News
Blue Origin scraps New Glenn recovery ship, finishes first ‘test tank’
After four years of halting work, Blue Origin has fully abandoned a transport ship it once intended to convert into a landing platform for its orbital-class New Glenn rocket.
Known as Stena Freighter at the time of sale, Blue Origin purchased the ship for an undisclosed sum – likely several million dollars – sometime in mid-2018. Aside from a flashy, December 2020 re-christening ceremony in which Blue Origin owner Jeff Bezos named the vessel Jacklyn after his late mother, the private aerospace company left the ship largely untouched in a Florida port. Small teams of workers would occasionally work on retrofitting the roll-on/roll-off cargo ship for a future life as a rocket recovery asset but made very little visible progress despite working on Jacklyn for several years.
Now, a few months after a Blue Origin spokesperson first acknowledged that the company was evaluating “different options” for New Glenn booster recovery, Jacklyn has left Florida’s Port of Pensacola for the Texan Port of Brownsville, where documents show that the ship will be scrapped.
According to an unconfirmed report, Blue Origin may ultimately use the same contractors as SpaceX to turn existing barges into ocean-going rocket-landing platforms. Blue Origin had hoped that a large, keeled ship would allow it to launch New Glenn and still recover its expensive booster even if seas were stormy downrange. However, after 107 successful SpaceX Falcon booster landings on flat-bottomed barges that are exceptionally sensitive to wave conditions, just a tiny fraction of launches have been delayed by the ocean. Further, SpaceX has only lost one booster to waves, and it solved that problem by developing a relatively cheap robot. With the benefit of hindsight, it’s not hard to see why Blue Origin changed its mind.
Much like SpaceX’s next-generation Starship rocket, Blue Origin began work on its semi-reusable New Glenn rocket in the early 2010s. Jeff Bezos publicly revealed New Glenn just a few weeks before CEO Elon Musk’s long-planned September 2016 reveal of SpaceX’s next rocket, then known as the Interplanetary Transport System (ITS). Both were massive, meant to be powered by huge new methane/oxygen-fueled engines, and designed from the ground up with some degree of reusability in mind.
But with fairly different designs and wildly different development philosophies, the paths of Blue Origin and SpaceX have only gotten further apart over the last six years. SpaceX thoroughly redesigned its next-generation rocket multiple times before throwing out a large portion of that prior work and settling on an unexpected stainless steel variant that CEO Elon Musk christened Starship in late 2018. Further differentiating the companies, SpaceX began work on steel prototypes almost immediately and successfully built and flew a scrappy pathfinder – powered by an early version of the same Raptor engine meant for Starship – less than a year later.
SpaceX then improvised a factory out of a series of tents and began churning out and testing dozens of more refined prototypes, seven of which would go on to perform flight tests between August 2020 and May 2021. SpaceX’s last test flight ended with a full-size steel Starship prototype successfully landing after launching to an altitude of 10 kilometers (~6.2 mi). Testing slowed considerably after that success but SpaceX appears to have begun ramping up again as it begins to test a Starship (S24) and Super Heavy booster prototype (B7) that have a shot at supporting the rocket’s first orbital launch attempt.
That orbital launch debut has been more or less continuously delayed for years and is about 20 months behind a tentative schedule Musk first sketched out (albeit for a drastically different rocket design) in 2016. Technically, the same is true for Blue Origin, which also said that it intended to debut New Glenn as early as 2020. However, while SpaceX can point to the instability of Starship’s design before 2019 as a fairly reasonable excuse for delays, the general characteristics of New Glenn’s design appear to be virtually unchanged despite its many delays. The smaller rocket – 7m (23 ft) wide and 98m (322 ft) tall to Starship’s 9m (30 ft) width and ~119m (~390 ft) height – will still use traditional aluminum alloys for most of its structures, will be powered by seven BE-4 engines, will land on several deployable legs, will have an expendable upper stage powered by two BE-3U engines, and will be topped with a large composite payload fairing.
Blue Origin canceled plans for a smaller interim fairing, abandoned plans to land the booster on a moving ship, and tweaked the booster’s landing legs and a few other attributes, but New Glenn is otherwise (visibly) unchanged from its 2016 reveal. Ultimately, that makes it even stranger that Blue Origin has done practically zero integrated testing of any major New Glenn components. Only in 2022 did the company finally complete and test a New Glenn payload fairing. Blue may have also built and tested a partial booster interstage, which the New Glenn upper stage will attach and deploy from.
But the true star of the show, at long last, is an apparent full-scale prototype of New Glenn’s upper stage. At minimum, Blue Origin’s first ‘test tank’ (using SpaceX parlance) should allow the company to finally verify the performance of New Glenn’s aluminum tank barrel sections and domes under cryogenic (ultra-cold) conditions. It’s unclear how (or if) Blue Origin intends to complete integrated static-fire testing of New Glenn’s upper stage before the rocket’s first launch, but it’s possible that the tank it finally delivered was designed to support testing with and without engines.
