News
SpaceX’s Mr Steven gains upgraded arms to catch its first Falcon 9 fairings
SpaceX’s iconic Falcon 9 payload fairing recovery ship, known as Mr Steven, has been spotted in California’s Port of San Pedro having new arms installed with two cranes and a crew of SpaceX technicians. Aside from the sudden addition of dramatically different arm design, a large inflatable structure also took shape – seemingly overnight – right behind Mr Steven, the purpose of which is entirely unclear.
Incredibly, these massive new arms and their new equally large support struts and base plates have begun installation barely two weeks after Mr Steven took roost and had his old arms removed at SpaceX’s Berth 240 property. While the timeline of the arm and net upgrades – mentioned by CEO Elon Musk several weeks ago – was previously uncertain, the incredibly quick turnaround from old arm removal to new arm install suggests that SpaceX may, in fact, be aiming to have Mr Steven ready for recovery operations as early as Iridium-7, scheduled for launch on July 20th. In all likelihood, the fairing recovery vessel will be held up till the subsequent Vandenberg Air Force Base launch while a net with an area perhaps four times larger is custom-built for SpaceX.
A massive inflatable structure appeared out of nowhere at Berth 240 roughly four days after Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin had last checked up on the facility. (Pauline Acalin)
Nevertheless, SpaceX’s speed rarely fails to surprise, and it’s entirely possible that a new, larger net was already ordered some time ago in preparation for the eventuality that Mr Steven’s first recovery mechanism was unsuccessful. Given the fact that at least two main arms and perhaps eight white, cylindrical struts have apparently been completed and are awaiting installation at Berth 240, it’s probable that the lead time on this new recovery mechanism stretches back at least several months, likely at least a month before Musk mentioned that Mr Steven would have its usable catching area grown “by a factor of [four]” in early June.
Yup, we are extending the net area by a factor of 4
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 5, 2018
Closing the fairing recovery gap
With four times the net available to catch wayward Falcon 9 payload fairings, SpaceX may be able to finally close the gap between Mr Steven and the successful and routine recovery and reuse of the second of three main Falcon 9 (and Heavy) components. At roughly 10% of the total cost (not price) of a single-booster Falcon 9, the considerable effort being put into the recovery of carbon-composite payload fairings is in a way motivated more by manufacturing bottlenecks than by the money it will save SpaceX (somewhat less than $3m per half).
-
- Taken on Friday, these two photos show the new arm mounting brackets, installed on Mr Steven the week of July 2nd. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Scarcely 48 hours later, an entirely new pear-shaped arm and two huge, circular struts were successfully installed, presumably the first of four sets. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- (Pauline Acalin)
SpaceX’s team of composite technicians and engineers will need to reliably fabricate as many as ~50 payload fairing halves in 2018, effectively one half each week
By recovering payload fairings before they touch the ocean surface, the company may – in one fell swoop – be able to dramatically reduce the operational expenditure required to sustain the annual production of dozens of Falcon fairings, each of which requires an inescapable and tediously slow stint in a massive autoclave, only a few of which can be squeeze into the company’s Hawthorne factory. As an example, SpaceX’s team of roughly 150 dedicated composite technicians and engineers will need to reliably fabricate as many as ~50 payload fairing halves – nearly a full half each week – to sustain SpaceX’s anticipated 2018 manifest of 24-28 launches, excluding three Cargo Dragon resupply missions that don’t need fairings.
While both Crew and Cargo Dragon spacecraft and trunks contain a large proportion of carbon fiber-composite structures, every composite Falcon 9 interstage that rolled off of the assembly line since February 2018 is part of a Block 5 booster and is thus expected to support a bare minimum of several missions on its own, functionally multiplying the useful output of any given production line even while the amount of work (and thus work-hours) is reduced. While Falcon 9 boosters – making up roughly 70% of the cost of the entire rocket – have been successfully upgraded to support several reuses each, SpaceX still has to produce a new payload fairing and upper stage for each launch. A spectacular Block 4 farewell earlier this month – complete with a recoverable booster expended to make way for Block 5 – simply served to emphasize the company’s desire to mitigate the expandability of both (currently) unreusable segments of Falcon 9.
-
- Meanwhile, the purpose of this massive inflatable ring is almost entirely unclear, as it would appear to be redundant with the initial installation of Mr Steven’s new recovery mechanism. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Arm installation will presumably continue over the course of the week, hopefully reaching completion in time to recovery Iridium-7’s payload fairing. (Pauline Acalin)
If Mr Steven can recover even a small fraction – say 25% – of SpaceX payload fairings launched annually, the exact same level of effort (and thus capital) could support 25% more launches annually or reduce the work hours spent on fairing production by 25%. As it happens, SpaceX’s next-generation rocket (BFR) happens to be built (theoretically) almost entirely out of carbon-composites, from the propellant tanks to the spaceship’s delta wing.
Originally meant to focus on the wholly unexpected appearance of a giant inflatable structure at Berth 240, SpaceX’s breakneck pace of action abruptly recentered it on the equally unexpected installation of one the vessel’s first upgraded arms, meant to support a net that could be as much as four times larger than its predecessor. That symbolism on its own is a worthy representation of some of the best aspects of SpaceX’s world-class team of engineers and technicians, acting as a slightly more on-topic corollary to the equally rapid design, prototyping, fabrication, and testing of ad-hoc ‘submarines’ intended to help a number of Thai children currently trapped in a cave near the country’s border with Myanmar/Burma.
Mr Steven shows off the first of four new arms as a mysterious inflatable ring patiently sits astern. (Pauline Acalin)
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
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 once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
