News
SpaceX recovery ships head to sea for first 'whole-fairing' catch attempt
After a brisk day-long cruise into the Atlantic Ocean, SpaceX’s twin Falcon fairing recovery ships have reached the general landing area to prepare for their first true ‘whole-fairing’ catch attempt.
Formerly known as Mr. Steven, GO Ms. Tree and new sister ship GO Ms. Chief departed Port Canaveral on December 14th and arrived at their designated recovery roughly 36 hours later. Now stationed just shy of 800 km (500 mi) downrange of SpaceX’s LC-40 Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) launch site, the ships are in position and can begin to prepare for Falcon 9’s Kacific-1/JCSAT-18 launch.
Scheduled to lift off no earlier than (NET) 7:10 pm ET, December 16th (00:10 UTC, Dec 17), Falcon 9 will place the ~6800 kg (15,000 lb) Kacific-1/JCSAT-18 communications satellite in a geostationary transfer orbit (GTO). Falcon 9 booster B1056 will attempt its third landing around nine minutes after launch, to be followed 25 minutes later by satellite deployment from the rocket’s upper stage. deploying the satellite around thirty minutes after launch.
If all goes according to plan, another 12-15 minutes after Falcon 9’s second stage (S2) deploys the Kacific-1/JCSAT-18 satellite, the rocket’s payload fairing halves will begin their final approach towards recovery ships Ms. Tree and Ms. Chief. Just shy of identical twins, the two ships have been outfitted with custom arms, boom supports, and nets with the intention of quite literally catching payload fairing halves out of the air after orbital Falcon 9 (and Heavy) launches.
SpaceX’s fairing recovery development program has had a long and arduous journey from Mr. Steven’s (now Ms. Tree’s) arrival at the company’s Port of Los Angeles dock space (late-2017) to the ship’s first attempted fairing catch (February 2018) and first successful catch (June 2019). In the 20+ months SpaceX has been attempting fairing recoveries, at least a dozen intentional soft ocean landings and seven net catches have been attempted, with numerous successful splashdowns and recoveries ultimately followed by two consecutive catches in June and August 2019.
The fact that SpaceX consecutively caught two fairing halves a little over two months apart after five failed catch attempts suggests that the company has effectively solved the majority of the fairing recovery challenge, becoming the first company (or space agency) in the world to do so. Unfortunately, a three-month launch lull after the second successful catch precluded any rapid-fire follow-up attempts and when that lull came to an end on November 11th, Ms. Tree and Ms. Chief were both ready but were forced to abort the attempt by rough seas.
Both ships actually spent several weeks docked (or stranded) in a North Carolina port after that aborted mission, potentially indicating that SpaceX had to fly a team north to inspect both ships’ arms and ensure that they could make the journey back to Port Canaveral. They were ultimately cleared and returned to their home port around ten days later, where their arms and booms were immediately removed. It’s unclear why that removal occurred but SpaceX’s recovery team rapidly reinstalled their arms in just a few days, followed by their nets soon after.
Given that their first simultaneous (i.e. ‘whole-fairing’) catch attempt was aborted before it could start, it’s safe to say that December 16th’s hopeful attempt will be Ms. Tree’s and Ms. Chief’s first side-by-side recovery mission. Both ships have successfully reached the recovery zone, a step further than they managed to get on their November attempt. Coincidentally, that November launch happened to mark both SpaceX’s and the world’s first launch of a flight-proven payload fairing, both halves of which were recovered from the ocean and represented a more or less worst-case scenario for reuse.
And nevertheless, that reuse was a flawless success, marred only by the fact that Ms. Tree and Ms. Chief were unable to attempt to recover the world’s first twice-flown payload fairing. In short, all the conditions are right for what could be the world’s first successful recovery of both halves of an orbital-class payload fairing. If successful, SpaceX will have effectively closed the book on Falcon 9 and Heavy reusability development, having proven that both boosters and fairings can be reliably and routinely recovered and reused.
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
