News
SpaceX’s Mr. Steven crosses Panama Canal on 5000 mile journey to Florida
Iconic SpaceX vessel Mr. Steven has completed a successful transit of the Panama Canal as of February 7th, leaving the fairing recovery ship approximately 3-4 days from arrival at its new home in Port Canaveral, Florida.
Mr. Steven’s move from the West Coast to the East Coast comes shortly after a series of controlled fairing recovery tests – dropped by helicopter before deploying a parafoil – brought the vessel closer than ever before to successfully snagging a Falcon fairing out of the air. Thanks to webcams at the landmark, Mr. Steven’s trip through the Panama Canal also revealed that his arms were uninstalled for the coast swap, while two fairing halves – covered in tarps – stood out on the ship’s large deck.
Aaaaand the grand finale, a gif of Mr. Steven’s transit through the Panama Canal’s first western lock (Miraflores). Probably the last we’ll see of him until Port Canaveral, with an ETA around ~4 days from now 🙂#SpaceX pic.twitter.com/DIus6K5hK5
— Eric Ralph (@13ericralph31) February 7, 2019
Although the presence of two fairing halves could be a sign of something else, it could indicate that SpaceX has plans to continue its controlled fairing drop/recovery tests, albeit this time in the Atlantic Ocean. Thanks to a sharp-eyed local observer, it can be observed that, while topped with tarps and safely secured, the fairing halves aboard Mr. Steven had no additional protection against sea spray and the elements over the course of a 5000+ mile (~8000 km) journey at a cruising speed of roughly 20 mph (~32 km/h). In other words, they are most certainly not going to be reused.
If not for reuse, then the only reason Mr. Steven would need to bring fairings to Florida is if there is some need for fairing recovery development hardware (halves that can be abused without opportunity cost), either for more basic mechanical and interface tests with fairings and nets or to continue SpaceX’s program of experimental drop testing.
Is your #MrSteven here in Panama @elonmusk and @SpaceX ? pic.twitter.com/GvTNGYQU9K
— Hugo Tello (@soyhugotello) February 6, 2019
Intriguingly, although SpaceX released a second video of “one” of Mr. Steven’s final West Coast catch tests, some basic sleuthing can easily determine that the test shown in the January 29th video probably occurred more than two weeks earlier, on January 10th. This means that one final helicopter drop test was performed (January 26th) before SpaceX departed Port of LA for Florida on the 29th. Some might conclude, then, that SpaceX’s latest drop tweet was more than a little coy, perhaps indicating that the results of the Jan 26 test may have been appreciably different than the extreme near-miss experienced on the 10th.
While the company’s history – combined with CEO Elon Musk’s welcome tendency of sharing good news almost as soon as he hears it – suggests that the Jan 26 test was probably not a success, SpaceX could be playing its development cards close to its chest when it comes to fairing recovery.
One of Mr. Steven’s final West Coast fairing recovery tests before shipping out for the East Coast. Wait for it… pic.twitter.com/A7q37Gpllu
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) January 30, 2019
Regardless, SpaceX clearly has no plans to end its experimental fairing recovery program with success so agonizingly within reach. Mr. Steven’s move to Florida sets the vessel up for a dramatic increase in available post-launch fairing recovery attempts at the same time as Falcon fairings likely still cost around $3 million apiece and continue to pose the same conundrum Musk raised in mid-2017.
“Imagine if we had a $6 million pallet of cash falling through the sky. Would we try to catch it? I think the answer is yes.” – Elon Musk, July 2017
Although the cost of SpaceX’s fairing recovery program is probably several tens of millions of dollars at this point, it seems probable that Musk would still stand behind his thought experiment. Assuming SpaceX can cost-effectively reuse fairings once recovery is assured, a development program costing upwards of $50-100M could be entirely recouped after just 10-20 dual fairing recoveries, compared to the 21 fairings SpaceX flew in 2018 alone. As long as Falcon 9 and Heavy are likely to continue operating for several more years (all but guaranteed), fairing recovery should still prove worthwhile if SpaceX can close the recovery gap within the next 6-12 months.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes!
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
