News
SpaceX isn’t giving up on catching rocket fairings, boat spotted with new net
SpaceX fairing recovery vessel Mr. Steven was spotted in Port of San Pedro on January 22nd performing tests with two fairings in its net, hinting at the challenging logistics of safely recovering both Falcon 9 fairing halves with one ship.
Although SpaceX engineers and technicians have yet to catch a parasailing Falcon 9 fairing (let alone two) after an actual operational launch, a series of controlled fairing drop tests – using a barge and a helicopter – have brought Mr. Steven agonizingly close to success, evidenced by an official video published by SpaceX earlier this month.
Two fairing halves, each in a separate net aboard Mr Steven this morning. #spacex pic.twitter.com/beYSFQwcYr
— Pauline Acalin (@w00ki33) January 23, 2019
Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin managed to make it to Berth 240 in time to capture one section of SpaceX’s fairing recovery testing, in which Mr. Steven was loaded with two fairings, one on the large main net (the passive half) and one (the active half) atop a much smaller net slack on the vessel’s deck. By asymmetrically actuating each net’s separate electric motors, recovery technicians appear to be able to control fairing half orientation and shift their position in the net. It’s unclear how exactly Mr. Steven’s main (top) and secondary (bottom) nets are meant to interface insofar as it does not appear physically possible for a fairing half in the top net to make its way to the bottom net without the intervention of dockside cranes.
Perhaps more importantly, local photographer Jack Beyer was able to observe additional activities just prior to Pauline’s arrival, capturing what looked like a weighted parachute drop test onto either Mr. Steven’s net or the concrete docks beside the vessel.
So far they’ve placed one fairing half in the top net with another in the bottom, and done at least one drop test of a weight with a parachute. ? pic.twitter.com/MkWb9l9lqz
— Jack Beyer (@thejackbeyer) January 22, 2019
The goal of that parachute/weight drop test is entirely opaque. Regardless, Tuesday’s tests do seem to indicate that SpaceX is thinking about recovering both post-launch Falcon fairing halves with a single Mr. Steven, a capability upgrade that would make the incomplete challenge of catching fairings even more difficult. Assuming both fairing halves deploy their parafoils at roughly the same time, it might be possible for the autonomous parafoils to modify trajectories in such a way that a gap of seconds or even minutes could be created between both planned splashdowns, offering Mr. Steven a minute or two to free its net of the first captured half before gently catching the second.
Despite the fact that SpaceX has not yet had operational success in the ~12 months recovery engineers and technicians have been working with Mr. Steven, tests like those performed on Tuesday have continued to reliably occur. If anything, the fact that experiments with dual-fairing recovery operations are still on the table is an encouraging indication that fairing recovery and reuse – particularly with Mr. Steven in the loop – are still a priority at SpaceX, while also suggesting that the company’s engineers and technicians are extremely confident that repeatable success is just a matter of refinement.
This should not come as a much of a surprise given that Falcon 9 began propulsive soft landing attempts in September 2013, 27 months before the company’s first successful Falcon 9 booster recovery. Nevertheless, SpaceX attempted its first actual landing aboard a drone ship in January 2015, separating the first attempt from the first successful landing by just less than 12 months. Fairing recovery is clearly an entirely different beast but the gist of this analogy remains true regardless – SpaceX’s brilliant engineers and technicians are unlikely to give up until a given problem is solved or their efforts are redirected elsewhere as company priorities shift.
Recent fairing recovery test with Mr. Steven. So close! pic.twitter.com/DFSCfBnM0Y
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) January 8, 2019
Berth 240’s uncertain future
In the meantime, SpaceX may soon have to move Mr. Steven’s Port of San Pedro operations elsewhere according to a report from the LA Times that the company plans to “terminate [its] Terminal Island lease agreement.” SpaceX was unable to offer further insight beyond a statement provided about the future of BFR’s manufacturing, initially planned to occur at a dedicated factory that would have been built at Berth 240, which has also acted as Mr. Steven’s home for the last eight months.
Given the lack of official insight into the proceedings, it’s ambiguous if the terminated lease will be modified to allow for Mr. Steven to continue operating out of Berth 240. Prior to moving to Berth 240, SpaceX stationed Mr. Steven at Berth 52, home of drone ship Just Read The Instructions (JRTI) and support vessel NRC Quest. Space is already tight at that site, however, making it a suboptimal replacement for Berth 240.
While I feel crushed about #SpaceX pulling the #SuperHeavy out of the @PortofLA, I feel confident that other innovators will see the huge value they get in San Pedro. (1/2)
— Joe Buscaino (@JoeBuscaino) January 16, 2019
SpaceX signed its Berth 240 lease near the end of March 2018 and would have reached the first anniversary of its prospective BFR factory around two months from now. For now, only SpaceX seems to know where Mr. Steven’s operations and the first BFR (Starship/Super Heavy) production will ultimately be located.
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
