News
SpaceX attempts second Falcon fairing drop test with a helicopter and Mr. Steven
Following a few days of rest in port, SpaceX fairing recovery vessel Mr. Steven has continued a likely campaign of controlled drop tests with a second fairing recovery attempt, using a helicopter, spotter plane, and support vessel to pick up a Falcon fairing and drop it, theoretically allowing it to paraglide into Mr. Steven’s net.
While it’s nearly impossible to determine what happened without line-of-sight visual confirmation or an official announcement from SpaceX, it appears that Mr. Steven kicked off real catch attempts on October 11th, evidenced by his close interaction with a Blackhawk helicopter over the course of an hour or so. Another similar attempt occurred today, October 17th, and culminated with Mr. Steven returning once more to Port of San Pedro with the same test-focused fairing half on board, albeit not resting in his retracted net.
-
- SpaceX’s dedicated test fairing seen at Berth 240 on Oct. 15, a few days after its first apparent drop test. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Mr. Steven and a recent arrival, barge PTS 185. The fairing cradle on deck suggests that this is probably the platform helicopters grab the fairing half off of. (Pauline Acalin)
After October 11th’s testing was completed, Mr. Steven returned to Port of San Pedro. On October 13th, he was docked at SpaceX’s Berth 240 facilities with net lowered and the test fairing half wrapped up on the docks, preventing confirmation of whether he carried the fairing half back from the testing region. A mid-sized barge also recently appeared at Berth 240 with a distinct Falcon fairing cradle onboard, perhaps explaining the presence of a tugboat (named Sir Richard) a few miles away from where this test campaign has been stationed – a barge would offer a flat, safe surface for a helicopter to hover over and pick up an unwieldy object such as a payload fairing.
Nearly identical to the October 11th test, Mr. Steven, tug Sir Richard, a Cessna chase plane, and a Blackhawk helicopter all converged around 100 miles southwest of Port of Los Angeles around 2pm PDT on October 17th prior to beginning recovery test operations. Mr. Steven and the tug Sir Richard – likely towing a barge being temporarily used to move a fairing half – arrived several hours beforehand at the test’s planned location.
-
- As of late, SpaceX technicians and engineers have going through quite a range of activities related to fairing recovery. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- A gif demonstrates just how taut Mr Steven’s net can be, thanks to mechanized rigging. 08/13/18 (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Mr. Steven returned to Port of San Pedro around 7pm on October 8th after a day spent at sea, apparently with a Falcon fairing half in tow. This is the second known time that a fairing has been in Mr. Steven’s net. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- One half of SpaceX’s Iridium-6/GRACE-FO just moments before touchdown on the Pacific Ocean. (SpaceX)
Eventually, a UH-60A Blackhawk helicopter – the same helicopter used on October 11 – lifted off from Catalina Island’s Avalon airport, taking about half an hour to reach Mr. Steven and Sir Richard. Once there, the helicopter very distinctly slowed down, eventually hovering just ~20 feet off the surface of the ocean, if not outright landing or perching on the aforementioned barge under the tug’s control. After several minutes in that state, the Blackhawk lifted off and immediately began climbing, reaching a peak of ~11,000 ft before (presumably) dropping its fairing payload and immediately diving down to follow its descent.
It’s undoubtedly an imperfect fit, but the helicopter appeared to follow Mr. Steven very closely over the course of the recovery attempt, sticking just a ~1500 ft or less above and a few hundred feet beside him as he raced to catch the falling fairing half. In fact, at least as a very rough approximation, the helicopter’s descent may be useful to judge the fairing’s behavior while gliding: taking ~14 minutes to travel descend 11,000ft and travel perhaps 2 miles (~10,500ft) horizontally, the fairing would dropped at a reasonable 13.1 feet per second (~4 m/s) once its parafoil opened and seemed to travel approximately one foot forward for every one foot down, also known as a 1:1 glide slope ratio.
And here's a little overview of the helicopter's path, mixed with a speed/altitude graph! Added some rough annotations to give an idea of what happened and in what time frame 😀 pic.twitter.com/e1rwZtkNHA
— Eric Ralph (@13ericralph31) October 18, 2018
Depending on wind conditions, parafoils can nominally be expected to achieve average glide slope ratios between 0 (high winds; falling like a literal rock) and 4 (no winds; almost as good as a bad airplane), meaning that Falcon fairings – judging from tangential data gathered from the helicopter following its descent – fly much like a parafoil, which is to say not great but better than a brick. The trick with parafoil control – which includes tweaking angles of attack and glide slope – lies more in the art of trading forward velocity for vertical velocity (or vice versa) at key moments. Assuming their control mechanisms have enough authority, paragliding fairings could ‘flare’ as they near Mr. Steven’s net, essentially angling upwards to briefly hover before dropping quickly, maybe giving the boat enough time to swoop in and place its net just beneath it.
In this way, a parafoil’s flexible, inflated wing (airfoil, to be precise) can allow it to maneuver quite a lot like a bird, at least more so than most other methods of flying humans have access to. Time will tell if SpaceX is having any luck perfecting the guidance and recovery of Falcon fairings, particularly with this campaign of under-the-radar drop tests. Even if Mr. Steven returns with a fairing half resting in his net, it will be more than a little ambiguous if it was placed there or he caught it, and any certainty will rely on official confirmation from SpaceX itself.
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
