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.
Elon Musk
The Boring Company clears final Nashville hurdle: Music City loop is full speed ahead
The Boring Company has cleared its final Nashville hurdles, putting the Music City Loop on track for 2026.
The Boring Company has cleared one of its most significant regulatory milestones yet, securing a key easement from the Music City Center in Nashville just days ago, the latest in a series of approvals that have pushed the Music City Loop project firmly into construction reality.
On March 24, 2026, the Convention Center Authority voted to grant The Boring Company access to an easement along the west side of the Music City Center property, allowing tunneling beneath the privately owned venue. The move follows a unanimous 7-0 vote by the Metro Nashville Airport Authority on February 18, and a joint state and federal approval from the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration on February 25. Together, these green lights have cleared the path for a roughly 10-mile underground tunnel connecting downtown Nashville to Nashville International Airport, with potential extensions into midtown along West End Avenue.
Music City Loop could highlight The Boring Company’s real disruption
Nashville was selected by The Boring Company largely because of its rapid population growth and the strain that growth has placed on surface infrastructure. Traffic has become a persistent problem for residents, convention visitors, and airport travelers alike. The Music City Loop promises an approximately 8-minute underground transit time between downtown and the Nashville International Airport (BNA), removing thousands of vehicles from surface roads daily while operating as a fully electric, zero-emissions system at no cost to taxpayers.
The project fits squarely within a broader vision Musk has championed for years. In responding to a breakdown of the Loop’s construction costs, Musk posted on X: “Tunnels are so underrated.” The comment reflected a longstanding belief that underground transit represents one of the most cost-effective and scalable infrastructure solutions available. The Boring Company has claimed it can build 13 miles of twin tunnels in Nashville for between $240 million and $300 million total, a fraction of what comparable projects cost elsewhere in the country.
Image Credit: The Boring Company/Twitter
The Las Vegas Loop, The Boring Company’s first operational system, has served as a proof of concept. During the CONEXPO trade show in March 2026, the Vegas Loop transported approximately 82,000 passengers over five days at the Las Vegas Convention Center, demonstrating the system’s capacity during large-scale events. Nashville draws millions of convention visitors and tourists each year, and local business leaders have pointed to that same capacity as a major draw for supporting the project.
The Music City Loop was first announced in July 2025. Construction began within hours of the February 25 state approval, with The Boring Company’s Prufrock tunneling machine already in the ground the same evening. The first operational segment is targeted for late 2026, with the full route expected to be complete by 2029. The project represents one of the largest privately funded infrastructure efforts currently underway in the United States.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss
A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s legal team has filed a motion demanding that Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick disqualify herself from an ongoing high-stakes Tesla shareholder lawsuit.
The filing, submitted March 25, cites an apparent LinkedIn “support” reaction from McCormick’s account to a post celebrating a $2 billion jury verdict against Musk in a separate California securities-fraud case.
The move escalates long-simmering tensions between Musk, Tesla, and the Delaware judiciary, where McCormick previously presided over the landmark challenge to Musk’s record $56 billion 2018 compensation package.
Delaware Supreme Court reinstates Elon Musk’s 2018 Tesla CEO pay package
The LinkedIn post was written by Harry Plotkin, a Southern California jury consultant who assisted the plaintiffs who sued Musk over 2022 tweets about his Twitter acquisition. Plotkin praised the trial team for “standing up for the little guy against the richest man in the world.”
The New York Post initially reported the story.
A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality.
This appears to be unequivocal proof she denied the pay package because of her own personal beliefs and not the law.
Corruption. https://t.co/8dvgcfYuvh
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 25, 2026
McCormick swiftly denied intentional endorsement. In a letter to attorneys, she stated she was unaware of the interaction until LinkedIn notified her. She wrote:
“I either did not click the ‘support’ icon at all, or I did so accidentally. I do not believe that I did it accidentally.”
The chancellor maintains the reaction was inadvertent, but critics, including Musk allies, call the explanation implausible given the platform’s deliberate interface.
McCormick’s central role in the Tesla pay-package litigation underscores the stakes. In Tornetta v. Musk, in January 2024, she ruled the 2018 performance-based stock-option grant, potentially worth $56 billion at the time and now valued far higher, was invalid.
The package consisted of 12 tranches of options, each vesting only after Tesla achieved ambitious market-cap and operational milestones. McCormick found Musk exercised “transaction-specific control” over Tesla as a controlling stockholder, the board lacked sufficient independence, and proxy disclosures to shareholders were materially deficient.
Applying the entire-fairness standard, she concluded defendants failed to prove the deal was fair in process or price and ordered full rescission, an “unfathomable” remedy she described as necessary to deter fiduciary breaches.
After the ruling, Tesla shareholders ratified the package a second time in June 2024. McCormick rejected that ratification in December 2024, holding that post-trial votes could not cure defects.
