.

15 September – Shift4 Joy Ride from KSC – Booster 1062

LIKELY – Although no booster has been assigned, several should be available for the public relations stunt. It will be a PR boost for SpaceX and they have every reason to make it happen as scheduled. 

September 2021, November 2021, & TBD 2021 – Starlink from KSC – Boosters unknown

QUESTIONABLE – SpaceX has launched 27 missions for their Starlink satellites in 2020 and 2021. That is 27 booster cycles that weren’t used for commercially viable launches. Three of those launches ended with the loss of the booster which cut short the revenue potential of additional launches with those boosters. SpaceX could reduce the risk of future booster losses by using Block 5 boosters that have finished their design lifespan of ten launches for the Starlink missions.

However, SpaceX has now moved their two Block 5 boosters with the most launches (Booster 1051 – 10 launches & Booster 1049 – 9 launches) to VSFB in California. It is unlikely they will move these boosters back to Florida this year. That means if a Starlink mission is launched, SpaceX will have to use a newer booster and risk its loss. It is unlikely that all three missions will be launched if any are launched.

October

31 October – ISS Crew from KSC – Booster 1067

LIKELY – The fact that this is a revenue-producing flight, that it involves the crew for the ISS, and that it is a NASA mission, is reflected by the fact that it already has a scheduled date and a booster assigned.

October – German spy satellite from VSFB – Booster unknown

QUESTIONABLE – Unless SpaceX is intending on risking a revenue-producing payload on the overextended 1051 booster, they don’t have a booster at Vandenberg for this mission. Certainly, they could move a booster to California or use the new 1069 booster, but this mission has no date, nor booster assigned. An October launch seems iffy.

October –  U.S. spy satellite from KSC – Boosters 1064, 1065, & 1066 (Falcon Heavy)

LIKELY – Boosters are tested and ready. It’s a classified mission and the core booster has to be expended to get the payload into a higher orbit. This is not one for a PR show but it is a mission that they need to show potential commercial and military customers that SpaceX is not just a flying circus.

November

17 November – IXPE satellite from KSC – Booster unknown

LIKELY – Since this mission has a launch date three months in advance it would seem that this is a serious mission. There should be several boosters that will be available.

23 November – DART satellite from VSFB – Booster unknown

LIKELY – This will be an interesting booster assignment. The payload has to go into a heliocentric orbit so it is possible, or even likely, that the booster will be expended. That might be a mission they would assign a booster like 1049 or 1051 as both will have had more launches than they were designed for originally.

December

4 December – ISS cargo ship from KSC – Booster unknown

LIKELY – The mission has a date and the ISS needs its cargo, so this is likely to happen but the date might slide by a few weeks, as in the past.

December – O3b mPower satellites from KSC – Booster unknown

QUESTIONABLE – SpaceX has a long history of putting missions on a tentative schedule and then pushing them back. SpaceX will have to divide its boosters up between Vandenberg and Kennedy Space Center to meet their launch schedule. It would seem that at least three boosters will have to be in California to meet the needs of their customers.

December – Transporter3 from VSFB – Booster unknown

QUESTIONABLE – This will depend upon how many boosters are committed to California. SpaceX seems to be making noises about going big at Vandenberg and the schedule indicates that intention. Unfortunately, SpaceX doesn’t have enough boosters to divide between two launch facilities, and moving them around costs money.

4th Quarter – Turksat 5B from KSC – Booster unknown

NOPE – The kiss of death on a SpaceX schedule is for it to be scheduled for ‘sometime in X quarter.’ It seems to be a schedule filler for SpaceX PR people to refer to when they discuss the number of launches planned for the year. 

4th Quarter – Maxar Technologies satellites from VSFB – Booster unknown

NOPE – Same as the Turksat mission. It probably won’t happen in 2021.

SpaceX “Burning Through Cash” and Boosters

08 Tuesday Jun 2021

Posted by in Business, Falcon Heavy, NASA, Space, SpaceX, Technology, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Where You Spend Your Money…

There is an adage that suggests that where you spend your time and/or money indicates what is your priority. In 2021, SpaceX’s priorities have been on launching Starlink satellites, testing Starships, and developing a rocket launch facility in Texas. SpaceX is burning through money with a priority of spending, not making money.

SpaceX Starship Failure

That is a great plan if you have tax revenues to fund your expenses, but SpaceX isn’t a government operation. It is a private company…that isn’t making money.

SpaceX doesn’t share its financial situation so people have to look at what they are doing to get an idea of what is happening with their cash flow. What we can see is that in 2021, SpaceX:

  1. has had 17 launches this year, 13 of which are non-revenue producing (in the immediate future) Starlink launches.
  2. has had 4 Starship non-revenue test launches, 3 unsuccessful landings, and 1 landing that resulted in a fire that damaged the ship.
  3. is engaged in massive non-revenue infrastructure expenditures on developing Boca Chica launch facilities in Texas.
  4. has only had 4 revenue-producing commercial flights so far.

Regarding SpaceX’s spending on the Starlink buildup, Nicholas Rossolillo, said,

…it’s safe to say Starlink is burning through cash. 

The Motley Fool – 9 March 2021

A Lack of Customers Or Ignoring Customers?

Beyond the money issue, SpaceX is burning through boosters. At a time when SpaceX needs revenue, they have used their Block 5 booster inventory to send up Starlink satellites that will not have a financial return for years, if ever. Paying customers have to wonder if their payloads are a SpaceX priority.

22 Boosters * 10 Launches Each = 220 Launches

The selling point to the public about SpaceX’s launch system is the reusable Falcon 9 Block 5 booster; however, reusable doesn’t mean infinite. Since 2018, SpaceX has built (or in the process of building) 22 Block 5 boosters. These launch-and-return boosters are intended to be used ten times. That should result in 220 launches with this inventory of boosters.

Minus Seven For Falcon Heavy

Yet, seven of the 22 are for use in a configuration of three for the Falcon Heavy rocket. This means that three boosters are used for one launch. Since there have only been two Falcon Heavy launches for large payloads, (plus one more now scheduled for October,) SpaceX actually has only 15 boosters for normal payloads. This gives them the potential of 150 launches.

SpaceX Double Stick Landing of Falcon Heavy Side Boosters

Minus Another Seven That Are Now Unusable

Seven of the remaining 15 boosters have been destroyed or lost. Those seven completed only 24 launches of a potential 70, during their use. That leaves eight boosters that are currently available for active use. Those eight boosters have completed 41 launches of a potential of 80 launches. 

