News
SpaceX fairing recovery vessel Mr. Steven’s owner abruptly files for bankruptcy
The legal owners of SpaceX’s sole fairing recovery vessel are in dire financial straits, signaled by business owner Steven Miguez’s decision to file for bankruptcy as a last chance of protecting Seatran Marine, a company which owns and leases eight utility vessels known as crew boats.
Mr. Steven, leased by SpaceX in late 2017, is one of those crew boats, although he has since been dramatically modified to support a series of consecutively larger arms, nets, and other various components in hopes of eventually catching Falcon 9 payload fairings out of the air. While there is most likely no serious risk of SpaceX actually losing access to Mr. Steven, this development still raises the question of what will happen to the ship in the near and more distant future.
The bankruptcy paperwork filed is chapter 11 – "proposing a plan of reorganisation to keep a business alive." The paperwork protects Mr Steven from foreclosure for now so there is no immediate change to anything.
— Gav Cornwell (@SpaceOffshore) November 21, 2018
As indicated in the tweet above, the ultimate outcome – at least for the time being – is simple uncertainty, as Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings will prevent Miguez from having to foreclose on Mr. Steven in the short term. If the Miguez family can rapidly find a solution for its money troubles, all could proceed unchanged. However, with all due respect to the owners and to Seatran Marine’s employees, Chapter 11 bankruptcy simply is not easily undone and is generally a last resort to be used only after all alternative solutions have been exhausted. Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings can take anywhere from a few months to several years to complete, tending to take longer as the scale and complexity of the filing party grows.
Making the best of a bad situation
Leased by Seatran to operator Guice Offshore (GO), SpaceX’s primary fleet manager on both coasts, GO (and thus SpaceX) had contracted to pay at least $3300 a day to use Mr. Steven, although that contract expired in October 2018. The new terms are unclear and it’s unknown if a replacement contract has yet to be signed.
Given the situation at hand and despite the sad financial circumstances facing the vessel’s owners, SpaceX may be in the best position yet to purchase Mr. Steven outright, assuming the company expects to continue attempting Falcon fairing recoveries for the indefinite future. In 2015, namesake Steven Miguez took out a $22.5M loan to cover Mr. Steven’s construction costs, offering a rough price ceiling for the modern, high-performance Fast Supply Vessel (FSV). While the most obvious interested buyer would be GO itself, it’s unlikely that the company has a sum of that size to offer, meaning that GO would need to take out its own loan to acquire the ship.
-
- Mr. Steven took to sea to test out a new recovery-related appendage – purpose unknown – on November 12. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- After an afternoon attempting to catch Falcon fairings dropped by a helicopter, Mr. Steven returned to port on Nov. 14. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- (Pauline Acalin)
-
- One half of SpaceX’s Iridium-6/GRACE-FO just moments before touchdown on the Pacific Ocean. (SpaceX)
SpaceX, on the other hand, quite literally just closed a debt funding round of $250M, terms unknown, leaving the company more than enough liquid capital to enable a cash transaction assuming there is some interest in becoming Mr. Steven’s legal owner. SpaceX already owns its two operational autonomous spaceport drone ships (ASDS) outright and has extensively modified Mr. Steven to support fairing recovery, quite literally building its prototype recovery apparatus around the rented vessel. As the vessel’s new owner, SpaceX could likely keep contracting to GO for general operations and support, perhaps even continuing to lease Mr. Steven to GO to create as few waves as possible.
By selling Mr. Steven outright, Miguez could likely acquire more than enough funds to preserve Seatran Marine and its subsidiaries long enough to recover his financial footing and return his companies to a stable state.
Business as usual?
In the meantime, it does not appear that these unfortunate legal issues have had a tangible impact on GO and SpaceX’s near-term ability to operate Mr. Steven. Around November 20th, SpaceX and GO crew performed the most recent of a series of Falcon fairing recovery tests, dropping a half from a helicopter to provide Mr. Steven a comparatively controlled environment to practice catches. Earlier this month, CEO Elon Musk appeared to imply that Mr. Steven would not attempt to catch Falcon 9’s fairing halves following the West Coast launch of SSO-A, at the time scheduled for November 19th.
Since then, SSO-A’s flight-proven Falcon 9 launch has slipped a full two weeks thanks to a combination of additional inspections and bad weather, now targeting launch NET December 2. It’s a stretch, but there is at least a slight chance that SSO-A’s excessive launch slips could mean that Mr. Steven will be able to attempt fairing recovery after all, at least per Musk’s suggestion that SpaceX would “try again next month”.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BqtGWFxADOk/
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