Tesla appealed. On December 19 of last year, the Delaware Supreme Court unanimously reversed the rescission remedy while largely leaving McCormick’s liability findings intact. The high court deemed total unwinding inequitable and impractical, restoring the package but awarding the plaintiff only nominal $1 damages plus reduced attorneys’ fees. Musk ultimately received the full award.
The current recusal motion arises in yet another Tesla derivative suit before McCormick. Legal observers say granting it could signal heightened scrutiny of judicial social-media activity; denial might reinforce perceptions of an insular Delaware bench.
Broader fallout includes accelerated corporate migration out of Delaware, Musk himself moved Tesla’s incorporation to Texas after the first ruling, and renewed debate over whether the state’s specialized courts remain the gold standard for corporate governance disputes.
A decision is expected soon; whichever way it lands, the episode highlights the fragile balance between judicial independence and public confidence in high-profile litigation.
News
Tesla Cybercab spotted next to Model Y shows size comparison
The Model Y is Tesla’s most-popular vehicle and has been atop the world’s best-selling rankings for the last three years. The Cybercab, while yet to be released, could potentially surpass the Model Y due to its planned accessible price, potential for passive income for owners, and focus on autonomy.
The Tesla Cybercab and Tesla Model Y are perhaps two of the company’s most-discussed vehicles, and although they are geared toward different things, a recent image of the two shows a side-by-side size comparison and how they stack up dimensionally.
The Model Y is Tesla’s most-popular vehicle and has been atop the world’s best-selling rankings for the last three years. The Cybercab, while yet to be released, could potentially surpass the Model Y due to its planned accessible price, potential for passive income for owners, and focus on autonomy.
Geared as a ride-sharing vehicle, it only has two seats. However, the car will be responsible for hauling two people around to various destinations completely autonomously. How they differ in terms of size is striking.
In a new aerial image shared by drone operator and Gigafactory Texas observer Joe Tegtmeyer, the two vehicles were seen side by side, offering perhaps the first clear look at how they differ in size.
Tesla Model Y vs. Tesla Cybercab:
✅ Overall Length:⁰Model Y: 188.7 inches (4,794 mm)⁰Cybercab: ~175 inches (≈4,445 mm)⁰→ Cybercab is about 13–14 inches shorter (roughly the length of a large suitcase).
✅ Overall Width (excluding mirrors):⁰Model Y: 75.6 inches (1,920 mm)… https://t.co/PsVwzhw1pe pic.twitter.com/58JQ5ssQIO
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 25, 2026
Dimensionally, the differences are striking. The Model Y stretches roughly 188 inches long, 75.6 inches wide, excluding its mirrors, and stands 64 inches tall on a 113.8-inch wheelbase. The Cybercab measures approximately 175 inches in length, about a foot shorter, and just 63 inches wide.
That narrower stance gives the Cybercab a dramatically more compact silhouette, making it easier to maneuver in tight urban environments and park in standard spaces that would feel cramped for the Model Y. Height is also lower on the Cybercab, contributing to its sleek, coupe-like profile versus the Model Y’s taller crossover shape.
Visually, the contrast is unmistakable. The Model Y presents as a family-friendly SUV with conventional doors, a prominent hood, and a spacious glass roof.
The Cybercab eliminates the steering wheel and pedals entirely, creating a clean, futuristic cabin that feels more lounge than cockpit.
Its doors open in a distinctive, wide-swinging motion, and the body features smoother, more aerodynamic lines optimized for autonomy. Parked beside a Model Y, the Cybercab appears almost toy-like in width and length, yet its low-slung stance and minimalist design emphasize agility over bulk.
🚨 We caught up with the Tesla Cybercab today in The Bay Area: pic.twitter.com/9awXiK26ue
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 24, 2026
Cargo capacity tells another part of the story. The Model Y offers generous real-world utility: 4.1 cubic feet in the front trunk and 30.2 cubic feet behind the rear seats, expanding to 72 cubic feet with the second row folded flat.
It comfortably swallows groceries, luggage, or sports equipment for five passengers. The Cybercab, designed for two riders, trades that volume for targeted efficiency.
It features a rear hatch with enough space for two carry-on suitcases and personal items, plenty for the typical robotaxi trip, while maintaining impressive legroom and headroom for its occupants.
In short, the Model Y prioritizes versatility and family hauling with its larger footprint and abundant storage. The Cybercab sacrifices size for simplicity, cost, and urban nimbleness.
At roughly 12 inches shorter and 12 inches narrower, it embodies Tesla’s vision for scalable, affordable autonomy: smaller on the outside, smarter inside, and ready to redefine how we move through cities.
The Cybercab and Model Y both will contribute to Tesla’s fully autonomous future. However, the size comparison gives a good look into how the vehicles are the same, and how they differ, and what riders should anticipate as the Cybercab enters production in the coming weeks.
The Boring Company clears final Nashville hurdle: Music City loop is full speed ahead
Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss
Tesla Cybercab spotted next to Model Y shows size comparison
Elon Musk’s Boring Co. Tunnel Vision Challenge ends with a surprise for Louisiana, Maryland and Dallas
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