Four Boosters Have a Combined Total of Six Launches Left

However, of those eight active boosters, one has reached its ten launch maximum, one has nine launches, one has eight launches, and one has seven launches. That means four of the active boosters only have six launches before they reach their ten-launch maximum.

SpaceX has suggested that they will continue to use the boosters beyond the ten launches maximum; however, it is unclear whether the FAA will allow SpaceX to go beyond the maximum.

Only Four Boosters Available by the End of The Year

As the year winds down, SpaceX will be down to four Block 5 boosters that aren’t near their maximum launch limit and each takes a minimum of 30 to 40 days to turnaround for another launch. The launches in the last half of November will leave no boosters left for the rest of the 2021 launch schedule. The situation becomes worse if they fail to land a booster that has not reached its ten launch maximum.

More Boosters?

SpaceX’s situation would improve if they can put another booster in the inventory. The problem is that the Falcon Heavy core booster that is scheduled for launch in October will be expended to push the customer’s satellite into a higher orbit. Of the next two boosters in production, one is rumored to be a replacement core booster for the next Falcon Heavy launch in 2022.

In addition, the maximum number of boosters SpaceX has built in a calendar year is six, and last year they only produced five new boosters. Another standard Falcon 9 Block 5 booster seems unlikely. 

SkyFall For SpaceX?

SpaceX lovers tend to avoid taking a hard look at the money question. It is easy to be sucked in by the cool onboard videos, the booster landings, and the spectacular explosive failures, but at some point, the bills have to be paid and in 2021, SpaceX doesn’t have a visible income to pay for the fantasy they’ve created. 

NEXT:  Is SpaceX Looking To Sell Starlink?

By The Numbers

SpaceX Booster Inventory

Block 5 Booster:  Out of Service (9)

Booster      Launches     Reason         Date

  • B1046          4x              NLA        19 Jan 2020
  • B1047          3x               NLA         6 Aug 2019
  • B1048          5x                LF         18 Mar 2020
  • B1050          1x                 LF           5 Dec 2018
  • B1054          1x                 LF         23 Dec 2018
  • B1055          1x                PLF         11 Apr 2019 (FHC*)
  • B1056          4x                LF          17 Feb 2020
  • B1057          1x                 LF          25 Jun 2019 (FHC*)
  • B1059          6x                LF          16 Feb 2021

[Key:  NLA – no landing attempted   LF – Landing Failure  PLF – Post Landing Failure]

Block 5 Booster:  Unusable or MIA (2)

Booster    Launches    Reason     Last Launch

  • B1052        2x             FHS*        25 Jun 2019
  • B1053        2x             FHS*        25 Jun 2019

Block 5 Booster:  New (3)

Booster    Type    First Launch 

  • B1064     FHS       Oct 2021
  • B1065     FHS       Oct 2021
  • B1066     FHC       Oct 2021

Block 5 Booster Inventory:  Available? (8?)

Booster    Launches   Last Launch  Next Launch  Next Possible Launch

  • B1049        9x          4 May 2021        July 2021(?)¹       Retired?²
  • B1051      10x           9 May 2021             UKN                    Retired?²
  • B1058        8x         15 May 2021             UKN                24 Jun 2021
  • B1060        7x         29 Apr 2021         24 Jun 2021         3 Aug 2021
  • B1061        3x            6 Jun 2021              UKN                  16 Jul 2021
  • B1062        1x          17 Jun 2021              UKN                  27 Jul 2021
  • B1063        2x         26 May 2021            UKN                    4 Jul 2021
  • B1067        1x            3 Jun 2021           23 Oct 2021          2 Dec 2021

*Booster Type

  • FHC – Falcon Heavy Core Booster
  • FHS – Falcon Heavy Side Booster
  • F9B5 – Falcon 9 Block 5

¹Must be moved to Vandenberg Air Force Base

²Has reached the maximum of 10 launches

SpaceX Remaining 2021 Launches

         Date       Booster   Poss. Booster  Location    Revenue?    Gov’t?

  1. 17 Jun 2021   B1062                                     FL               Yes             Yes
  2. 24 Jun 2021   B1060                                    FL                Yes             No
  3.  July 2021?    B1049                                     CA                No              No
  4.  July 2021?     UNK            B1058              UNK             No              No
  5. 18 Aug 2021   UNK            B1063                FL               Yes             Yes
  6.  Aug 2021?     UNK            B1061                 FL               No              No
  7. 15 Sep 2021   UNK            B1062                 FL               Yes             No
  8.   Sept 2021?   UNK            B1060                CA               Yes             Yes
  9.   Sept 2021?   UNK              ??                       CA               Yes             Yes
  10.   Sept 2021?   UNK            B1058                FL                No              No
  11.   Q3 2021?     UNK             B1063                 FL               Yes             No
  12. 23 Oct 2021   B1067                                      FL               Yes             Yes
  13.   Oct 2021?    B1064-66                               FL                Yes            Yes
  14.   Oct 2021?    UNK             B1061                 FL                Yes            Yes
  15. 17 Nov 2021  UNK             B1062                FL                Yes            Yes
  16. 24 Nov 2021  UNK             B1060                CA                Yes            Yes
  17.    Nov 2021?  UNK             B1063                 FL                 No             No
  18.  4 Dec 2021   UNK             B1061                 FL                 Yes            Yes
  19.   Dec 2021?   UNK             B1067                 CA                 Yes            No
  20.    Q4 2021?   UNK           None Avail.           FL                 Yes            No
  21.    Q4 2021?   UNK           None Avail.           CA                 Yes           No

SpaceX Booster Crisis

13 Monday Jan 2020

Posted by in Business, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Layoff, Management Practices, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Reduction in Force, Space, SpaceX, Technology, The Tipping Point, United States, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Missing SpaceX Boosters?

A rocket is required to achieve orbit. Without it, everything else is just talk. SpaceX is dependent on the Falcon 9 Block 5 SpaceX booster, but in 2019 their launch schedule decreased dramatically, in part, because of a lack of booster inventory. Nothing has changed for 2020 and, in fact, the situation may be worse.

The decline and fall of SpaceX’s launch schedule

SpaceX will have 13 (Space Flight Now,) 22+ (Space News,) or 33 (Wikipedia) launches in 2020 depending on what source is used. SpaceX’s President, CEO, and CIC (Cheerleader in Chief) Gwynne Shotwell claimed in September that her company will likely have two Starlink launches per month in 2020. This does not include the test launches required for human spaceflight, nor the paying customers already scheduled. 

