News
SpaceX reveals Starship “marine recovery” plans in new job postings
In a series of new job postings, SpaceX has hinted at an unexpected desire to develop “marine recovery systems for the Starship program.”
Since SpaceX first began bending metal for its steel Starship development program in late 2018, CEO Elon Musk, executives, and the company itself have long maintained that both Super Heavy boosters and Starship upper stages would perform what are known as return-to-launch-site (RTLS) landings. It’s no longer clear if those long-stated plans are set in stone.
Oddly, despite repeatedly revealing plans to develop “marine recovery” assets for Starship, SpaceX’s recent “marine engineer” and “naval architect” job postings never specifically mentioned the company’s well-established plans to convert retired oil rigs into vast floating Starship launch sites. Weighing several thousand tons and absolutely dwarfing the football-field-sized drone ships SpaceX recovers Falcon boosters with, it goes without saying that towing an entire oil rig hundreds of miles to and from port is not an efficient or economical solution for rocket recovery. It would also make very little sense for SpaceX to hire a dedicated naval architect without once mentioning that they’d be working on something as all-encompassing as the world’s largest floating launch pad.
That leaves three obvious explanations for the mentions. First, it might be possible that SpaceX is merely preparing for the potential recovery of debris or intact, floating ships or boosters after intentionally expending them on early orbital Starship test flights. Second, SpaceX might have plans to strip an oil rig or two – without fully converting them into launch pads – and then use those rigs as landing platforms designed to remain at sea indefinitely. Those platforms might then transfer landed ships or boosters to smaller support ships tasked with returning them to dry land. Third and arguably most likely, SpaceX might be exploring the possible benefits of landing Super Heavy boosters at sea.
Through its Falcon rockets, SpaceX has slowly but surely refined and perfected the recovery and reuse of orbital-class rocket boosters – 24 (out of 103) of which occurred back on land. Rather than coasting 500-1000 kilometers (300-600+ mi) downrange after stage separation and landing on a drone ship at sea, those 24 boosters flipped around, canceled out their substantial velocities, and boosted themselves a few hundred kilometers back to the Florida or California coast, where they finally touched down on basic concrete pads.
-->Unsurprisingly, canceling out around 1.5 kilometers per second of downrange velocity (equivalent to Mach ~4.5) and fully reversing that velocity back towards the launch site is an expensive maneuver, costing quite a lot of propellant. For example, the nominal 25-second reentry burn performed by almost all Falcon boosters likely costs about 20 tons (~40,000 lb) of propellant. The average ~35-second single-engine landing burn used by all Falcon boosters likely costs about 10 tons (~22,000 lb) of propellant. Normally, that’s all that’s needed for a drone ship booster landing.
For RTLS landings, Falcon boosters must also perform a large ~40-second boostback burn with three Merlin 1D engines, likely costing an extra 25-35 tons (55,000-80,000 lb) of propellant. In other words, an RTLS landing generally ends up costing at least twice as much propellant as a drone ship landing. Using the general rocketry rule of thumb that every 7 kilograms of booster mass reduces payload to orbit by 1 kilogram and assuming that each reusable Falcon booster requires about 3 tons of recovery-specific hardware (mostly legs and grid fins) a drone ship landing might reduce Falcon 9’s payload to low Earth orbit (LEO) by ~5 tons (from 22 tons to 17 tons). The extra propellant needed for an RTLS landing might reduce it by another 4-5 tons to 13 tons.
Likely less than coincidentally, a Falcon 9 with drone ship booster recovery has never launched more than ~16 tons to LEO. While SpaceX hasn’t provided NASA’s ELVPerf calculator with data for orbits lower than 400 kilometers (~250 mi), it generally agrees, indicating that Falcon 9 is capable of launching about 12t with an RTLS landing and 16t with a drone ship landing.
