News
SpaceX reveals Falcon fairing recovery progress as Mr. Steven barely misses catch
SpaceX has offered an extraordinary glimpse into a stealthy program of Falcon fairing recovery research and development, which has utilized drop tests and iterative hardware and software upgrades to inch ever closer to fairing reuse over the last 6-9 months.
Short of a small handful of sparse comments made by executives in 2018, this is the first time SpaceX has officially acknowledged its continued attempts to optimize Falcon fairing recovery in the face of a number of missed post-launch catches. Given that the pictured fairing was so close to a successful landing that its parafoil actually became caught in Mr. Steven’s net, it seems that SpaceX has nearly solved the problems that have thus far prevented program success.
Recent fairing recovery test with Mr. Steven. So close! pic.twitter.com/DFSCfBnM0Y
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) January 8, 2019
In the last six months of 2018, SpaceX has continued to tease its slow progress towards reusable Falcon fairings, originally planned to depend on a truly bizarre solution – Mr. Steven. An impressive vessel on its own, SpaceX has gradually added and extended and upgraded a range of recovery hardware on his deck, most notably including a vast net (likely tens of thousands of square feet or 2000+ square meters) supported by four huge arms and eight supporting booms. Despite increasing the usable area of the net, SpaceX has been unable to secure an operational fairing catch since it began attempts in March 2018.
In late May 2018, SpaceX provided the best look yet at the actual process of recovering Falcon fairings, showing off the guided parafoil (a wing-like parachute) and revealing that a fairing half – launched in support of Iridium-6/GRACE-FO – had splashed down just 50 meters (~165 ft) away from Mr. Steven’s net.
Falcon 9 fairing halves deployed their parafoils and splashed down in the Pacific Ocean last week after the launch of Iridium-6/GRACE-FO. Closest half was ~50m from SpaceX’s recovery ship, Mr. Steven. https://t.co/JS7d5zTdIg pic.twitter.com/LjiTwnB4wd
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) May 31, 2018
However, in the months that followed, info about catch attempts became increasingly sparse and it eventually became clear that SpaceX was preparing to perform a range of controlled drop tests a few hundred miles off the coast of California. Ultimately, the company’s engineers and technicians hoped to use the controlled environment and a greater number of available drop/catch attempts to refine the hardware and software needed to finesse fairing halves into Mr. Steven’s net.
It may be almost absurdly large relative to any other conceivable thing that exists in the real world, but a few thousand square meters is actually more like a needle in a haystack for a piece of rocket traversing a 500-800 km arc at top speeds of more than 2 km/s.
-
- Mr. Steven seen after his most recent December 2018 drop and catch test. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- After an audible “3..2..1”, a sharp noise much like compressed gas being released was followed by a clang as the harness dropped. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- SpaceX’s fairing recovery fleet technicians were seen performing a bit of an unexpected ride aboard a Falcon 9 fairing half on September 19th. (Pauline Acalin)
In December 2018, following another sadly unsuccessful fairing recovery attempt on the West Coast, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk revealed that engineers were also apparently looking into backup plans in case closing that last 50-meter gap turned out to be more expensive or complicated than it was worth. Most notably, he implied that SpaceX was interested in finding ways to waterproof and ultimately refly Falcon fairings even after soft-landings in seawater, whereas fairings are already capable of reliably landing intact in the ocean but cannot be reused due to seawater contamination and cracking caused by impact.
Falcon fairing halves missed the net, but touched down softly in the water. Mr Steven is picking them up. Plan is to dry them out & launch again. Nothing wrong with a little swim.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 3, 2018
Given just how close Mr. Steven appears to be to a successful in-net fairing recovery, it now seems implausible that SpaceX will choose just one of the two options at hand, likely instead progressing both development programs to points of success. Once fairings can both be successfully waterproofed and caught in Mr. Steven’s net, SpaceX will almost certainly have itself a foolproof solution to easy and reliable recovery and reuse even in bad sea states and stormy weather.
With the company’s first launch of 2019 probably just a few days away, chances seem good that SpaceX will attempt at least one more post-launch fairing recovery with Mr. Steven. Fingers crossed!
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
