News
SpaceX fairing recovery ships return to port with Falcon 9 nosecone and battle scars
Four days after they headed out into the Atlantic Ocean, twin SpaceX fairing recovery ships Ms. Tree and Ms. Chief have returned to port with both halves of a Falcon 9 fairing, although they appear to have picked up some battle scars along the way.
Ms. Tree and its near-identical sibling Ms. Chief departed Port Canaveral on December 14th and arrived on station – 790 km (490 mi) off the coast of Florida – some 36 hours later. Each outfitted with a quartet of arms and pair of nets, it was the first time both ships successfully made it out into the Atlantic for a simultaneous fairing catch attempt, having been foiled by high seas during a prior November outing.
For unknown reasons, after the duo’s November false start, both ships stopped for almost two weeks at a South Carolina port, perhaps indicating that SpaceX was concerned about the structural integrity of the ships’ seemingly fragile net mechanism. In February 2019, Mr. Steven (now Ms. Tree) lost two of its four arms while heading downrange for an attempted catch, apparently broken off by pitching caused by high seas. Further strengthening the case that their net mechanisms are rather fragile, both Ms. Tree and Ms. Chief again suffered damage after their Kacific-1/JCSAT-18 Falcon 9 fairing recovery attempt.
Both ships arrived back at Port Canaveral on December 18th and were caught by Teslarati photographer Richard Angle while passing through the narrow mouth of the port. GO Ms. Chief took the lead, revealing a Falcon 9 fairing half snugly secured with a tarp on her deck – the ship’s very first launch vehicle hardware recovery.
First (partially) successful fairing recovery quite literally under wraps, Ms. Chief nevertheless did not make it through the rite of passage unscathed. Oddly, it appears that just one of the ship’s eight white arm supports is missing (the rear right or aft starboard arm), visibly resulting in the arm slouching a bit compared to its siblings. Intriguingly, it appears that the arm is partially stretching – and thus potentially resting on – Ms. Chief’s net and rigging.
The fact that only one of the arm’s two beams (of eight total) seems to have failed is more immediately indicative of possible human error during installation or a defective attachment mechanism, although it’s entirely possible that a fluke of weather could have damaged just the one beam.
Thankfully, Ms. Tree (formerly Mr. Steven) appears to have made it through the recovery mission with all four arms fully intact, although the ship clearly struggled with a separate mechanism. Notably, Ms. Tree seems to have struggled to use its secondary net to lift its fairing half out of the sea and onto her deck, with that smaller net clearly suffering a multitude of rips and tears at some point during the process. Her recovered fairing half is somewhat awkwardly strewn on the deck with no obvious attempt to rectify the issue, indicating that the net may have torn mid-lift, causing the fairing to fall maybe 5-10 feet.
If it did actually fall onto Ms. Tree’s deck, that will almost certainly be visible in the form of damage to its aluminum-composite honeycomb structure and white insulation coating.
Ultimately, fairing recovery continues to prove itself to be a major challenge, although SpaceX obviously has no intention of giving up. With two successful catches already in hand, it’s clear that fairing recovery is undeniably possible and is more a matter of tweaking existing systems than starting from scratch. Much like Falcon 9 booster recovery had and its fair share of failed landings even after the first success, it will likely take quite a while for SpaceX to optimize fairing recovery to the point that it can be considered reliable.
For now, routine fairing recovery and reuse will likely continue to be Falcon 9’s white whale, at worst adding to the excitement of every SpaceX satellite launch.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
