News
SpaceX returns intact fairing half on clawboat in post-launch surprise
Despite a statement from SpaceX CEO Elon Musk that the Iridium-5 mission’s fairing recovery attempt had failed due to a twisted parafoil, Teslarati captured photos of clawboat Mr Steven arriving in the Port of San Pedro early Saturday morning with an apparently intact fairing half.
Not to be confused with the first successfully recovered fairing that returned to land in late February, this half is undoubtedly fresh from Iridium-5’s Friday morning launch. The $2.5 million, carbon composite aluminum fairing half recovered during SpaceX’s PAZ mission on February 22 is currently being stored and scrapped at SpaceX’s brand new port real estate – Berth 240, or the same location that was selected as the probable location for SpaceX’s first BFR manufacturing facility.
- The Iridium-5 half, however, is not believed to have suffered any significant structural damage during recovery ops. (Pauline Acalin)
- Falcon 9 1041 rises above a sea of fog for one last mission to orbit. Half of its fairing made a surprise appearance in port on Saturday. (Pauline Acalin)
- An unmistakable Falcon 9 fairing half seen aboard the vessel Mr Steven on Saturday morning. (Pauline Acalin)
- Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin made her way to a foggy Port of San Pedro early Saturday morning to welcome Mr Steven home. (Pauline Acalin)
Compared to Musk’s previous comments during the first intact fairing recovery in late February, it would seem that Iridium-5’s fairing was all but doomed when it “impacted [the] water at high speed,” and the majority of fans appeared to have concluded as much. Following PAZ, Musk tweeted that the Mr Steven had “missed by a few hundred meters, but fairing landed intact in water” – as an incredibly optimized and lightweight structure, a fairing half would likely have to land very gently to avoid breaking into pieces. That Mr Steven’s crew was able to bring the Iridium-5 half aboard all but guarantees that it was floating intact on the ocean surface after touching down.
GPS guided parafoil twisted, so fairing impacted water at high speed. Air wake from fairing messing w parafoil steering. Doing helo drop tests in next few weeks to solve.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 30, 2018
This does not necessarily contradict Musk’s diagnosis of a twisted parafoil, assuming he was referring to the lines that connect the fairing to the foil – paragliders frequently suffer tangles and twists in their lines, an event that typically warps the parafoil’s structure, thus lowering the amount of lift it can produce as a wing. This is an inevitable risk of what is basically a self-inflating wing, and failures of this sort are known to kill or injure paragliders at low altitudes and can also lead to uncontrolled spinning (although that is very unlikely to occur with a 1000kg payload).

A NASA experiment in the late 90s examined the use of a parafoil to enable gentle, guided landings of an orbital escape pod – the experiment was quite successful. (NASA)
Ultimately, GPS-guided parafoils have been done fairly successfully and many times over during the past two or so decades. For the most part,the problems preventing SpaceX from recovering fairings in Mr Steven’s net have been almost entirely solved: the fact that two fairing halves have been recovered intact after their last two Western launches confirm as much. SpaceX engineers have somehow found a way to enable a highly flexible, lightweight, and aerodynamically awkward lifting body to survive a journey from heights of 110+ km and speeds of more than 2250 meters per second.
SpaceX’s fairings may look unassuming dressed in their subtle soot and simple curved lines, but – as SpaceX has intoned in the past – if landing massive Falcon 9 boosters after launch is akin to “launching a pencil over the Empire State building and having it land on a shoebox on the other side…during a wind storm,” recovering the relatively minuscule and light fairings can be fairly compared to launching a paper bowl over two stacked Empire State Buildings in a tornado and catching it with one hand behind your back on the opposite side – all without ripping, folding, or denting it.
- It may look unassuming, but that fairing half could swallow an entire school bus and by all means should not be in one piece. (Fairing from PAZ, photo by Elon Musk)
- Falcon 9 B1041.2 seen before launching Iridium-5. (Pauline Acalin)
SpaceX is 99% of the way to successful and routine fairing recovery and reuse and the final 1% is all about testing and subtle refinement. Future fairing recovery attempts may even be streamed in real time on SpaceX’s webcasts, according to Musk.