The problem is that SpaceX doesn’t have enough boosters to come anywhere near the volume they brag about to the public.

In March of 2019, it was apparent that SpaceX was facing severe financial problems. A dramatic cut in SpaceX employees at their California rocket assembly plant in January of last year resulted in a drastic downsizing of booster production and launches for 2019.

SpaceX Booster Deficit:  It’s a Math Problem

SpaceX introduced the Block 5 Falcon 9 booster in May 2018. Six Block 5 boosters were used in ten launches in 2018 and five launches in 2019. Last year, after the layoffs, SpaceX put up seven new Block 5 boosters, four of which, (B1052, B1053, B1055, and B1057,) were specifically built for use in the Falcon Heavy configuration. The Falcon Heavy boosters have never been used on single booster launches. The three non-Falcon Heavy boosters were responsible for seven of the 13 SpaceX launches in 2019.

We’re almost through the hard math.

This means SpaceX has nine Block 5 boosters available. But they don’t.

Of the nine Block 5 boosters, 3 (B1047, B1050, and B1054) have been lost (sacrificed or destroyed.) Another booster (B1046) will be destroyed in the upcoming crew capsule abort test. One booster (B1051) hasn’t been seen since it left Vandenberg Airforce Base after its flight in June of last year. Two of the remaining boosters (B1048 and B1049) have been flown four times and one (B1056) three times.

This leaves one booster (B1059) with less than three flights use and one new booster (B1058) coming on online in 2020. SpaceX doesn’t have the inventory of boosters needed to accomplish even a moderate launch schedule this year.

SpaceX Exec:  Pay No Attention To Reality

In May of last year, the top executive of SpaceX either had no understanding of the company’s launch capabilities or publicly lied about the projected launch schedule. Shotwell said that SpaceX would have a total of 18 to 21 launches in 2019, not including the Starlink satellite launches. SpaceX had 13 total launches including two Starlink launches.

SpaceX CEO Gwynne Shotwell:  Doesn’t know how many rockets her company can launch

SpaceX had no major disasters or delays that would explain how Shotwell would overestimate the number of launches by over 150% with only seven months left in the year.

Fantasyland Scenarios

Elon Musk and SpaceX’s Shotwell have been known for their boasts of SpaceX’s future. In a conference call to the news media in 2018, Musk was quoted to say that the Block 5 Falcon 9 would be “…capable of at least 100 flights…” and they would be able to launch a Block 5 booster within 24 hours of recovery. He also said that all this would happen as early as 2019.

In July, Teslarati reported that SpaceX Vice President of Commercial Sales Jonathan Hofeller announced that by the end of 2019, they would launch a Block 5 booster for a fifth or sixth time. In the same article, the Musk fansite writer Eric Ralph calculated that SpaceX would launch an additional 12 to 19 times in the second half of 2019. 

Today, only two Block 5 boosters (B1048 and B1049) have been launched more than three times (B1046 is scheduled for its fourth launch on 18 January.) The ten-week turnaround time for the Block 5 boosters has also failed to meet Musk’s predictions of a 24-hour turnaround.

What is Possible For 2020?

In the short term, SpaceX has the booster capacity to launch six times in the first quarter if boosters B1048 and B1049 can be used a fifth time and if a new booster comes online before April. If not, then SpaceX would be hardpressed to launch four missions by the end of March.

Currently, only two missions have assigned boosters (B1046 for Dragon Inflight Abort test and B1058 for Dragon crewed test flight.) Without a booster assigned, it is unlikely that any other announced mission in January or February is feasible.

Musk has also claimed that the Block 5 booster can easily perform ten launches; however, as with his other claims, there is no reason to believe the Block 5 can survive the extreme temperatures and stress of ten launches and landings without a significant overhaul.

For the remainder of the year, SpaceX depends heavily on new boosters to keep flying as the current booster supply is almost exhausted.

Is SpaceX a Dead Program Walking?

Last year’s sudden layoff of 577 SpaceX employees indicated corporate financial trauma. That event was followed by an anemic 2019 launch schedule. Nine of those launches were for commercial customers, but one was a free launch because of a previous failed launch. Two launches were for test purposes and two were for the Starlink system that will not be revenue-producing until the satellite system is established and operational.

For 2020, the first five scheduled flights consist of two test flights and three non-revenue producing Starlink launches. SpaceX does have paying customer launches during 2020, but much of the schedule consists of Starlink or small customer satellites on RideShare launches.

In 2017, Musk confidently proclaimed that SpaceX would have 30 to 40 launches per year. That number was overstated and the company seems to be ‘filling in’ their launch schedule with straw customers that may not have the deep pockets SpaceX needs. They also seem to be offering deep discounts in order to attract customers.

The January 2019 layoff, the dramatic drop in launches in 2019, and the lack of Block 5 booster inventory would seem to indicate that SpaceX is in a desperate situation. 

How a Layoff in January Can Impact an April Launch

05 Friday Apr 2019

Posted by in Business, Employee Retention, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Human Resources, jobs, labor, Layoff, Management Practices, NASA, Reduction in Force, Space, SpaceX, Technology, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

SpaceX has taught us all a valuable lesson. If you need five new boosters in March and April, it’s probably best to not cut ten percent of your workers in January. Three of those boosters were needed for this week’s first Block 5 Falcon Heavy launch. At least three delays of the static fire test have now pushed the launch back to next week at the earliest.

What a January layoff looks like in April

Layoff:  Cut Their Nose Off

SpaceX announced that they were laying off ten percent of their workforce in California, primarily at the rocket manufacturing plant. This came at a time when they would also be using five new Block 5 boosters for March and April. From a strategic and logistical perspective, it was a dumb move. It also indicates how bad things are at SpaceX.

Layoffs have three primary effects. First, they demoralize the workforce. When layoffs are announced, everyone lives in fear that he or she will be the one losing their job. Low morale is not usually associated with quality work. 

Second, the survivors of a layoff typically have to take on additional responsibilities. They are expected to work harder and more efficiently to make up for the workforce lost in the layoff.

Finally, layoffs tend to reduce the knowledge and skill base of the workforce. A layoff rarely allows the opportunity for the worker to pass on her or his knowledge to the survivors. Usually, the worker is called to human resources, given the goodbye speech, handed their final check, and escorted out the door.