This is all to say that landing reusable boosters at sea will likely always be substantially more efficient. The reason that SpaceX has always held that Starship’s Super Heavy boosters will avoid maritime recovery is that landing and recovering giant rocket boosters at sea is inherently difficult, risky, time-consuming, and expensive. That makes rapid reuse (on the order of multiple times per day or week) almost impossible and inevitably adds the cost of recovery, which could actually be quite significant for a rocket that SpaceX wants to eventually cost just a few million dollars per launch. However, so long as at-sea recovery costs less than a few million dollars, there’s always a chance that certain launch profiles could be drastically simplified – and end up cheaper – by the occasional at-sea booster landing.
If the alternative is a second dedicated launch to partially refuel one Starship, it’s possible that a sea landing could give Starship the performance needed to accomplish the same mission in a single launch, lowering the total cost of launch services. If – like with Falcon 9 – a sea landing could boost Starship’s payload to LEO by a third or more, the regular sea recovery of Super Heavy boosters would also necessarily cut the number of launches SpaceX needs to fill up a Starship Moon lander by a third. Given that SpaceX and NASA have been planning for Starship tanker launches to occur ~12 days apart, recovering boosters at sea becomes even more feasible.
-->In theory, the Starship launch vehicle CEO Elon Musk has recently described could be capable of launching anywhere from 150 to 200+ tons to low Earth orbit with full reuse and RTLS booster recovery. With so much performance available, it may matter less than it does with Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy if an RTLS booster landing cuts payload to orbit by a third, a half, or even more. At the end of the day, “just” 100 tons to LEO may be more than enough to satisfy any realistic near-term performance requirements.
But until Starships and Super Heavy boosters are reusable enough to routinely launch multiple times per week (let alone per day) and marginal launch costs have been slashed to single-digit millions of dollars, it’s hard to imagine SpaceX willingly leaving so much performance on the table by forgoing at-sea recovery out of principle alone.
Elon Musk said in late November that he’s “tried to warn” legacy automakers and “even offered to license Tesla Full Self-Driving, but they don’t want it,” expressing frustration with companies that refuse to adopt the company’s suite, which will eventually be autonomous.
Tesla has long established itself as the leader in self-driving technology, especially in the United States. Although there are formidable competitors, Tesla’s FSD suite is the most robust and is not limited to certain areas or roadways. It operates anywhere and everywhere.
The company’s current position as the leader in self-driving tech is being ignored by legacy automakers, a parallel to what Tesla’s position was with EV development over a decade ago, which was also ignored by competitors.
The reluctance mirrors how legacy automakers initially dismissed EVs, only to scramble in catch-up mode years later–a pattern that highlights their historical underestimation of disruptive innovations from Tesla.
Elon Musk’s Self-Driving Licensing Attempts
Musk and Tesla have tried to push Full Self-Driving to other car companies, with no true suitors, despite ongoing conversations for years. Tesla’s FSD is aiming to become more robust through comprehensive data collection and a larger fleet, something the company has tried to establish through a subscription program, free trials, and other strategies.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk sends rivals dire warning about Full Self-Driving
However, competing companies have not wanted to license FSD for a handful of speculative reasons: competitive pride, regulatory concerns, high costs, or preference for in-house development.
Déjà vu All Over Again
Tesla tried to portray the importance of EVs long ago, as in the 2010s, executives from companies like Ford and GM downplayed the importance of sustainable powertrains as niche or unprofitable.
Musk once said in a 2014 interview that rivals woke up to electric powertrains when the Model S started to disrupt things and gained some market share. Things got really serious upon the launch of the Model 3 in 2017, as a mass-market vehicle was what Tesla was missing from its lineup.
This caused legacy companies to truly wake up; they were losing market share to Tesla’s new and exciting tech that offered less maintenance, a fresh take on passenger auto, and other advantages. They were late to the party, and although they have all launched vehicles of their own, they still lag in two major areas: sales and infrastructure, leaning on Tesla for the latter.
