News
SpaceX’s recovered fairing spotted sailing into port on Mr Steven
Just 24 hours after gently landing in the ocean, SpaceX recovery technicians have successfully recovered one half of an intact Falcon payload fairing for the first time ever. Photos of the return to Port of San Pedro in Southern California, captured by Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin, show that the halve recovered is in amazing condition considering its journey from speeds of nearly two miles per second (approximately 30 football fields per second, or more than ten times faster than a commercial passenger jet), to a soft, watery halt.
Despite the fact that SpaceX’s recovery boat, Mr Steven, was unable to catch the fairing as intended, a truly 100% successful recovery using the vessel’s specially-designed net is all but a foregone conclusion. If the fairing can gently land in the ocean looking as good as this article does, avoiding the water entirely should be a relatively simple matter of tweaking recovery hardware and software – a slightly larger parafoil as mentioned by Elon Musk, for example.
Mr Steven proudly returns to port with fairing halve in tow. (Pauline Acalin)
This recovery marks the end of yet another successful flight-proven SpaceX launch, this time tasked with carrying the Spanish PAZ imaging satellite and two SpaceX Starlink prototypes into a sun-synchronous orbit around Earth. We’re just two full months into 2018 and SpaceX appears to already be nearing the end of its fairing recovery development program, with operational fairing recovery and reuse the next (imminent) task at hand.
The most important unknown here is just how well SpaceX’s fairing design is able to cope with even brief contact with or immersion in saltwater, a natural corrosive agent. As a Teslarati reader rightly noted, carbon fiber composites do currently see quite a bit of use in boating, apparently no worse for wear in terms of maintainability. However, carbon fiber components on marine vessels are treated and coated with specially-chosen laminates and waterproofing materials to prevent saltwater intrusion. It’s unclear if SpaceX’s fairings include the same sort of treatment, although it can be all but guaranteed that the outside of the fairing is designed to be perfectly sealed against the environment – a necessity to protect sensitive satellite components from local weather and humidity.
Mr. Steven pulling into port in San Pedro with a beautifully intact fairing. Next attempt at catching the fairing in the ship’s net is about a month away! #spaceX #paz @teslarati #starlink pic.twitter.com/FM2tpowktL
— Pauline Acalin (@w00ki33) February 23, 2018
Of course, reuse for this particular fairing half may be out of the question given its pathfinder position. SpaceX may destructively analyze and test the recovered fairing to gather as much detail as possible about its condition after a rough reentry and some ocean-floating leisure time. In line with my above speculation, recovery technicians and engineers will judge how much (if any) saltwater managed to get inside the fairing, while also judging the condition of the giant halve’s carbon composite structure. Just like SpaceX chose to display its first successfully landed Falcon 9 booster outside of their Hawthorne, CA factory, they may hold onto this intact fairing as a piece of SpaceX history, maybe even put it on display in or around one of SpaceX’s US facilities.
-
- For the first time, photographers have a chance to photograph a single fairing halve in high detail. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Mr Steven is looking as good as ever, despite not being able to flex its new net. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Could just be me, but that is one BEAUTIFUL hunk of carbon fiber and aluminum. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- (Pauline Acalin)
With the next Mr Steven-led fairing recovery set to occur on March 29, SpaceX will have plenty of additional options to firm up their expertise with the newly successful practice. In fact, the upcoming February 25 launch and “hot” landing of Hispasat 30W – this time on the East coast – could also see its own successful fairing recovery, given the fact that PAZ’s fairing technically survived intact without the use of Mr Steven’s gentler catching mitt. Time will tell!
Follow us on social media for down-to-the-minute and behind the scenes updates on SpaceX activities.
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
