News
SpaceX’s Mr. Steven returns with Falcon fairing half in net after drop test practice
Captured in a series of photos taken by Teslarati photographers Pauline Acalin and Tom Cross over several days, SpaceX Falcon fairing recovery vessel Mr. Steven and recovery technicians and engineers have been preparing and practicing for a campaign of controlled fairing drop tests.
By using a helicopter to lift and drop a fairing into Mr. Steven’s net, SpaceX will be able to gather an unprecedented amount of data and control far more variables that might impact the success of recoveries. If the fairing is not destroyed in the process, this test series could be as long-lived as SpaceX’s Grasshopper program, used to work the largest up-front kinks out of Falcon 9 booster recovery.
Mr Steven looks ready. Should be leaving port at some point today ahead of SAOCOM-1A launch scheduled for Sunday, Oct 7, 7:21pm PT #mrsteven #SpaceX pic.twitter.com/Hk7HLmMDra
— Pauline Acalin (@w00ki33) October 6, 2018
Although SpaceX technicians managed to reassemble and install Mr. Steven’s net and arm fairing recovery mechanisms in just a handful of days, finishing less than 48 hours before the West Coast launch of SAOCOM 1A, the ship remained in port for the mission, passing up its fifth opportunity to attempt recovery of one of Falcon 9’s two fairings halves. Why exactly Mr. Steven never left port is unclear and unconfirmed, although SpaceX did mention that recovery would not be attempted this time around during its official launch webcast.
The most likely explanation is mundane – sea states with average swells as large as 4m (13ft) were forecasted (and later recorded) at and around the optimal fairing recovery zone. As a Fast Supply Vessel (FSV) explicitly designed to rapidly and reliably resupply oil rigs and other maritime work areas almost regardless of weather conditions, 4m waves would normally be a tiny pittance for ships as large and heavy as Mr. Steven and would be a nonsensical reason to halt deep-sea operations.
-
- Thanks to their relatively high angle of attack, Mr. Steven’s newest arms should not seriously impact his stability, but there is a chance that they limit his operational envelope in high sea-states. (Chuck Bennett)
-
- Mr. Steven seen listing roughly 5 degrees to port during arm installation, July 10th. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- A few-degree list seen during fairing recovery practice, August 13th. (Pauline Acalin)
On the other hand, Mr. Steven is without a doubt the most unusual FSV in existence thanks to his massive arms and net, stretching at least 60m by 60m. Based on photos of the arm installation process, significant lists of 5+ degrees are not uncommon when arms are unbalanced during normal staggered (one-at-a-time) installations, and SpaceX quite clearly installs the first two arms on opposite sides and orientations in order to minimize installation-related listing. This indicates that his newest arms have significant mass and thus leverage over the boat’s roll characteristics, perhaps explaining why Mr. Steven has performed anywhere from 5-10 high-speed trials at sea both with and without arms installed.
Most recently, however, Mr. Steven spent a solid six weeks armless at Berth 240 while some sort of maintenance, analysis, or upgrade was undertaken with those four arms and their eight shock-absorbing booms. It’s hard to know for sure, but there are no obvious visual changes between the arms installed in July and August and those now present on his deck, and the net also looks almost identical.
Fairing drop tests?
What’s less familiar these days is an oddly arranged Falcon 9 payload fairing half that has been floating around SpaceX’s Port of Los Angeles berths for the last two or so weeks. Up until October 4th, the purpose of that single half was almost entirely unclear. On October 4th, Teslarati’s entire space team (Tom, Pauline, and I) coincidentally arrived at the same time as 5-10 SpaceX technicians were working on the fairing, attaching a series of guylines and harnesses and inspecting a number of actuating mechanisms on the half.
Just minutes after we arrived, a worker called out a short countdown and a wholly unexpected crashing noise sounded, followed immediately by several loud clangs as the harness connection mechanisms swung back and connected with metallic parts of the fairing. After the adrenaline wore off, the initial crashing noise was almost certainly the sound of the same mechanical jettison mechanism used to separate fairing halves ~3 minutes after the rocket lifts off.
Once photos of the event could be examined more carefully, that was exactly what we found – the six harness connections were attached to the fairing by way of the same mechanical interface that allows two halves to safely attach to each other. What we had witnessed was a harness separation test, using pressurized gas stored in COPVs (the gold striped cylinders) to rapidly actuate a latch, allowing the metal harness connectors to fall away. This is further evidenced by the presence of neon orange zip-ties connecting the ends of those harnesses to any sturdy fairing structure near the connection port, an easy and (presumably) affordable way to prevent those heavy connectors from swinging down and damaging sensitive piping and components.
-
- An overview of the weird fairing test article just before the harnesses were jettisoned. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Note the taut, yellow ropes connected to the fairing at its original serparation connector ports. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Zip-ties prevented the harness connectors from smashing (too hard) into the fairing’s innards. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- A Falcon 9 fairing during encapsulation, when a launch payload is sealed inside the fairing’s two halves. This small satellite is NASA’s TESS, launched in April 2018. (NASA)
According to someone familiar with these activities, the purpose of that testing is to prepare for true fairing drop tests from a helicopter. The jettisonable harness would be a necessity for easy drop testing, allowing the helicopter to carry a basic cargo hook and line while technicians inside communicate with the fairing to engage its built-in separation mechanism, all while ensuring that it immediately begins a stable glide or free-fall after dropping.
Observed on October 4th, it was at least moderately disappointing to see Mr. Steven remain in port during the spectacular Falcon 9 launch of SAOCOM 1A, October 7th. Reasons aside, roughly 12 hours after launch, Mr. Steven left on a 10+ hour cruise ~100 miles off the coast, where he repeatedly met up with tugboat Tommy and circled Santa Catalina Island once before heading back to port. Just 24 hours before launch (Oct. 6), the test fairing seen above was placed in Mr. Steven’s net for communications and harness testing – 24 hours after launch, Mr. Steven returned to Port of San Pedro after his 10-hour cruise with the same fairing half resting in his net.
-
- 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)
-
- An overlay of the paths of travel of a test-related helicopter and Mr. Steven, both on Oct. 8. The yellow plane is the heli at the beginning of a hover, while the gap between blue triangles in the lower left is where Mr. Steven was during that hover. (MarineTraffic + Flightradar24)
How and why it got there is unknown, as is the purpose of half a day spent boating around with the half in his net. However, a helicopter known to be involved in fairing drop tests was seen hovering and flying around Mr. Steven at the same time. Perhaps the two were practicing for real drop attempts, or perhaps the helicopter actually dropped a Falcon fairing (from > 2000 feet) and Mr. Steven successful caught it.
What is clear is that SpaceX is just getting started with efforts to perfect fairing recovery and eventually make the practice as (relatively) routine as Falcon 9 booster recovery and reuse is today. The latter was hardwon and the former will clearly be no easier.
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 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.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