A layoff is a bad idea at any time, but in an industry where there is no margin for error, it’s a nightmare.

Booster Shortfall?

The first Block 5 Booster was launched eleven months ago (B 1046.) Since then only six more have been launched. Seven boosters in 13 launches. Two of those seven have been lost. SpaceX was debuting a new booster at a pace just slightly greater than one a month before the layoff.

After the layoff, they needed five new Block 5 boosters in March and April, three of them for this week’s launch. Has SpaceX has been rushing to build Block 5 boosters with a workforce injured by a recent layoff?

Enter the Falcon Heavy Static Fire Test

SpaceX is silent on the this week’s static fire delays but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to suspect something is wrong with the Falcon Heavy rocket. Knowledgable sources said that the test would occur on Monday, then Wednesday, then Thursday, Now it’s supposed to happen today (Friday.)

The delays suggest that this is why you don’t lay off your workers in January when you need new boosters in March and April.

SpaceX Public Relations: Secrecy is Modus Operandi

04 Thursday Apr 2019

Posted by in Business, Communication, Communism, Conservatives, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Government, Government Regulation, Management Practices, Mars, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Soviet Russia, Space, SpaceX, Technology, United States, US History, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

[UPDATE:  Eric Ralph, a writer for Telsalarti, posted an article saying that the Falcon Heavy launch was likely to be delayed and that it was “OK.” Again, Ralph is a knowledgable source but not an official source, so SpaceX is not accountable for the speculation. Source:  Teslarati 4 Apr 2019.]

SpaceX is scheduled to launch the new Block 5 version of the Falcon Heavy on Sunday (7 April) sometime between 6:36 PM and 8:35 PM EDT. We know this from an official source of information that was made available on 22 March. That information was not provided by SpaceX to the directly to the public. SpaceX reported it as required; however, if not for that requirement, the public would have no information on the time or date of the launch. The public is given the silent treatment while SpaceX collects billions in taxpayer dollars.


This tweet by Michael Baylor, a managing editor for NASASpaceflight.com and considered a highly knowledgeable source, was wrong. SpaceX has remained silent.

SpaceX Public Relations:  Code of Secrecy

Because SpaceX is a private company, they’re not required to tell the public anything,…and they don’t. This leads to speculation through other sources and that speculation works to their favor. By not making announcements about time or dates, they can’t be held responsible for delays. SpaceX avoids negative publicity by not being accountable to the public. The new reality of public relations in space exploration is that everything is on a need to know basis…and the public doesn’t need to know.

Prep for Falcon Heavy Static Fire Test…in 2018

Falcon Heavy Problems?

This week’s Block 5 Falcon Heavy debut is a prime example of how SpaceX uses secrecy to their advantage. Instead of informing the public, the public relations people at SpaceX are taking a low profile prior to the launch. No announcements, no tweets.

Speculation has been made that the static fire test (a short test-firing of the engines) would occur on Monday (1 April,) Wednesday (3 April,) and now Thursday (4 April.) [Sources:  Teslarati 28 Mar 2019 – E. Ralph, Spaceflight Now 1-3 Apr 2019 – S. Clark] Again, not from official sources, but by knowledgeable sources. This type of teasing drives SpaceX fans into a feeding frenzy of speculation, but SpaceX isn’t accountable for any of the speculation, regardless of how knowledgable the source.

This allows SpaceX to miss a projected date or time for the static fire test because they never said when the test would occur. It is likely that the information in the above tweet by Michael Baylor was accurate and something has happened to cause SpaceX to push back the static fire test, but they don’t have to reveal that to the public. They can keep the public guessing until it becomes obvious that the launch date and time will not be met.

This also allows SpaceX to minimize failure while wildly pronouncing a success. If the launch is a success, SpaceX will make public announcements with video of every positive aspect of the launch. If the Falcon Heavy launch fails SpaceX will likely cut video feeds to the public and wait several hours to form a carefully crafted explanation that will suggest the failure was an expected risk of a rocket launch. Then they will go silent.

This is what SpaceX did on the first Falcon Heavy (Block 4) launch when the booster core failed to land on the drone ship. The video feed was cut when the booster crashed near the ship and damaged the engines. SpaceX then didn’t confirm or deny what happened until several hours later, even though they had a continuous video of the event. [Source:  The Verge 6 Feb 2018 – L. Grush]

Why Should the Public Know?

Roughly half of SpaceX’s revenue has come from the taxpayers pocket. According to Sam Dunkovich, $5.5 billion of SpaceX $12 billion in launch contracts are from NASA or the U.S. military [Source:  RealClear Policy 2 Feb 2018.] SpaceX wouldn’t be in the space industry if it were not for the financial revenue it gains from the U.S. taxpayer. The first launch of a Block 5 Falcon Heavy is a significant milestone of how our money is being spent by this private company.

Space exploration has been a public concern since Soviet Russia launched Sputnik on 4 October 1957. The conservatives desire to privatize space exploration is at best an experiment and certainly is a one-sided political agenda. By withholding information from the taxpayers, the effectiveness of that political agenda cannot be fairly determined.

Secrecy in public relations is a Soviet model and not acceptable in the United States. Withholding information from the public to hide the true situation is still a lie. This is why private business is incapable of overseeing themselves and should be required to inform the public of their true activities and problems.  

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.

SpaceX 2019 Launch Schedule Realities

28 Thursday Mar 2019

Posted by in Communication, Communism, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Government, Management Practices, Marketing, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Soviet Russia, Space, SpaceX, Technology, The Tipping Point, United States, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

SpaceX Retreating Launch Schedule

SpaceX has had three successful launches so far this year. The problem is that one launch per month is a major retreat from the 21 launches it had in 2018. Looking forward, SpaceX next three quarters will not improve. Based on the available information they will only attempt ten more launches before the end of the year.

[NOTE:  This is a follow-up story to Tuesday’s article – SpaceX Implosion]

The One and Only: The 1st and last Falcon Heavy launch one year ago

Soviet Style Space Program…Everything is on a Need To Know Basis

Much like to old Soviet Space program, SpaceX avoids making public announcements regarding its launch plans. On its website, SpaceX lists the contracts it has by the customer or satellite name in alphabetical order but doesn’t give a date or time for the launch. Most of the information on SpaceX launches is derived from secondary sources and legally required filings. Here is a list of what is known about the rest of the 2019 SpaceX schedule:

ªNL – Launch not likely in 2019.
¹The original target date for launch.
²Author’s best estimate of the likelihood of launch on that day, or during that time period based on multiple sources.
³Launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

[Primary Source: Spaceflight Now Secondary Sources: Wikipedia, RocketLaunch.live, NASA, Brian Webb]

Based on multiple sources, four of these launches are unlikely to occur in 2019. The Starlink flight [14 May] has disappeared from most launch schedule websites. This is a program that would seem to be the lowest priority and would add more expense to SpaceX with little or no revenue in return.

