News
Renderings of SpaceX clawboat’s huge net upgrade is a taste of what’s to come
After several close-but-no-cigar attempts at snatching a Falcon 9 payload fairing out of the air, SpaceX’s iconic recovery vessel Mr Steven is currently laid up at the company’s newly-acquired Berth 240 dock space, roughly a week into the process of upgrading his arms to support a much larger net. CEO Elon Musk recently hinted that the boat’s net would be expanded by a factor of four, but what would such a dramatic growth look like?
To give a better idea of what to expect from Mr Steven’s arm and net upgrades, Teslarati’s Reese Wilson modeled and rendered the fairing recovery vessel with one such interpretation. The dimensions and aspect ratios may not be a mirror-image of the real-world Mr Steven, but the visual effect of the net upgrade is still fundamentally the same.
Mr Steven is currently laid up at Berth 240 in a sadly armless state. (Pauline Acalin)
With respect to these renders, the actual net growth is somewhat less than the full fourfold area upgrade mentioned by Musk in early June – the concept art’s net is closer to 2.5 or 3 times larger than Mr Steven’s original net. This slight inaccuracy may actually be serendipitous, as a true 4X net could be downright unwieldy without the addition of some sort of complex retraction mechanism, versus the simple but functional (and infinitely reliable) implementation of fixed steel arms at the current net’s scale.
-
- A side-by-side comparison of Mr Steven before (top) and after (bottom) installation of a net with roughly 2.5X greater catching area. (Reese Wilson)
-
- Incredibly, this artist rendering of a much larger net installed on Mr Steven was perhaps two or more times smaller than the solution now installed on the vessel. (Reese Wilson)
Dramatic modifications nevertheless are all but guaranteed, as Mr Steven appears to have had the entire arm apparatus – including the steel base attaching them to his cargo deck – completely removed and placed on the side of the dock, still less permanent than the apparent decision to plasma or torch cut each arm off of that base, one of which is visible dockside at Berth 240. It may be possible to re-weld those severed arms onto the base, but it’s arguably more likely that entirely new arms, an entirely new base, or both will be fabricated, and those larger arms will themselves require a much larger net.
Ultimately, the fairing recovery vessel has gotten as close as 50 meters to gently catching a parasailing rocket fairing minutes after launch, an extraordinarily tiny error compared to the broader scope of the task at hand. Upon separation from Falcon 9’s upper stage, each payload fairing half is routinely traveling at speeds of 1.5 to 2 kilometers per second and reach apogees anywhere from 100 to 130 kilometers, all while traveling the better part of a thousand miles (800 mi/1300 km for Iridium-6) to reach Mr Steven’s net. As such, “missing” by 50 meters is an extraordinary achievement.
-
- A fairing floats gently into the welcoming embrace of Mr Steven’s upgrade net and arms. (Reese Wilson)
-
- With any luck, viewers may get a live view of the vessel’s next recovery attempts. (Reese Wilson)
-
- Mr Steven is currently undergoing arm surgery (upgrades) at SpaceX’s future BFR factory lot, known as Berth 240. (Elon Musk)
A fairing floats gently into the welcoming embrace of Mr Steven’s upgrade net and arms. (Reese Wilson)
With the vessel’s current net roughly 30 meters or 100 feet square (Mr Steven is 60m/200ft bow to stern), give or take 25%, a full fourfold upgrade would double each dimension, which could singlehandedly cut the error margin required for fairing recovery (currently 50 meters) by more than 50% if it remains square. If SpaceX finds a way to functionally achieve something close to a fourfold increase in area with a more rectangular aspect ratio (assuming that the fairing’s present error is more a matter of glideslope inaccuracy than properly pointing the half at Mr Steven), a rectangular net with a width ~50% and length ~300% larger – say 40 meters by 80 meters – would completely close the error gap between reliably missing and reliably catching Falcon fairings. To compare, a common football (soccer for our American readers) field is typically 70 meters by 100 meters.
Time will tell, and we’ll find out soon whether those arm and net upgrades can be available for SpaceX’s next California launch, currently scheduled on the morning of July 20th.
One half of SpaceX’s Iridium-6/GRACE-FO just moments before touchdown on the Pacific Ocean. (SpaceX)
Follow us for live updates, peeks behind the scenes, and photos from Teslarati’s East and West Coast photographers.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Twitter
Pauline Acalin – Twitter
Eric Ralph – Twitter
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
