Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s Mr. Steven crosses Panama Canal on 5000 mile journey to Florida

Mr. Steven was spotted by local Panamanian Hugo Tell on February 6th prior to transiting the Panama Canal. (Hugo Tell)

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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!

Advertisement

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

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.

Published

on

By

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.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Lucid CEO dispels any rumors of bankruptcy: ‘So far from the facts’

Published

on

Credit: Lucid

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 denies rumors of bankruptcy after over 40% stock drop

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla responds to strange Supercharging pricing error with classy move

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

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.

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement
Continue Reading