There are some reports that the late June Dragon 2 abort test flight is being pushed back and that the 25 July Dragon 2 test flight with a crew will be no earlier than November at the earliest. This would make the first Dragon 2 delivery of a crew to ISS unlikely until 2020. [Source:  TASS 22 Mar 2019] Comments from the unnamed space representative said that the Dragon 2 parachute system would have to be replaced. If true, the launch abort test in June could be significantly delayed and the crew test would hang in the balance of a completely new parachute system, making the crew test unlikely even by November. 

Finally, the Sirius Radio Satellite schedule for the 4th quarter of 2019 would seem unlikely based on the flights being pushed back or already scheduled in the 4th quarter.

Falcon Heavy Headaches

Another major issue in the SpaceX schedule is the second Falcon Heavy flight now scheduled for June. Everything would have to go perfectly on the 7 April Falcon Heavy flight for any chance of meeting the planned June flight as two of the three boosters on the April flight are to be reused for June flight. Any issues with the two side boosters in April would require SpaceX to find a replacement booster(s.) It is questionable if SpaceX has any Block 5 boosters to spare.

In addition, the launch pad has to be configured for a Falcon Heavy launch and then reconfigured for a normal Falcon 9 launch. That means weeks of extra work between launches that render the pad useless.

Dragon 2 Human-Rating Race

SpaceX has had an advantage in the race to provide a human-rated space capsule. It already has a cargo capsule that is already operational for unmanned flights to and from the International Space Station (ISS.) Since the crewed Dragon 2 capsule will be under autopilot as its default, the basic spacecraft needed little conversion to fly its first test mission to ISS and back.

Dragon 2 Cargo Capsule – already flying

Many looked at this month’s [2 March 2019] Dragon 2 test flight as a major milestone; however, it really was a cargo flight with seats, a dummy, and an Earth-shaped plush toy. It really proved little about the human-rating of the capsule, but it was a big show for SpaceX.

Dragon 2 Crew Capsule – take out the cargo, add seats and touchscreens

The reason that it’s significant that Russia news agencies are reporting a major delay in Dragon 2 testing is that Russia would have to be contracted to provide ISS crew flights if the United States doesn’t have a human-rated capsule by the end of this year. Since SpaceX doesn’t usually report problems in their space program to the United States media, the first report of the schedule being significantly pushed back would likely come from Russia.

If it is true that SpaceX can’t launch the first crewed test until 2020, it would be devastating to its Dragon 2 program and open the door for Boeing’s Starliner to be tested and rated by the end of this year.

What’s SpaceX’s Problem?

SpaceX seems to be in financial trouble. The ten percent reduction in the staff indicates a severe cash flow problem. The 40% reduction in the launch schedule would indicate the financial issues are more severe than they would publicly acknowledge.

2018 was a year of primarily paying the bills with commercial launches. That may have actually cost SpaceX in the long term. Now they are in a heated race with Boeing to win the crew capsule business and because they only have one test launch of the Falcon Heavy they didn’t land the military contracts they desperately need. Now they are trying to prove that the Falcon Heavy is reliable with two launches in three months. SpaceX fans applaud the company on its brilliant strategy but this year their strategy isn’t working.

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 2018 Report Card: C+

31 Monday Dec 2018

Posted by in Business, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Government, Mars, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Space, SpaceX, The Tipping Point, United States, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Last February I wrote that SpaceX had three “must do” things in 2018 to prove that all the self-promotion and bragging is justified. It’s time to look back and see how SpaceX did in achieving these critical milestones.

SpaceX Roadster in Space: A symbol of a company going nowhere fast

No. 1 – Consistency in SpaceX Payload Delivery:  B

SpaceX had 21 launches this year. All of them successful, meaning they didn’t blow up in the first few minutes. This was three more launches than the previous year. One of the launches was the test flight for the Falcon Heavy rocket, but the rest were largely for SpaceX customers.

There was only one payload that did not make it into orbit. The Zuma military satellite was shrouded in secrecy, which means no one had to take the blame or acknowledge the payload failure. A report indicates that SpaceX was not to blame, but there are discrepancies in the live reporting by the SpaceX Launch Announcer that indicate a failure of the SpaceX fairings to deploy on time.

That gives SpaceX a 95% success rate, which would seem to be great, but with billions of dollars invested in payloads, one failure is too many. SpaceX gets a B.

No. 2 – Prove Falcon Heavy is Reliable:  D+

SpaceX had a major publicity win with the first launch of Falcon Heavy rocket last February. The stunt of launching a Tesla Roadster was a stroke of public relations brilliance that overshadowed the fact that no additional Falcon Heavy launches followed the single success.

The next Falcon Heavy launch is scheduled for March of 2019. If all goes well, SpaceX will be one step closer to proving reliability, but SpaceX has not made its case to the people who can afford to pay SpaceX to launch their satellites.

Another Falcon Heavy rocket is scheduled to be launched in April, but those are the only two Falcon Heavy launches scheduled in 2019. The fact that the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) announced in late October that it awarded a Heavy Lift contract to SpaceX’s competitor, United Launch Alliance (ULA) indicates that SpaceX is not considered reliable and/or as economical in the heavy launch market.

If SpaceX has any issues with either of the 2019 Falcon Heavy launches, it may have to end its Falcon Heavy program for a lack of customers. SpaceX gets a D+.

No. 3 – Success of the F9 Block 5 Version:   C+

There are two primary missions of the Block 5 booster. First, it has to be proven to be safe for human flight. Second, the Block 5 booster is supposed to be the savior of space travel because of reusability and reliability. It is supposed to have a quick turnaround from launch to re-launch and it is touted as a booster that can easily be used ten times or more.

In 2018, SpaceX put up six Block 5 boosters in ten launches. One Block 5 booster has been used three times and two boosters have been used twice. Of the three Block 5 boosters that have been reused, the average turnaround time from launch to re-launch is 99 days.

SpaceX had to delay the December 2018 crewed mission back to June 2019. That means they failed to prove human rating in 2018.