Follow us for live updates, behind-the-scenes sneak peeks, and a sea of beautiful photos from our East and West coast photographers.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Twitter
Pauline Acalin – Twitter
Eric Ralph – Twitter
Investor's Corner
Tesla has a Cybercab problem nobody saw coming
Tesla’s Cybercab line now builds robotaxis faster than Tesla can deploy them, Lars Moravy says.
Tesla’s Cybercab line in Texas can now build the two seat robotaxi faster than the company can put it into service, according to Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering. “We don’t run every day because the line can run so fast. It’s currently outpacing our deployments,” Moravy said in a new Cybercab deep dive from Munro Live. “So, it’s a bit of a race right now. Who’s going to go faster? Right now the manufacturing line’s ahead.”
Tesla’s official Robotaxi account shared a Cybercab analysis video on X on Monday, calling it a “Cybercab engineering deep dive.” Moravy’s comments go further than what he told analysts on the Q3 earnings call last week, when he said the Cybercab line’s listed capacity of more than 125,000 units a year undersells what it can actually run.
The tour shows where that speed comes from. Tesla’s unboxed process splits the Cybercab into front, rear, side and center modules that are built and tested on their own before they meet on a short final line. That final line has just 25 fully automated stations, which Tesla’s team estimated is a fifth to a tenth of what a Model Y needs. The full line is about 78% automated, the framing line is already at 100%, and the layout uses roughly 50% less floor space per vehicle. The stated goal is “100% automation in 10 second cycle time,” or one finished Cybercab every 10 seconds.
Tesla also deleted the paint shop. Only the side modules are coated, and the exterior panels get their color inside the molding machine. Engineers said the car is designed to run at least 500,000 miles, which matters for a vehicle that will spend most of its day carrying riders.
The battery got the same treatment. The Cybercab uses an 88S6P pack of 4680 cells in a steel enclosure, a first for Tesla, with each module potted separately so a single failed module can be swapped instead of the whole pack. Wireless battery management boards replace a wiring harness, and new contactors are fast enough to drop the pyro fuse entirely. Tesla’s battery director graded the pack an A minus, compared with a D for the Model Y structural pack and a B minus for Cybertruck. Up front, the drive unit runs an 11:1 gear ratio versus roughly 9:1 on most Teslas, since the Cybercab does not need a high top speed.
Cybercab engineering deep dive — Robotaxi (@robotaxi) October 26, 2026
The deployment side is now the bottleneck Moravy described. Tesla had more than 50 Cybercabs working the Formula 1 weekend in Austin, and Texas records show 463 Cybercabs registered. Tesla said on its earnings call that Cybercab service will launch in Dallas next month, and Moravy said the company is aiming to get Cybercabs to customers by the end of 2026. Every unit built so far has gone into Tesla’s own fleet since the line moved into volume production in April.
Munro Live also asked when it could get a Cybercab to tear down. Tesla’s answer: “Not yet.”
Elon Musk
How SpaceX Is raising Raptor’s sea-level thrust while holding engine mass steady
SpaceX’s Raptor engine family has steadily increased sea-level thrust while simultaneously reducing mass, turning iterative engineering gains into substantially higher performance for the Super Heavy booster. CEO Elon Musk shed more light on how powerful Raptor 4 will be, and it’s pretty crazy.
Raptor 1 delivered 185 metric tons of thrust at roughly 2,080 kilograms, while Raptor 2 raised that to 230 tons while cutting mass to about 1,630 kilograms. SpaceX data for Raptor 3 lists a target of 280 tons at 1,525 kilograms (with further reductions in associated vehicle hardware), while operational flight ratings have been cited near 250 tons.
This morning, Elon Musk stated that Raptor 4 is expected to reach 300 tons of sea-level thrust at roughly the same mass as Raptor 3. Across these versions, thrust has risen by more than 60 percent from the first engines while engine mass has fallen, producing a sharp improvement in thrust-to-weight ratio. This is a true testament to how great SpaceX engineering has been:
🚀 Elon says Raptor 4 will make 300 tons of thrust at sea level at roughly the same mass as Raptor 3.
