News
SpaceX adds a second drone ship to its East Coast rocket recovery fleet
On December 10th, SpaceX’s East Coast rocket recovery fleet added a second drone ship to its ranks in a bid to expand its capabilities to support dozens of annual Falcon 9 and Heavy launches, as well as experimental Starship and Super Heavy booster recoveries.
Formerly stationed out of Port of Los Angeles to support SpaceX’s once-substantial West Coast launch manifest, the need for West Coast launches has rapidly dried up over the last six months. That drought had such a long lead that SpaceX decided to transfer drone ship Just Read The Instructions (JRTI) through the Panama Canal, moving the vessel several thousand miles from Port of Los Angeles to Port Canaveral, Florida.
JRTI made it through the Canal several months ago and headed East towards Florida before making an intriguing and lengthy pit stop in a Louisiana port. While there, marine engineers and technicians performed a number of unknown tasks presumed to be a scheduled period of inspections and maintenance. In the last few weeks JRTI spent in Louisiana, SpaceX loaded the drone ship with more than a dozen huge generators and power controllers, as well as six massive maneuvering thrusters.
Although perspectives were lacking while JRTI was docked in LA, it was clear that some (or all) of the new hardware was meant for the drone ship, indicating that the rocket recovery platform could be in for some major upgrades. The aforementioned thrusters are much larger and appear to be heavier than JRTI’s former blue azimuth thrusters, four of which also adorn Florida-based drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY).
Those massive thrusters are presumably meant for JRTI (and possibly OCISLY). The fact that they have been delivered alongside an even larger number of generators – far more than are usually present on SpaceX drone ships – indicates that their power output is probably larger, too. It’s not clear how much more powerful they are but one goal is unequivocal: with more powerful thrusters, SpaceX’s drone ships should be much more tolerant of bad weather, meaning that SpaceX will be able to launch Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and Starship without having to worry as much about the weather hundreds of miles downrange.
Depending on how powerful they are, it’s also possible that those upgraded thrusters are strong enough to independently power drone ships to and from their ocean landing zones. As of now, SpaceX must contract days of tugboat services to tow drone ships to and from their landing zones, by far one of the biggest recurring costs for booster recoveries. If a major power supply upgrade and much larger thrusters are indeed enough to enable independent cruise capabilities, it could significantly streamline SpaceX’s drone ship recovery efforts, cutting costs and increasing flexibility and availability.
It’s hard to say why drone ship JRTI only brought six new thrusters with it, given that SpaceX’s East Coast fleet now has two drone ships and four thrusters are needed to enable stationkeeping on just one of them. Perhaps two more thrusters are on backorder and will be delivered directly to Port Canaveral. More likely, only one drone ship – likely JRTI – will initially be upgraded with new thrusters and power equipment, leaving two spare thrusters in case those installed are damaged by recovery attempts or fail for more mundane reasons.
In the past, drone ship OCISLY has suffered a handful of recovery anomalies that forced SpaceX to replace the vessel’s blue azimuth thrusters and their associated hydraulic equipment. In some cases, a lack of replacement thrusters lead SpaceX to scavenge drone ship JRTI, leaving the ship without thrusters for several months. With these latest upgrades, SpaceX has presumably learned from those past mistakes and ensured that several spare generators and thrusters are on hand.
Given that SpaceX has yet to install those upgraded thrusters or generators on either JRTI or OCISLY, as well as the general uncertainty surrounding their purpose, it’s safe to say that the next several weeks will be exciting. For now, it’s unknown when JRTI will be ready to support its first East Coast rocket recovery, but there will be plenty of launches to choose from once she is.
With two drone ships now stationed out of Port Canaveral, SpaceX will be able to support a more capable Falcon Heavy configuration, expending the center core while recovering both side boosters at sea. SpaceX will also be able to attempt experimental Starship and Super Heavy drone ship landings while still having a spare ship to support its regular Falcon 9 missions. Most importantly, two drone ships will allow SpaceX to reach launch/landing cadences and turnaround times previously impossible with a single ship, an absolute necessity if the company hopes to achieve its goal of ~24 Starlink launches on top of 10+ commercial launches in 2020.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
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 to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
