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.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
