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

News

Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future

Published

on

Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.

Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.

Advertisement

Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.

APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.

Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic

APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.

Advertisement

The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.

The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.

Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says

Published

on

tesla model 3 first generation headlight
Credit: Tesla Asia/Twitter

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.

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.”

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

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