News
SpaceX Falcon fairing recovery vessel Mr. Steven tests out new limbs at sea
After a week or so spent installing a new and moderately ambiguous arm on the nose of Falcon fairing recovery vessel Mr. Steven, SpaceX’s recovery crew performed a number of high-speed sea trials a few miles off the shore of Port of Los Angeles, testing out something.
Just a few days later, Mr. Steven returned to the general region surrounding Catalina Island, where – by all appearances – SpaceX technicians performed the most recent Falcon fairing drop/catch test. Using a helicopter to pick up the test-dedicated fairing half from a barge, eventually dropping it from around 10,000 feet, this offers Mr. Steven a much higher volume of controlled attempts at both catching a parasailing fairing and optimizing the technology and recovery methods involved.
Mr Steven arriving back at port after some sea trials (with some new hardware near his nose). Such an elegant ship. The drop-test fairing is back in view on the dock as well. Soooooon……#spacex #mrsteven @Teslarati pic.twitter.com/qsmEy2Kk2a
— Pauline Acalin (@w00ki33) November 12, 2018
Over the last few weeks, Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin has reliably kept up with Mr. Steven, documenting a variety of recent physical changes to the vessel. Most notably, these changes include the installation of a visible and quite curious stanchion (or arm) at the ship’s aft tip (nose). Simply due to a lack of any real information about the experiences of operating Mr. Steven and attempting to catch Falcon fairings, it’s all but impossible to know for sure what this new limb accomplishes or why it was needed in the first place.
Armed to the teeth
More clear are general visual observations and the reasonable extrapolations that can be derived from them. At the simplest level, this new limb is clearly well-reinforced, at least no less so than any of Mr. Steven’s other arms and attachment points. Aside from a basic off-the-shelf ladder for crew and technician access, the stanchion plays host to four basic swinging arms with what looks like one or maybe one and a half degrees of freedom, allowing them to pivot roughly 180 degrees along the plane of the angle they were installed at.
-
- An overview of Mr. Steven on November 10th, shortly after his new arm’s cables were attached. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- A good closeup of Mr. Steven’s new limb and its associated cables, cable linkages, and arm attachments. (Pauline Acalin, 11/10/18)
-
- A different view of the arm-cable attachment fixtures. (Pauline Acalin)
Secured to the ends of those four simple arms are four heavy-duty coiled metal cables, themselves attached to the center of Mr. Steven’s two foremost arms (two cables per arm). Curiously, the ship’s Nov. 12 sea trials were conducted with just the bottom two cables attached to each respective arm, visible in photos of the outing. Upon returning from a Nov. 14 fairing drop-and-catch test, both upper and lower cable sets were seen attached to his aft arms. During the nearby sea trials, no clearly abnormal behavior – compared against previous trials at similar speeds and the same location – was observed, although the new metal cables were visibly taut or nearly so.
Given just how seemingly nuanced the utility of this new arm and cable combo seems to be, a few obvious conclusions and possible explanations can be drawn. Perhaps Mr. Steven experiences inconvenient arm bouncing while sailing at high speeds, particularly in high speeds, and holding his arms down serves to grease the metaphorical gears of fairing recovery. Maybe the recovery net – stretched between four large arms – is tensioned more than SpaceX fairing recovery engineers and technicians would like, partially shrinking the usable catching area by pulling each arm towards the center. Even more nuanced still, it may be the case that these new tensioning steel cables and stanchion make it easier for fairing halves to be processed after landing in Mr. Steven’s net, allowing the crew to accurately and rapidly move the fairing to an optimal section of the net.
-
- (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Note the duo of cables connected to the arm attachment jig. (Pauline Acalin)
More questions than answers
Regardless, none of these best-case, simple explanations for the new hardware satisfactorily mesh with the known facts surrounding Mr. Steven and Falcon fairing recovery in general. For any of the above scenarios to be true, one must essentially assume that SpaceX has already nailed down fairing recovery and catches or believes that the path to solving those problems is almost totally clear of obstacles. If not, it would feel more than a little like putting the cart before the horse (or the fairing before the net) to be optimizing Mr. Steven for operations that are – as of yet – out of reach.
If SpaceX were so close to closing the fairing recovery gap, one would generally expect Mr. Steven to attempt fairing recoveries after all true Falcon 9 launches while also performing controlled drop test catch attempts. However, no such attempt was made after the October 7 launch of SAOCOM-1A and – according to CEO Elon Musk – Mr. Steven will not be attempting to catch Falcon 9’s fairing(s) after the imminent launch of SSO-A, expected to occur sometime after Thanksgiving (later this week).
Will try again next month
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 14, 2018
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 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.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