How far Raptor has come:
Raptor 1: 185 tf, 2,080 kg
Raptor 2: 230 tf, 1,630 kg
Raptor 3: 250 tf, 1,525 kg
Raptor 4: 300 tf33 on Super Heavy = ~9,900 tf, nearly 3x Saturn V https://t.co/HQDswZhyvL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 26, 2026
With 33 engines on SuperHeavy, the jump from earlier versions to a 300-ton Raptor 4 would produce roughly 9,900 metric tons of total liftoff thrust, nearly three times the Saturn V’s approximately 3,400 metric tons from its five F-1 engines.
This is not just a larger number on a data sheet, either, as sea-level thrust is the force available the moment the vehicle leaves the pad. This is when it is heaviest and still deep in Earth’s gravity well and dense atmosphere.
Higher levels of sea-level thrust directly improves the initial thrust-to-weight ratio of the full stack. A higher ratio produces faster acceleration off the pad, which shortens the time the rocket has to spend fighting gravity, and gravity losses during the first minute or two of the flight are a major drain on total available delta-v. Every second shaved off of that early climb preserves more propellant energy for reaching orbital velocity or for carrying extra payload.
Because Super Heavy’s engine count is constrained by vehicle diameter and packing density, increasing thrust per engine is the most straightforward way to raise total liftoff performance without redesigning the booster structure or design.
The same-mass target for Raptor 4 is equally important. Holding engine mass roughly constant while raising thrust improves the engine’s own thrust-to-weight ratio and reduces the structural and propellant mass fraction that must be carried solely to support the engines.
Earlier Raptor iterations also simplified or eliminated extensive vehicle-side hardware such as heat shields. These gains compound: more force for less installed mass leaves additional capacity for propellant, payload, or operational margins such as engine-out capability.
For Starship’s architecture, the practical effects are large. Greater liftoff thrust supports heavier vehicles, larger propellant loads, and higher payloads to low Earth orbit, figures SpaceX has targeted in the 100-plus-ton reusable range. That capacity underpins orbital refueling, lunar missions, and eventual Mars cargo and crew flights.
Continued growth in sea-level thrust therefore tightens the gap between theoretical rocket performance and the high flight rates and reusability needed to make large-scale space transport practical.
News
Tesla Assisted Driving expands to tenth EU country
Tesla has expanded its Tesla Assisted Driving (TAD) suite to its tenth European country, as Latvia joined a growing list of European Union member states authorizing the company’s advanced driver assistance technology.
Tesla Europe announced this morning that the system is now approved in Latvia, with a software rollout to begin soon.
The approval and rollout follow recognition of a provisional European type approval originally granted by the Netherlands’ RDW authority on April 10.
🚨 Latvia has just received approval for Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised)
This is the 10th country in the EU to gain approval:
1. Netherlands — 10 April 2026 (original RDW approval)
2. Lithuania — 20 May 2026
3. Estonia — 29 May 2026
4. Denmark — 9 June 2026
5. Belgium — 10 June 2026
6. Slovenia — 7 September 2026
7. Czechia — 21 September 2026
8. Croatia — 29 September 2026
9. Slovakia — 16 October 2026— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 26, 2026
Latvia’s Road Traffic Safety Directorate (CSDD) evaluated the Dutch documentation, coordinated with the other national authorities, and reviewed updates from Tesla. These included tightened limits on speed offsets, automatic resets of any manual speed adjustments after each trip, and stronger driver monitoring.
In Europe, the feature is marketed as Tesla Assisted Driving after a recent rule change that labeled the name “Full Self-Driving” as misleading.
The system remains an SAE Level 2 driver assistance tool, not unsupervised autonomy. It can control speed, steering, braking, lane changes, and intersections while following a navigation route. Drivers need not keep their hands on the wheel at all times, yet they must continuously monitor the road and be prepared to intervene immediately.
The sequence of EU recognitions began with the Netherlands in April and continued through Lithuania, Estonia, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia, Czechia, Croatia, and Slovakia. Most have relied on mutual recognition of the single Dutch provisional approval rather than independent national testing.
These national clearances do not yet constitute bloc-wide authorization. An EU-wide decision requires a qualified majority in the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles: at least 15 of 27 member states representing 65 percent of the EU population. Larger markets, like Germany, France, and Italy, remain under review, and a vote is expected this December.
However, for Latvian Tesla owners with compatible vehicles and software, the imminent rollout expands access to the supervised system while underscoring that attentive human oversight remains essential.





