News
SpaceX adds new ship to fleet after fairing catcher Ms. Tree nails second recovery in a row
In a telltale sign that SpaceX is growing much more confident in its ability to consistently recover Falcon 9 fairings, the company has accepted delivery of second recovery ship almost identical to GO Ms. Tree (formerly Mr. Steven) just days after nailing its second fairing catch in a row.
Previously known as M/V Captain Elliott, the new ship appears to have been acquired (or leased) by Guice Offshore (GO) from SEACOR Marine, who purchased Elliott from struggling marine services company Seatran Marine in 2017. One way or another, SpaceX now has a pair of Port Canaveral-based fairing recovery ships in hand – named Ms. Tree and Ms. Chief – and is thus making excellent progress towards catching and reusing both halves of the same Falcon 9 (or Heavy) fairing.
Splurging on ‘ships
Put simply, whoever is paying for or has paid for the two fast supply vessels (FSVs) that are now a part of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet has/had a tidy sum to spend. For ships as large, new, and high-performance as Ms. Tree and Ms. Chief, both completed in the mid-2010s, SpaceX or GO would be lucky to pay less than $10M apiece and each ship could easily cost more than $20M, depending on a variety of unknowns. Previous owner Seatran Marine is/was admittedly in dire financial straits, so that could have resulted in an effective fire-sale discount.
Regardless, this is to say that SpaceX was likely willing to splurge and open its wallet wide for extremely high-quality fairing recovery vessels because of just how expensive those fairings are. According to CEO Elon Musk circa 2017, it costs SpaceX $5-6M total to produce a set of Falcon fairing halves, equivalent to roughly 10% of the cost of a Falcon 9 launch ($50M-60M).
As an example, assume that SpaceX paid a full $50M for Ms. Tree and Ms. Chief – effectively a worst-case cost scenario. Assume that recovering and reusing net-caught Falcon fairings still costs half as much as building new fairings ($3M for two halves), also likely a worst-case scenario given the relative mechanical and propulsive simplicity of fairings.
In this mediocre-at-best scenario, it would still take SpaceX less than 20 launches with both halves recovered to completely recoup the cost of both fairing recovery ships. In the event that reusing caught fairings is only 25% as expensive as building new fairings, SpaceX could recoup its fleet investments in just 10 launches. In fact, cost reduction may even be a secondary consideration next to the potential for effectively doubling fairing production with the same facilities. From that perspective, spending, say, $50M on development and another $50M on cutting-edge recovery vessels could easily be a bargain, especially compared to the $1B+ SpaceX has spent deloping Falcon 9 booster reusability.
Fairing-catcher Mk4
With GO Ms. Chief’s August 10th arrival at Port Canaveral, SpaceX’s team of Florida-based recovery engineers and technicians will now be tasked with modifying the ship for Falcon fairing catching. SpaceX completed its first fairing recovery-focused modifications back in late 2017, likely producing what was the first version of fairing recovery tech (Mk1). The net proved to be far too small and was replaced in summer 2018 with a net and arms likely 4X larger (Mk2).
Roughly half a year and several missed catches after Mr. Steven’s Mk2 net was installed, the ship transited the Panama Canal and arrived at Port Canaveral in February 2019. Barely a week or two later, Mr. Steven suffered a failure at sea – well before a planned catch attempt – that saw the ship limp back to port missing the entirety of its net and two of four arms.
After another four months in port, SpaceX installed a third net and arms system on Mr. Steven, featuring distinct differences and apparent upgrades that likely make it Mk3. Shortly after installation and a quick renaming from Mr. Steven to GO Ms. Tree, Ms. Tree’s inaugural Mk3 recovery attempt culminated in SpaceX’s first and second successful fairing catches – back-to-back – on June 24th and August 6th.
Finally, this brings us to the blank slate that is GO Ms. Chief. Compared to Ms. Tree, both vessels are nearly identical: both are built by Gulf Craft, LLC, both are 205 ft x 34 ft (62m x 10m), both have decks rated for ~405 metric tons (900,000 lb), and have top speeds of 26-32 knots (30-37 mph, 50-60 km/h; fully-loaded vs. empty). The lone point of difference is power: Ms. Chief’s engines produce 500 more horsepower and its generators produce an additional 120 kW of power, respective improvements of 5% and 16% relative to Ms. Tree (Mr. Steven).
Despite both ships being nearly identical, SpaceX is unlikely to simply copy and paste Ms. Tree’s thus far successful arms and net, likely instead doing what the company is famous for and fabricating a new and improved variant of the fairing recovery mechanism. This would presumably translate to Mk4. Conveniently, SpaceX appears to be heading into a rare period of no launches, likely stretching almost three months from August 6th (AMOS-17) to late October.
If Mr. Steven and Ms. Tree’s transformations are anything to go by, that hefty chunk of time that should be more than sufficient to fully outfit Ms. Chief with a fresh fairing recovery mechanism, assuming SpaceX has been simultaneously fabricating the hardware in anticipation of Ms. Chief’s arrival.
For now, we’ll have to wait and see if SpaceX’s next launches – both believed to be 60-satellite Starlink missions – will mark the recovery debut of Ms. Chief, as well as the first attempted catch of both Falcon fairing halves. Additionally, following SpaceX’s second successful fairing half catch on August 6th, it’s possible that the company has two recovered halves capable of making a full, flight-proven fairing. Either way, a Starlink launch will likely support the flight-debut of a reused fairing and will almost certainly host the first attempted simultaneous recovery of both fairing halves.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