Nonetheless, Blue Origin hasn’t specified what it actually plans to do with its first New Glenn test tank and it’s even less clear why it has taken the company so long to complete one. While difficult, the methods Blue Origin is using to build New Glenn’s primary structures are about as standard as they get for modern rockets. Blue Origin itself even uses the same tech to build its smaller New Shepard rockets. So does SpaceX, ULA, Boeing, Arianespace, and virtually every other manufacturer of medium-to-large rockets, including NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) core stage, which is wider than New Glenn.
The results of those challenges (managerial, technical, or otherwise) are clear: Blue Origin is nowhere close to debuting its next-generation rocket while competitors like Arianespace and ULA are tracking towards H1 2023 debuts of their Ariane 6 and Vulcan rockets. SpaceX, who is pursuing full reusability and really only settled on the design of its larger rocket in 2019, could even be ready to attempt an orbital-class launch with Starship before the end of 2022.
Still, the long-awaited beginning of hardware-rich New Glenn development appears to have finally arrived, and it’s possible that Blue Origin’s first orbital-class rocket could finally start picking up momentum towards its launch debut.
Elon Musk
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
A California regulatory filing just confirmed the exact battery size inside each Tesla Semi variant.
A regulatory filing published by the California Air Resources Board in April 2026 has put official numbers on what Tesla Semi owners and fleet buyers have long wanted confirmed: the exact battery capacities of both the Long Range and Standard Range Semi truck variants. CARB is California’s independent air quality regulator, and it certifies zero-emission powertrains before they can be sold or operated in the state. When a manufacturer submits a vehicle for certification, the resulting executive order becomes a public document, making it one of the most reliable sources for confirmed production specs on any EV.
The document lists two certified powertrain configurations. The Long Range Semi carries a usable battery capacity of 822 kWh, while the Standard Range version comes in at 548 kWh. Both use lithium-ion NCMA chemistry and share the same peak and steady-state motor output ratings of 800 kW and 525 kW respectively. Cross-referencing Tesla’s published efficiency figure of approximately 1.7 kWh per mile under full load, the 822 kWh pack supports roughly 480 miles of real-world range, which aligns closely with Tesla’s advertised 500-mile figure for the Long Range trim. The 548 kWh Standard Range pack works out to approximately 320 miles, again consistent with Tesla’s stated 325-mile target.
Here is a direct comparison of the two versions based on the CARB filing and published specs:
| Tesla Semi Spec | Long Range | Standard Range |
| Battery Capacity | 822 kWh | 548 kWh |
| Battery Chemistry | NCMA Li-Ion | NCMA Li-Ion |
| Peak Motor Power | 800 kW | 525 kW |
| Estimated Range | ~500 miles | ~325 miles |
| Efficiency | ~1.7 kWh/mile | ~1.7 kWh/mile |
| Est. Price | ~$290,000 | ~$260,000 |
| GVW Rating | 82,000 lbs | 82,000 lbs |
The timing of this certification is not incidental. On April 29, 2026, Semi Programme Director Dan Priestley confirmed on X that high-volume production is now ramping at Tesla’s dedicated 1.7-million-square-foot facility in Sparks, Nevada. A key advantage of the Nevada location is vertical integration: the 4680 battery cells powering the Semi are manufactured in the same complex, eliminating the supply chain bottleneck that had delayed the program for years.
Tesla’s long-term goal is to reach a production capacity of 50,000 trucks annually at the Nevada factory, which would represent roughly 20 percent of the entire North American Class 8 market. With CARB certification now in hand and the production line running, the regulatory and manufacturing groundwork for that target is in place.
Tesla became the first company to pass the United States government’s new Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) testing with the Model Y, completing each of the new tests with a passing performance.
In a landmark announcement on May 7, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) declared the 2026 Tesla Model Y the first vehicle to pass its newly ADAS benchmark under the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).
Model Y vehicles manufactured on or after November 12, 2025, met rigorous pass/fail criteria for four newly added tests—pedestrian automatic emergency braking, lane keeping assistance, blind spot warning, and blind spot intervention—while also satisfying the program’s original four ADAS requirements: forward collision warning, crash imminent braking, dynamic brake support, and lane departure warning.
The NHTSA has just officially announced that the 2026 @Tesla Model Y is the first vehicle model to pass the agency’s new advanced driver assistance system tests.