The reusability and reliability of the Block 5 booster are also still in question. They have to be given credit for the ten successful launches, and the turnaround time is better than the Block 4 booster turnaround time (Average 177 days.)

Still, there is not enough information to determine if the Block 5 will achieve its primary goals. SpaceX gets a C+.

SpaceX gets an A+ in generating excitement and a polished public image that invites public support; however, the public image is not what counts in the commercial space business. SpaceX is practically giving away space on some of its rockets to stay in the public spotlight with its launches. The reality is that SpaceX maintained its ability to stay in business one more year, but that was not what it needed to do. Overall grade:  C+

SpaceX’s Magical Block 5 Booster is a No Show

06 Friday Apr 2018

Posted by in Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Government, Honor, Management Practices, Mars, NASA, Nevada, Public Image, Public Relations, Reno, Science, Space, SpaceX, Technology, The Tipping Point, United States, US History, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Today is 6 April 2018. That deafening roar that you DIDN’T hear yesterday was the SpaceX Block 5 Falcon 9 rocket. It didn’t launch yesterday. Nor did it launch in February…nor in December. SpaceX plans fall short of reality again. The trademark of Elon Musk’s and his companies are their ability to fail to live up to their claims.

SpaceX One Trick:  Wasting Money to Reland Junk Boosters

Block 5 Falcon 9 – The Grand Promise

Block 5 is the made-up name for SpaceX’s final version of the Falcon 9. It is critical to their hope to be NASA’s go-to company for the manned space program. There is a catch. SpaceX has to fly the Block 5 booster seven times without making any upgrades or changes before NASA will put humans onboard.

There is another catch. SpaceX entire company has been built around one concept: economical space flight. Their method is reusability, and the centerpiece is the reusable booster. Musk has made grand claims that the SpaceX booster will be used ten times. In addition, some people have been suggesting that the booster will only need an inspection and will be able to be reflown in a matter of days.

To date, the maximum any booster has been reused is once (F9 Boosters B1021, B1023, B1025, B1029, B1031, B1032, B1035, B1036, B1038, B1039, B1041.) Of the eleven reflown boosters, six were relanded after the second flight, but then they were ‘retired’ or junked. The rest were ‘expended’ or destroyed. None of these boosters were Block 5 types.

The Snake Oil of Spaceflight

Any cost savings of the reusable booster have been eliminated by the waste of expending, relanding, and recovering junk boosters. The delays of the Block 5 are costing SpaceX money, and the idea that a booster can be landed, inspected, and reflown in days was the boast of NASA with the Space Shuttle. NASA found out the hard way. It is not possible without endangering lives.

The other aspect of this is that only SpaceX knows how much these launches really cost. They are not making the cost per launch available to the public. They could be charging much less than the actual cost to hide the fact that the reusable booster doesn’t actually save money.

Space Customers Are Watching

The first Block 5 flight is now scheduled for 24 April. The first SpaceX crewed flight was scheduled for December. It is improbable, and likely impossible that SpaceX will be able to have seven successful Block 5 flights in time to meet the December deadline.

This delay comes after a five-year delay in the launch of the Falcon Heavy. The first one was a spectacular success, but there are two more scheduled launches of the Falcon Heavy this year. Both have to be on time and successful, or SpaceX will face increasing doubts about its reliability.

Pence’s White Greed National Space Council

06 Tuesday Mar 2018

Posted by in Aging, Business, Discrimination, Ethics, Exploration, Generational, Government, NASA, Politicians, Politics, Public Image, racism, Science, Space, SpaceX, Taxes, Technology, United States, US History, US Space Program, Women

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Mike Pence, who is Donald Trump’s Number 1, but acts like he’s a Number 2, has recreated the National Space Council in his own image. The purpose of the group of is to channel taxpayers money out of government space program projects and give to the wealthy corporations. He seems blissfully unaware that the 29 member Council has the scientific qualifications, and diversity of race and political ideology of Republican fundraiser in Mississippi.

Pence’s Space Council of Non-Diversity

Mike Pence:  The No Science Guy

Pence, who has less charisma and intelligence than former VP Dan Quayle, has put together a Council of primarily investor-owned corporations. No current NASA staff is included, and the former NASA employees on the Council have been retired from the agency an average of over 19 years.

In order to make sure the Council does not get caught up in any science issues, Pence has added five people who were selected because of their politically conservative resume, but devoid of any scientific qualifications.

However, there is one science teacher on the Council. No one seems to know who she is or what her qualifications are, but she is a “Board Certified Science Teacher.” 

The National Space Kangaroo Council 

The qualifications and interests of the National Space Council members are as follows:

Current NASA Staff (0)

None included

Current FAA Staff (0)

None included

Former NASA Staff (7)

Buzz Aldrin, (Retired from NASA 46 years ago)

Walked on the Moon in 1969, retired from NASA 1971, retired from Air Force 1972, a proponent of space exploration, punched faked-Moon-landing-conspiracist Bart Sibrel in the face (Sibrel had it coming.)

Eileen Collins, (Retired from NASA 12 years ago in May)

Flew Space Shuttle four times, speaker at 2016 Republican National Convention

Homer Hickam, (Retired from NASA 20 years ago)

Former NASA engineer and author

Pam Melroy, (Retired from NASA 9 years ago)

Space Shuttle astronaut, former Lockheed Martin staff, former FAA staff, former DARPA staff.

Harrison ‘Jack’ Schmitt, (Retired from NASA 42 years ago)

Apollo 17 Astronaut and former conservative U.S. Senator. Believes climate change is natural, not human-caused

David Wolf, (Retired from NASA 5 years ago)

Space Shuttle astronaut and physician

Pete Worden, (Retired from NASA 2 years ago)

Former Air Force General and NASA Ames Center Director

Minor Space Background (1)

G.P. Bud Peterson, Served as a visiting research scientist for NASA during summers of 1981 and 1982. Chairperson of the National Science Council and President of the Georgia Institute of Technology

Private Corporations Seeking Taxpayer Money (15)

Conservatives Appointed For Their Political Ideology (No space industry qualifications) (5 + 2 Former NASA)

  • Dean Cheng, Political conservative working for the Heritage Foundation, a politically conservative organization
  • Eileen Collins, (See former NASA staff)
  • Steve Crisafulli, Former conservative politician, Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives
  • Newt Gingrich,  conservative politician and former Speaker of the House
  • Governor Kay Ivey, Conservative Governor of Alabama
  • Fred Klipsch, Conservative promoting the defunding of public schools, Founder and Chairman of Hoosiers for Quality Education
  • Harrison ‘Jack’ Schmitt, (See former NASA staff)

Unknown (1)

  • Pamela Vaughan, Science Teacher

Maybe we didn’t win the space race after all.

