News
SpaceX will use a parasail guidance system to land Falcon 9’s fairing into a huge net
SpaceX recovery vessel Mr Steven officially departed Port of Los Angeles on the evening of July 23 and is speeding towards its first Falcon 9 fairing recovery attempt since a major series of refits and upgrades. With massive new arms and usable net area increased fourfold, chances are better than they’ve ever been for the iconic clawboat to at last snag its first true ‘catch’ of a parasailing payload fairing.
Set to be stationed roughly 900 km (600 mi) southwest of the California coast, Mr Steven’s vast new net should dramatically even the playing field, cutting the effective error margin for each fairing catch attempt by as much as 60% on its own. An extra ~30 meters of net both length and width-wise would functionally act as a cushion for the ~50-meter accuracy the fairings have demonstrated thus far (i.e. halves missed Mr Steven’s smaller, original net by 50 m).
Still, the question remains for many people: how exactly does Mr Steven ‘catch’ a clamshell fairing half, and how does that fairing half find its way to Mr Steven?
A parasail and a prayer
Each Falcon 9 fairing is a two-piece 1600 kg sandwich of carbon fiber composites and aluminum honeycomb, as well as internal dressings of soundproofing panels, cold nitrogen gas thrusters for attitude control in vacuum, and finally the parafoil and control hardware/avionics necessary to safely recover the fragile halves. Stretching 13m long and 5.2m wide (43ft x 17ft), SpaceX has partially worked with contractors already experts in the art of autonomously guiding parasails with payloads up to 10,000 kg (22,000 lb), and doing so with some level of accuracy.
Ultimately, GPS-guided parafoils have been done successfully many times over in the past two or so decades. For the most part, the problems preventing SpaceX from recovering fairings in Mr Steven’s net have been almost entirely solved: the fact that six or more halves have been recovered intact after their Falcon 9 launches confirm that much. SpaceX engineers have somehow found a way to allow a highly flexible, lightweight, and aerodynamically awkward lifting body to survive a journey from heights of 110+ km and speeds of several kilometers per second.
One half of SpaceX’s Iridium-6/GRACE-FO just moments before touchdown on the Pacific Ocean. (SpaceX)
Per the extraordinarily minimalist appearance of each half’s parafoil recovery hardware and the lack of any clear control mechanism, it’s very likely that SpaceX has sided with an in-canopy (canopy=the parachute) system of actuators tasked with subtly warping the parafoil, comparable in functionality to a crude replica of a bird’s wing.
When in doubt, copy birds
Birds fly with such extraordinary precision thanks to granular control surfaces known by most as “feathers”, whereby slightly tweaking the location of feathers or changing the shape of the wing can result in a huge range of behaviors. In-wing actuation and control is an elegant – if complex – solution for the problems posed by parafoil guidance. In this case, SpaceX’s contractor (MMIST) likely deserves at least some of the credit for several nearly successful catch attempts thus far, delivering each unpowered fairing half from an altitude of 110+ kilometers, speeds of more than 2 kilometers per second, and parabolic trajectories stretching over 800 kilometers to a square roughly 100m by 100m.
If each halve’s accuracy can be cut by 75% of that to an area of 50m by 50m, SpaceX and Mr Steven should have no trouble in reliably and routinely catching Falcon 9 payload fairings for rapid reusability, perhaps one day translating into a similar approach for the recovery of Falcon 9’s orbital upper stages and SpaceX’s Crew and Cargo Dragon spacecraft. Mr Steven’s new net upgrade is meant to accomplish exactly that by offering a much larger surface area for Falcon fairings to ‘aim’ at.
-
- NASA’s X-38 project demonstrated the functionality of autonomous parasail guidance in 1999. (NASA)
-
- By tweaking, pulling, and tensing or loosening any number of those lines with servo motors and actuators, one can very accurately control the flight characteristics of a parafoil. (NASA)
-
- From left to right, my best guess for each fairing is PAZ, Iridium-6 Half 1, Iridium-5, and Iridium-6 Half 2. (Pauline Acalin)
Once the massive 800-kilogram components can be captured in flight by Mr. Steven, it should be a fairly simple prospect for SpaceX to move from recovery to reuse, potentially saving as much as 10% ($6m) of the cost of each Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch in one simple, fell swoop. Perhaps even more importantly, fairing reuse would remove some of the pressure placed on SpaceX’s composite production floor, which currently must support the fabrication of dozens of fairing halves, booster interstages, payload adapters, Falcon Heavy nose cones, and much more, including smaller subassemblies required for both Crew and Cargo Dragons.
BFR is gonna need all the composite design and manufacturing expertise it can get.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet (including fairing catcher Mr Steven) check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
