News
SpaceX techs work towards Falcon 9 fairing recovery with wacky series of experiments
Over the course of the past week, Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin has captured a multitude of unusual occurrences at SpaceX’s Port of Los Angeles dock space, each time involving a Falcon fairing recovery vessel like Mr Steven or NRC Quest, a Falcon fairing half (flight-proven or otherwise), and one of several attenuating circumstances.
More likely than not, what appears as a menagerie of weird and disconnected events on the sidelines is actually a reasonably organized leg of a larger program, in this case focused on experimentation and testing to close the fairing recovery loop and secure Mr Steven’s first successful fairing catch.
From @USCGLosAngeles – A captive carry test involving a helicopter picking an item from a vessel will be conducted 9/20, 11-1300, in the vicinity of San Clemente Island in the San Nicolas Basin. Mariners are requested to maintain a distance of 5NM from the operation. pic.twitter.com/nvy6Wo0IvF
— Marine Exchange (@MXSOCAL) September 19, 2018
The mystery of Catalina Island
Now-iconic fairing recovery vessel (or net-boat, or claw-boat) Mr Steven has been out of commission since late August, at which point SpaceX technicians removed all four of his arms and their eight complementary shock absorber booms towards unknown ends. If SpaceX’s past is any judge, those arms are probably in the process of being upgraded, but it’s impossible to judge thanks to the fact that they have simply disappeared from the Berth 240 docks where they were briefly stored. SpaceX certainly has a way with transporting massive, ungainly objects without stirring a whisper.
Despite lacking arms for more than a month, Mr Steven has still performed a number of sea-trials, ranging from average jaunts a few miles away to a mysterious armless test described in the tweet above. Why exactly Mr Steven was involved in an experiment involving a helicopter “picking an item” – in this case a flight-proven Falcon fairing – off of a vessel while entirely lacking the arms and net he would use to catch said fairing is entirely unclear. Perhaps it was meant to test a datalink or a change to fairing recovery hardware. Whatever transpired, a group of SpaceX technicians certainly flew to Catalina Island and were working alongside or with a Blackhawk helicopter capable of externally carrying up to 3600 kg (8000 lb) of cargo.
-
- Shortly after completing the CRS-15 resupply mission, Cargo Dragon C110 is craned from NRC Quest to SpaceX’s Port of San Pedro berth, 08/05/18. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Mr Steven was out and about conducting high-speed maneuvers two days prior, and also joined NRC Quest near Catalina Island on the 20th. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- NRC Quest returned to port with a Falcon fairing aboard after a long day doing *something* at sea. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Note the sooty tip of the fairing’s nose, a telltale sign that it previously flew on a Falcon 9 launch. (Pauline Acalin)
Multipurpose recovery vessel NRC Quest – nominally dedicated to Cargo Dragon spacecraft recoveries – returned to SpaceX-leased Berth 240 a few hours after the September 20th test window closed, sooty Falcon 9 fairing half in tow. Still, this certainly isn’t the weirdest Falcon fairing-related activity to occur last week.
Fairings aplenty
Meanwhile, over at Mr Steven’s old berth and drone ship Just Read The Instructions’ current berth, a different Falcon fairing half appeared sometime in the last several days in an unusual state, seemingly either fresh out of the factory or in an advanced state of disassembly. The base of this particular fairing half seems to be entirely missing the usual layer(s) of material (cork, among other things) used to waterproof and act as a lightweight heatshield. A new fairing half sitting out in the elements with zero protection would be exceptionally unusual, as CEO Elon Musk has noted that they each cost several million dollars ($3m to be precise), and exposure outside of a cleanroom could very well prevent this half from ever being operationally flown.
The next best conclusion to be drawn is that this unique fairing half is new or flight-proven (with skin and shielding removed), but sitting at SpaceX’s dock space in order to prepare for one or several active drop tests in pursuit of Mr Steven’s first successful fairing catch. But who really knows, to be honest. The fairing’s bare carbon fiber composite construction is certainly a sight to behold, one way or another.
Doing…something.
This leads us to the grand (perhaps… titanic) finale of wholly unexpected Falcon fairing activities over the last several days. Presumably making the best of an opportunity to test NRC Quest’s ability to recover Falcon fairings after splashdown (i.e. missing Mr Steven’s net), the pictures generally tell the story better than any words ever could. Keep your eyes peeled for Fairing Wrangler job openings.
-
- Getting the (un)lucky half into the water. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- One lucky dude. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Weeeeeeeeee. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- NRC Quest then lifted the fairing half (likely from Iridium-7) aboard. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- NRC Quest then lifted the fairing half (likely from Iridium-7) aboard. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- This extraordinarily unusual operation lent an opportunity to see just how flexible and structurally optimized SpaceX’s payload fairings are. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- After returning from a day at sea doing who-knows-what, Mr Steven’s captain attempted to use the 500 metric ton vessel to splash a fellow recovery tech. A for effort. (Pauline Acalin)
Up next for SpaceX, Mr Steven, and the West Coast recovery crew is SAOCOM-1A, scheduled to launch from California’s Vandenberg Air Force Base on the evening (Pacific Time) of October 6th.
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!
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
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.
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.
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.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
