Connect with us

News

SpaceX gears up for Crew Dragon’s first recovery with a giant inflatable cushion

Published

on

Paired with observations and comments from sources familiar with the company, all signs seem to indicate that SpaceX is planning to recover their first Crew Dragon spacecraft with a giant inflatable cushion, to be towed a hundred or so miles off the coast of California by one of the company’s Port of LA-stationed recovery vessels.

Despite a minor mishap during some sort of inaugural sea-trial of a custom Crew Dragon mass simulator, SpaceX technicians are pushing ahead with a test campaign intended properly characterize exactly how to best recover a Dragon while side-stepping around the problems caused by seawater immersion.

Advertisement

Why recover your Dragon?

First off, why would SpaceX choose to develop a new method of Dragon recovery – different than the company’s current experience with simply landing the capsules in the ocean – with the expectation that it will debut during the recovery of Crew Dragon after its very first demonstration mission (DM-1)? A huge number of unknowns and major questions remain, but the decision to attempt to avoid seawater immersion during the DM-1 Dragon recovery is very likely no coincidence.

Over the last several years, SpaceX engineers and technicians have learned a huge amount from recovering, refurbishing, and even reusing Cargo Dragons to resupply the International Space Station for NASA. Of all the lessons learned, the most unequivocal has to be a newfound appreciation for just how difficult it is to safely and reliably reuse spacecraft and rocket components after landing and being immersed in seawater. Despite SpaceX’s growing experience with reusing both Falcon 9 and Cargo Dragon, Dragons still typically require a bare minimum of 6-12 months of refurbishment before they are ready for another launch.

For Crew Dragon’s DM-1 debut, it thus makes sense that SpaceX wants to recover the spacecraft in such a way that it is exceptionally easy to rapidly refurbish. Perhaps just several months after that capsule returns to Earth, currently expected no earlier than December 2018, SpaceX’s first crewed Crew Dragon demonstration’s tentative April 2019 launch debut will depend entirely on the completion and review of an In-Flight Abort (IFA) test planned just one month prior, March 2019.

The planned IFA test of Crew Dragon hinges entirely on DM-1 and Dragon refurbishment because the present plan (and launch schedule) absolutely depends on reflying DM-1’s Crew Dragon capsule, potentially recovered from orbit as few as three months prior.

Advertisement
Crew Dragon completed a successful pad-abort test in 2015. (SpaceX)

With a successful 2015 Pad Abort already under Crew Dragon’s belt, SpaceX voluntarily chose to conduct an additional complimentary in-flight abort not explicitly required by NASA, designed to demonstrate that Dragon will be able to safely extract astronauts from a failing rocket at the point of peak aerodynamic pressure (Max-Q). Essentially, a combination of successful aborts both on the launch pad and during Max-Q would theoretically demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that Crew Dragon really is capable of safely aborting a launch and protecting its astronauts at any point during launch.

Cargo Dragon has demonstrated that – apparently – no amount of heroics can refurbish the recovered spacecraft in just a small handful of months after seawater immersion, not without major changes to its design. As such, preventing that with some sort of inflatable cushion (or even Mr Steven’s net) would likely save many months of drying, cleaning, and requalification testing of all externally impacted components.

How to recover your Dragon

While the “why” is fairly obvious at this point, the “how” of actually making such a cushioned recovery happen is far less clear. Still, we at least know from several recent comments from SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and statements made in environmental impact analyses that the company has been considering such recoveries for some time.

Despite the fact that Crew Dragon’s original propulsive landing capability was nixed due to the unlikelihood of NASA ever certifying it for crewed landings and the expense required to attempt that certification, there is still clearly some latent interest (and value) in precisely landing Crew Dragon, even if only to speed up capsule and crew recovery after splashdown. A March 2018 preliminary environmental impact analysis of Gulf of Mexico Dragon recoveries – as a backup to bad weather in the Pacific and Atlantic – made the interest in precision exceptionally clear.

“The splashdown zone is a circle with a radius of approximately 5.4 nautical miles. … Dragon has been designed to perform precision landings in order to minimize the size of the splashdown zone and recovery time.”

Advertisement

Admittedly, a circle with a diameter of 10.8 nautical miles (20 km) does not exactly scream “precision” and ~20 km is likely around a thousand times less precise than what’s needed to land on the 30m-diameter inflatable structure present at Berth 240, but it’s probable that the splashdown zone as discussed is a worst-case scenario meant to give SpaceX’s recovery team plenty of wiggle room.

 

Musk also took a few seconds of a Falcon Heavy post-launch press conference to briefly describe Mr Steven, and he just so happened to touch on fairing and Dragon recovery:

“And we’ve got a special boat to catch the fairing. … It’s like a giant catcher’s mitt in boat form. I think we might be able to do the same thing with Dragon. So…if NASA wants us to, we can try to catch Dragon. Literally, it’s meant for the fairing, but it would work for Dragon, too.” – Elon Musk

Advertisement

Mr Steven takes one for the team

Even more experimental than fairing recovery, SpaceX happened to experience a minor incident while attempting to test aspects of its prototype Dragon catcher apparatus in early August. Partially captured by Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin, SpaceX technicians were lifting a Crew Dragon heatshield mass simulator with a healthy topping of buoys onto Mr Steven. Moments after it was lowered onto the deck, the whole setup disappeared below the vessel’s side rails in a massive boom.

 

According to sources familiar with SpaceX’s recovery fleet, the mishap was much less severe than the deafening noise it produced seemed to indicate from the sidelines. They described the aftermath as “an annoying accident” that was unlikely to take any significant amount of time to repair. More likely than not, Mr Steven’s wooden deck suffered some level of structural degradation after several years of active use, something that SpaceX technicians only discovered after loading (or maybe dropping) a heavy Dragon mass simulator aboard.

Regardless, one could certainly say that the test in question was more or less a success, as it most certainly demonstrated whether Mr Steven’s deck was actually capable of supporting the heavy test article (it was not). A few repairs and structural reinforcements later, the vessel is likely already back in working order, with photos taken on August 19th showing that the focus has returned to the vessel’s arms (two of which must have been removed earlier this week).

Advertisement
Mr Steven sans two arms, August 19th. (Pauline Acalin)

For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

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.

Published

on

By

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.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Lucid CEO dispels any rumors of bankruptcy: ‘So far from the facts’

Published

on

Credit: Lucid

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 denies rumors of bankruptcy after over 40% stock drop

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla responds to strange Supercharging pricing error with classy move

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

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.

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement
Continue Reading