2026 Tesla Model Y vehicles, manufactured on or after Nov. 12, 2025, successfully met the new criteria for four… pic.twitter.com/as8x1OsSL5
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 7, 2026
NHTSA administration Jonathan Morrison hailed the achievement as a milestone:
“Today’s announcement marks a significant step forward in our efforts to provide consumers with the most comprehensive safety ratings ever. By successfully passing these new tests, the 2026 Tesla Model Y demonstrates the lifesaving potential of driver assistance technologies and sets a high bar for the industry. We hope to see many more manufacturers develop vehicles that can meet these requirements.”
The updates to NCAP, finalized in late 2024 and effective for 2026 models, reflect growing recognition that ADAS features are no longer optional luxuries but essential tools for preventing crashes.
Pedestrian automatic emergency braking, for instance, targets one of the fastest-rising causes of roadway fatalities, while blind spot intervention and lane keeping assistance address common sources of side-swipes and run-off-road incidents. By incorporating objective, performance-based evaluations rather than mere presence of the technology, NHTSA aims to give buyers clearer data on real-world effectiveness.
This milestone arrives at a pivotal moment when vehicle autonomy is transitioning from science fiction to everyday reality.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) software and the impending rollout of robotaxis underscore a broader industry shift toward higher levels of automation. Yet regulators and consumers remain cautious: safety data must keep pace with technological ambition.
The Model Y’s perfect score on these ADAS benchmarks validates that current driver-assist systems—when engineered rigorously—can dramatically reduce human error, which still accounts for the vast majority of crashes.
For Tesla, the result reinforces its long-standing claim of building the safest vehicles on the road. More importantly, it signals to the entire auto sector that meeting elevated federal standards is achievable and expected.
As autonomy edges closer to Level 3 and beyond, where drivers may disengage more fully, such independent verification becomes critical. It builds public trust, informs purchasing decisions, and accelerates the development of systems that could one day eliminate tens of thousands of annual traffic deaths.
In an era when software-defined vehicles promise transformative mobility, the 2026 Model Y’s NHTSA triumph is more than a manufacturer accolade—it is a regulatory green light that autonomy’s future must be built on proven, testable safety foundations. The bar has been raised. The industry, and the roads we share, will be safer for it.
Tesla is going to fix the nearly 219,000 vehicles that it recalled due to an issue with the rearview camera with a simple software update, giving owners no need to travel to a service center to resolve the problem.
Tesla is formally recalling 218,868 U.S. vehicles after regulators discovered a software glitch that can delay the rearview camera image by up to 11 seconds when drivers shift into reverse.
The affected models include certain 2024-2025 Model 3 and Model Y, as well as 2023-2025 Model S and Model X vehicles running software version 2026.8.6 and equipped with Hardware 3 computers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determined the lag violates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 on rear visibility and could increase crash risk.
Yet this is no ordinary recall. Owners do not need to schedule a service-center visit, hand over keys, or wait for parts.
Tesla fans call for recall terminology update, but the NHTSA isn’t convinced it’s needed
Tesla identified the issue on April 10, halted further deployment of the faulty firmware the same day, and began pushing a corrective over-the-air (OTA) software update on April 11.
By the time the NHTSA posted the recall notice on May 6, more than 99.92 percent of the affected fleet had already received the fix. Tesla reports no crashes, injuries, or fatalities linked to the glitch.
The episode underscores a deeper problem with regulatory language. For decades, “recall” meant hauling a vehicle to a dealership for hardware repairs or replacements. That definition no longer fits software-defined cars. When a fix arrives wirelessly in minutes — identical to an iPhone update — the term evokes unnecessary alarm and misleads the public about the actual risk and remedy.
Elon Musk has repeatedly called for exactly this change. After earlier NHTSA actions, he stated plainly: “The terminology is outdated & inaccurate. This is a tiny over-the-air software update.” On another occasion, he added that labeling OTA fixes as recalls is “anachronistic and just flat wrong.”
The terminology is outdated & inaccurate. This is a tiny over-the-air software update. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no injuries.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 22, 2022
Musk’s point is simple: regulators must evolve their vocabulary to match the technology. Traditional recalls involve physical intervention and downtime; OTA updates do not. Retaining the old label distorts consumer perception, inflates perceived defect rates, and slows the industry’s shift to faster, safer software iteration.
Tesla’s rapid, remote remedy demonstrates the safety advantage of over-the-air capability. Problems that once required weeks of dealer appointments are now resolved in hours, often before most owners notice. As more automakers adopt software-first designs, the entire regulatory framework needs to catch up.
Updating “recall” terminology would align language with reality, reduce public confusion, and recognize that modern vehicles are no longer static hardware — they are continuously improving computers on wheels.
For the 219,000 Tesla owners involved, the process is already complete. The camera works, the car is safe, and no one left their driveway. That is the new standard — and the vocabulary should reflect it.
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
Tesla crushes NHTSA’s brand-new ADAS safety tests – first vehicle to ever pass
