News
SpaceX’s BFR factory in LA spied with four Falcon 9 fairing halves
In an unexpected turn of events, Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin came across a remarkable scene in Port of Los Angeles – four flight-proven Falcon 9 fairing halves temporarily stored on a plot of land soon to become SpaceX’s dedicated BFR factory.
While it’s difficult to guess exactly which fairing half is which, it appears that the halves from PAZ, Iridium-5, and Iridium-6 are present and accounted for. Reminiscent of SpaceX’s late-2016, early-2017 struggles with finding enough space to store their massive flight-proven Falcon 9 boosters, these fairing halves are unable to be reused as a consequence of too much saltwater exposure, making it significantly easier for the company to effectively find any old plot of SpaceX land on which to store them.
A massive panorama of Berth 240 shows the abandoned shipyard in all its gritty glory, as well as initial construction preparations underway. (Pauline Acalin)
Officially in early 2018, SpaceX is leasing Berth 240 with the explicit intent of constructing a dedicated facility for production of their first Mars rocket prototypes, as well as the relocation of Falcon 9 and Dragon recovery ops, which are quite space-constrained at their current berths. By all appearances, contractor Buntich is staging equipment ahead of initial demolition, refurbishment, and construction operations at Berth 240. Known predominately for pipeline and utility construction and refurbishment, it’s likely that the contractor is in the very early stages of modernizing the decades-abandoned shipyard, particularly, utilities like water, gas, electricity, and more.
-
- One half of SpaceX’s Iridium-6/GRACE-FO just moments before touchdown on the Pacific Ocean. (SpaceX)
-
- 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)
-
- Less than a year after SpaceX quite literally scrapped its Port of San Pedro presence, the company is again in talks to build a Starship factory in California. (Pauline Acalin)
It may be fairly clear why SpaceX is storing four massive, unwieldy, and unreusable Falcon 9 fairing halves at Berth 240, but it’s much less clear what exactly their fates will be. With yet another added to the pack just this morning after a successful half recovery post-SES-12, SpaceX’s awkward fairing fleet is likely up to six structurally-intact halves now. These halves could be used for drop testing to perfect fairing recovery accuracy and ensure, at long last, that recovery vessel and claw-boat Mr Steven can catch them out of the air, avoiding the vast majority of exposure to seawater. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk recently noted that Mr Steven’s net would apparently be massively expanded, quadrupling its area to relieve some of the burdens of precision currently placed almost entirely on each payload fairing’s navigational capabilities.
Yup, we are extending the net area by a factor of 4
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 5, 2018
Whether drop testing will actually be conducted is thus unclear, as a decision to expand Mr Steven’s net at least partially indicates that SpaceX engineers are less confident in the each half’s ability to reduce their margins of error by approximately 50%. A quadrupling of usable area implies that Mr Steven’s net will most likely be stretched twofold length-wise and width-wise, or perhaps by 50% for the width and 150% for the length to avoid a need for either an elaborate arm retraction mechanism or a comically unwieldy net.
Either way, Mr Steven’s next fairing catch attempt is unlikely to occur until the Falcon 9 Block 5 launch of Iridium-7, currently no earlier than mid-July. This gives recovery engineers and technicians at least five weeks to refine fairing accuracy and expand Mr Steven’s net, and Pauline will undoubtedly be there to capture any significant developments aboard the eclectic vessel as both it and drone ship Just Read The Instructions prepare for a return to action.
It’s difficult to imagine how Mr Steven’s already vast net could plausibly be expanded by a factor of two in each dimension. I certainly can’t wait to see what that looks like! Fairing aboard, Mr Steven performed rapid turns and high-speed sprints with the fairing half aboard. (Pauline Acalin)
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