SpaceX 2018 Launch Schedule Is PR Gold or PR Nightmare

28 Wednesday Feb 2018

Posted by in Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Marketing, Milestone, NASA, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Space, SpaceX, Technology, United States, US History, US Space Program

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

SpaceX is dependent on its reputation of success and reliability. There is no room in SpaceX’s 2018 launch schedule for major failures. The successful launch of the Falcon Heavy with a Tesla Roadster as the payload has repaired the long delays of the program, but in the business of space, you’re only as good as your last mission.

SpaceX’s Starman in Earth orbit

SpaceX’s reputation will be determined by the successful implementation of three critical elements of their program. Failure of any of the three elements and SpaceX could be facing a public relations (PR) nightmare; however, success will prove Elon Musk’s lofty visions for the company might be more than just talk.

SpaceX Must Do No. 1 – Consistency in Payload Delivery

The Falcon 9 program has moved out of the novice phase and into the professional phase. The question remains as to whether or not SpaceX can consistently put payloads into orbit.

Landing the booster after these launches dazzles the public, but has no impact on the effectiveness or cost efficiency of the program. Most of the boosters are the previous Block 3 or 4 versions and will not be reused. There is an issue with the booster landings. How long will paying customers accept SpaceX’s waste of resources on the ‘reusable’ PR parlor trick?

The other issue cropping up is the reliability of the fairing on the nose of the rocket. There are persistent issues with the fairing and while SpaceX absolved themselves of the loss of the super secret Zuma satellite, questions still remain as to the role of the fairing release after launch. 

SpaceX Must Do No. 2 – Prove Falcon Heavy is Reliable

The inaugural launch of the Falcon Heavy was a spectacular success for SpaceX. The PR kudos continue to pour in with every new sighting by astronomers as the alternate human, Starman, drives his Tesla out further in the solar system.

All that could be lost if the next two 2018 scheduled launches of the Falcon Heavy experience problems. Failed launches of the Heavy would erase much of the PR boost of the first launch and call back into question the wisdom of a 27-engine booster. SpaceX has to duplicate the home run first launch at least twice more before customers will feel warm and fuzzy about the Falcon Heavy.

SpaceX Must Do No. 3 – Success of the F9 Block 5 Version 

Block 5 is the final version of the Falcon 9 booster and it goes into service in 2018. It is the booster that will be rated for human spaceflight and much of SpaceX’s future as a commercial space program depends on proving it answers all the concerns of the four previous versions.

NASA is requiring seven successful booster flights of the Block 5 version of Falcon 9 before it will be rated for humans. That means SpaceX has to successfully launch the same version of the booster, without significant redesigns, seven times.

SpaceX has scheduled the maiden and second flight of the Block 5 version for April. It then has to fit five more successful flights between May and November. Once achieved, SpaceX can be approved to send astronauts up on the Block 5 booster in December of this year.

2018 A Year of Glory or Humiliation

Elon Musk has a reputation for promising more than he can deliver. He is a master of overconfidence but now results matter. He knows how to carefully craft a situation to amaze the public.

The Falcon Heavy launch was one of those moments. When they see the video of Starman orbiting Earth in a shiny red Tesla with the top down, people don’t remember that the Falcon Heavy was supposed to be ready in 2013. When they see the first stage of a rocket magically land on the pad, people don’t care that the booster was never going to be reused again.

2018 isn’t going to be a time when showmanship is going to cover up glaring issues. If there are problems meeting this year’s critical goals, people will see the man behind the curtain.

However, if SpaceX manages to achieve these milestones with minimal problems, SpaceX will be the shining star of space exploration.

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]

SpaceX Falcon Heavy-Lift Rocket: A Soviet-Style Disaster?

23 Tuesday Jan 2018

Posted by in Business, Government, History, Management Practices, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Space, SpaceX, Technology, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

SpaceX is maybe, almost, someday, hopefully going to launch the Falcon Heavy rocket that SpaceX circus master Elon Musk expects to blow up shortly after launch. His concern is legitimate as SpaceX’s 27 engine-utilization is reminiscent of the Soviet’s disastrous failure of heavy-lift rockets of the early 1970’s that used 30 engines.

I hope it makes it far enough away from the pad that it does not cause pad damage. I would consider even that a win, to be honest.

Elon Musk

Three 1st Stage Heavy Rocket Engine Configurations: top – SpaceX Falcon Heavy, lower left – Soviet N1, lower right – NASA’s Saturn V

Soviet Heavy-Lift Plan: Lots of Engines

To get to the Moon the Soviet rocket engineers decided to use thirty engines on the first stage of their N1 rocket design. Smaller engines are easier to build and operate, but more engines mean more potential for failure.

A rocket engine is an effort to contain and control a continuous stream of explosive force. The power, heat, and stress of a rocket engine is unlike almost any other human-created machine. It is a complex network of plumbing, pumps, valves, and structure that must operate perfectly in synch. If they don’t it usually ends badly.

The Soviet’s N1 rocket design avoided the need of designing massive engines, like their counterparts in the United States, however, they didn’t anticipate the complexities of all engines operating in concert. The result was four failures in four launch attempts and the cancellation of the Soviet Moon program. One failure happened at the launch pad with the power of a small nuclear bomb. 

Killer Vibrations

Even if every engine works to perfection, the vibrations caused by each engine can literally shake a rocket to pieces. NASA engineers learned early in the space program that vibrations between the engines and the aerodynamic stresses on the rocket created a ‘pogo‘ vibration running up and down the length of the rocket.

They thought they understood the issue until Apollo Six partially failed because of pogo vibration issue. During the ascent phase of the launch, vibrations damaged fuel lines on the second and third stages. The damage caused the rocket’s second stage to shut down two of the five engines prematurely, and the third stage engine failed to ignite.

Saturn V’s Five Heavy-Lift Engines

Despite the issues with pogo oscillations, NASA’s five Rocketdyne F-1 engines on the Saturn V Moon rocket resulted in 13 out of 13 successful first stage launches. The only partial failure came on Apollo 6 after the first stage had completed its boost of the second and third stages.

