News
SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy fairing tries to enter hyperspace, lands in net in new videos
SpaceX and CEO Elon Musk have released videos offering an extended look at the unexpectedly dramatic conditions Falcon payload fairings are subjected to during atmospheric reentry, as well as the first successful landing in GO Ms. Tree’s net.
Captured via an onboard GoPro camera during Falcon Heavy’s June 25th launch of the USAF Space Test Program-2 (STP-2) mission, the minute-long cut shows off a light show more indicative of a spacecraft entering hyperspace than the slightly more mundane reality. Shortly after SpaceX posted the reentry video, CEO Elon Musk followed up with a video showing a fairing’s gentle landing in Ms. Tree’s net. More likely than not, the fairing with the camera attached and the fairing that became the first to successfully land in Mr. Steven’s (now GO Ms. Tree’s) net are the same half. Regardless, the videos help document a major step forward towards SpaceX’s ultimate goal of fairing reuse.
“In a pleasant, last-minute surprise, SpaceX fairing recovery vessel Mr. Steven has departed Port Canaveral for its first Falcon fairing catch attempt in more than half a year. The speedy ship has already traveled more than 1250 km (800 mi) in ~48 hours and should soon be in position to attempt recovery of Falcon Heavy Flight 3’s payload fairing halves.
Over the last week or two, Mr. Steven has been officially renamed to GO Ms. Tree, a strong indicator that Guice Offshore (GO) – a company SpaceX is heavily involved with – has acquired the vessel from financially troubled owner/operator Sea-Tran Marine. With this likely acquisition, nearly all of SpaceX’s non-drone ship vessels are now leased from – and partially operated by – GO. The name change is undeniably bittersweet for those that have been following Mr. Steven’s fairing recovery journey from the beginning. However, it’s also more than a little fitting given that the vessel switched coasts and suffered an accident that forced SpaceX to replace the entirety of its arm-boom-net assembly. Much of Mr. Steven – now GO Ms. Tree – has been replaced in the last few months and with any luck, the vessel is better equipped than ever before to snag its first Falcon fairing(s) out of the air.”
— Teslarati.com, June 24th
As they say, the rest is history. Some 60-75 minutes after Falcon Heavy lifted off from Pad 39A on June 25th, Ms. Tree successfully caught a parasailing fairing for the first time ever, just barely snagging one of the two halves at the very edge of the ship’s net. Two days later, Ms. Tree arrived back at Port Canaveral. Another 24 hours after that, the intact, dry fairing half was safely lifted onto land and transported to a local SpaceX facility dedicated to analyzing (and eventually refurbishing) recovered Falcon fairings.
Landing on Ms. Tree pic.twitter.com/4lhPWRpaS9— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 4, 2019
With any luck, the successful catch will prove that the years of work have been worth it, demonstrating that fairing halves caught – rather than fished out of the ocean – are structurally sound and clean enough to be quickly and affordably reused. While Falcon fairings have been estimated to take up less than 10% of the material cost of Falcon 9 production (~$6M, $3M/half), the manufacturing apparatus needed to build them takes up a huge amount of space. Additionally, the process of oven-curing huge, monolithic carbon fiber fairings introduces fundamental constraints that physically limit how quickly they can be built.
Fairing reuse would be an invaluable benefit for SpaceX’s internal Starlink launches, of which dozens and – eventually – hundreds will be needed to build an operational constellation of satellites. Thanks to the wonders of Falcon 9 Block 5 booster reuse, the internal cost of a flight-proven booster is essentially just the cost of refurbishment and then the propellant and work-hours needed to launch it. What remains is the cost of the expendable Falcon upper stage (unlikely to be recovered or reused) and payload fairing, now reasonably consistent at landing intact on the ocean surface but yet to demonstrate practical reusability.
As proposed, SpaceX’s completed Starlink constellation represents almost 12,000 satellites. Assuming no progress is made with packing density, no larger payload fairing is developed, and Starship doesn’t reach orbit until the mid-2020s (admittedly unlikely), Starlink will require almost exactly 200 Falcon 9 launches, each carrying 60 satellites. According to Musk, despite the fact that the first 60 satellites launched were effectively advanced prototypes, the cost of launch is already more than the cost of satellite production.
Speaking at a conference in 2017, Musk noted that payload fairings cost about $6M to produce, roughly 10% of Falcon 9’s $62M list price. In 2013, Musk stated that the first stage represented less than 75% of the overall cost of Falcon 9 production, meaning that the rocket’s upper stage probably represents another 15-20% (call it a 70:20:10 split), or ~$9-12M. Conservatively assuming that the operating costs of Falcon 9 refurbishment, launch, and recovery are roughly $5M per mission, the internal cost to SpaceX for a launch with a recoverable flight-proven booster and an expended fairing and upper stage could be just $20-25M and may be even lower.
For reference, assuming 200 Falcon 9 launches, SpaceX could save nearly $600M by consistently recovering and reusing just one fairing half on average per launch, up to as much as $1.2B if both halves can be consistently recovered and reused. June 25th’s successful fairing catch is the biggest step yet in that direction and is hopefully a sign of many good things to come for SpaceX’s latest attempt at building truly reusable rockets.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