It is unclear why the successful Apollo program engine configuration has been rejected as an option for contemporary heavy-lift rockets. It is probable that private ventures into space operations, like SpaceX, want to save money by designing only one rocket engine for all uses.

SpaceX 2017 Great, 2018?

SpaceX is coming off a spectacular year. Of 18 launch attempts, SpaceX had 18 successful launches. SpaceX also had a perfect relanding record in 2017 for every attempt.

2018 is not starting out as well. SpaceX has only had one launch so far this year and it is rumored that the payload did not make it into orbit. No public information has been made about the success of the launch because it was a highly valued, super-secret satellite. It is so secret that the public has not even been told who the satellite was built for, or its general purpose.

SpaceX has proclaimed that its launch vehicle did everything it was designed to do, but the launch narration indicates that there might have been an issue when the fairing or cover around the satellite was supposed to deploy. The launch narrator paused for ninety seconds after he said the fairing would deploy “any second now.” When he began talking again he changed the subject. A few seconds later he finally confirmed the fairing had deployed but did not explain the delay in deployment.

SpaceX Falcon Heavy Engine Roulette

So far, the Falcon Heavy rocket is not a bright spot in the SpaceX story. Its first launch was planned for 2013, and for multiple reasons, it has been delayed for five years. It had been rescheduled for launch in late Fall of last year but was then delayed again. On 1 December Musk tweeted:

Falcon Heavy to launch next month from Apollo 11 pad at the Cape.

Elon Musk

To date (21 January 2018) the Falcon Heavy has still not had a test fire of its first stage engines. This means there are less than ten days to launch test the engines and then prepare the rocket for launch. Any issues during the test firing and the launch schedule will likely slip again into February.

If SpaceX has a successful launch it will still have to prove the reliability of the 27 engine design. The mass-numbers-of-engines design ultimately killed the Soviet program with four consecutive failures. SpaceX is reliant on business customers who have faith in their ability to deliver their payload into orbit. Continued delays and any failure will reduce confidence in the Falcon Heavy, risking it to have the fate of the Soviet N1.

(Story Update:  SpaceX had a successful test firing of the Falcon Heavy first stage booster today – 24 January 2018.)

Zuma Fail: Why Space Is No Place For Private Business

10 Wednesday Jan 2018

Posted by in Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Ethics, Government, History, Management Practices, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Space, Taxes, Technology, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

SpaceX Zuma Launch: What went up, but what came down?

On Sunday SpaceX launched Zuma, a super secret, we-can-tell-you-but-then-we-have-to-kill-you military satellite built by Northrop Grumman. It was the most important, most expensive military satellite that we know nothing about…except that it may, or may not have made it into orbit, it may or may not have separated from the second stage booster, it may or may not have burned up as it came back down into the atmosphere, and it may or may not have come down in the Indian Ocean.

Like two boys standing in the backyard after a window has been broken, SpaceX yelled, “We didn’t do it!,” and Northrop Grumman is looking down, kicking the dirt and saying, “We’re not gonna say anything.” It feels like the 1960’s and the Soviets are running our space program. 

What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate

This is why private business has no place in space. Private business is incapable of telling the truth to the public and they are hiding behind the skirt of the military hoping no one will notice that there is no state secret about whether a satellite made it into orbit or not.

The United States Government has to be an adult. If they send a rocket up and it fails, they have to tell us what happened. Private business, like the 1960 Soviet space program, believes that the public only needs to know about how great they are, and anything negative is to be a secret.

In the absence of the truth we can only assume that both SpaceX and Northrop Grumman are at fault and no more taxpayer money should be spent until they both can act like adults.

(SEE:  CBS article with full SpaceX Zuma launch video)

(SEE: Independent YouTube video of SpaceX Zuma launch)

The Zuma Fairing Mystery?

During the Zuma launch, the SpaceX announcer pauses his commentary for ninety seconds after saying the fairing would deploy (eject) “…any second now..” He then came back on and switched topics, then finally confirmed the fairing deployment. Why the long pause?

  • 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.”

 

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?  

SpaceX and Mars: The Illogical Strategy

23 Saturday Dec 2017

Posted by in Business, Government, Health, History, Management Practices, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Space, Technology, Travel, US History

≈ 12 Comments

Tags

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

Parlor Trick:  Relanding a piece of junk and wasting payload fuel to do it

 

Fallacy:  It takes eight to nine months to get to Mars when the planets are in the correct position.

Fact:  Mars can be reached in a matter of weeks if the ship has the propulsion and fuel to increase speed beyond what is required for the Hohmann Transfer, and to reduce speed to insert into orbit around Mars. Also, a more powerful propulsion and fuel method can allow for trips to Mars even when the two planets are not in the ideal position.

Fallacy:  We don’t have the technology to protect humans from cosmic radiation for extended space journeys beyond Earth orbit.

Fact:  Again, we do have methods to protect astronauts from cosmic radiation, but the concepts add weight to the ship, and that means a better propulsion system is needed.

Getting to Mars is about ship and propulsion design. Period. Speed and weight will have to be increased to get astronauts safely there and back again. It costs money to achieve the goal.

This is the problem with SpaceX plan to go to Mars. Their approach has been to  ‘save money’ by developing a reusable booster system. That sounds great. That’s what the space shuttle was designed to provide, and now, thirty years later, SpaceX is trying to re-do what we’ve already done. Not only are they reinventing technology we already have, they are doing it wrong.

Returning a booster as a landing craft defeats the mission objective of going to Mars. It requires wasting time, money, and fuel to:

  1. design a booster landing system
  2. building and testing a booster landing system
  3. committing fuel that should be dedicated to the payload, to the booster landing system
  4. using personnel and resources to monitor and land the booster
  5. using personnel and resources to recover and rebuild the booster that is basically a piece of junk.

In addition, their approach to a reusable booster is contradictory to the goal of getting to Mars. It is absurd to think that one vehicle will liftoff from Earth, orbit Earth, go to Mars, orbit Mars, and land on Mars. Mars is not a pack-your-overnight-bag trip. To get to Mars will require boosting several payloads to be assembled in Earth orbit. Wasting fuel to put a payload into orbit in order to land the booster makes no sense.

Landing the booster stage on Earth is a parlor trick. It lets SpaceX look cool, and lets them claim they are saving money by reusing the booster. It makes people excited and cheer, but it is a waste of valuable resources. Landing on Mars will not be achieved by expending resources to re-land the booster on Earth.