I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy …
When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless. 🤷♂️
🦕 🦕
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 24, 2025
Musk’s past warnings have been plentiful. In 2017, he responded to critics who stated Tesla was chasing subsidies. He responded, “Few people know that we started Tesla when GM forcibly recalled all electric cars from customers in 2003 and then crushed them in a junkyard,” adding that “they would be doing nothing” on EVs without Tesla’s efforts.
Companies laughed off Tesla’s prowess with EVs, only to realize they had made a grave mistake later on.
It looks to be happening once again.
A Pattern of Underestimation
Both EVs and self-driving tech represent major paradigm shifts that legacy players view as threats to their established business models; it’s hard to change. However, these early push-aways from new tech only result in reactive strategies later on, usually resulting in what pains they are facing now.
Ford is scaling back its EV efforts, and GM’s projects are hurting. Although they both have in-house self-driving projects, they are falling well behind the progress of Tesla and even other competitors.
It is getting to a point where short-term risk will become a long-term setback, and they may have to rely on a company to pull them out of a tough situation later on, just as it did with Tesla and EV charging infrastructure.
Tesla has continued to innovate, while legacy automakers have lagged behind, and it has cost them dearly.
Implications and Future Outlook
Moving forward, Tesla’s progress will continue to accelerate, while a dismissive attitude by other companies will continue to penalize them, especially as time goes on. Falling further behind in self-driving could eventually lead to market share erosion, as autonomy could be a crucial part of vehicle marketing within the next few years.
Eventually, companies could be forced into joint partnerships as economic pressures mount. Some companies did this with EVs, but it has not resulted in very much.
Self-driving efforts are not only a strength for companies themselves, but they also contribute to other things, like affordability and safety.
Tesla has exhibited data that specifically shows its self-driving tech is safer than human drivers, most recently by a considerable margin. This would help with eliminating accidents and making roads safer.
Tesla’s new Safety Report shows Autopilot is nine times safer than humans
Additionally, competition in the market is a good thing, as it drives costs down and helps innovation continue on an upward trend.
Conclusion
The parallels are unmistakable: a decade ago, legacy automakers laughed off electric vehicles as toys for tree-huggers, crushed their own EV programs, and bet everything on the internal-combustion status quo–only to watch Tesla redefine the industry while they scrambled for billions in catch-up capital.
Today, the same companies are turning down repeated offers to license Tesla’s Full Self-Driving technology, insisting they can build better autonomy in-house, even as their own programs stumble through recalls, layoffs, and missed milestones. History is not merely rhyming; it is repeating almost note-for-note.
Elon Musk has spent twenty years warning that the auto industry’s bureaucratic inertia and short-term thinking will leave it stranded on the wrong side of technological revolutions. The question is no longer whether Tesla is ahead–it is whether the giants of Detroit, Stuttgart, and Toyota will finally listen before the next wave leaves them watching another leader pull away in the rear-view mirror.
This time, the stakes are not just market share; they are the very definition of what a car will be in the decades ahead.
News
Waymo driverless taxi drives directly into active LAPD standoff
No injuries occurred, and the passengers inside the vehicle were safely transported to their destination, as per a Waymo representative.
A video posted on social media has shown an occupied Waymo driverless taxi driving directly into the middle of an active LAPD standoff in downtown Los Angeles.
As could be seen in the short video, which was initially posted on Instagram by user Alex Choi, a Waymo driverless taxi drove directly into the middle of an active LAPD standoff in downtown Los Angeles.
The driverless taxi made an unprotected left turn despite what appeared to be a red light, briefly entering a police perimeter. At the time, officers seemed to be giving commands to a prone suspect on the ground, who looked quite surprised at the sudden presence of the driverless vehicle.
People on the sidewalk, including the person who was filming the video, could be heard chuckling at the Waymo’s strange behavior.
The Waymo reportedly cleared the area within seconds. No injuries occurred, and the passengers inside the vehicle were safely transported to their destination, as per a Waymo representative. Still, the video spread across social media, with numerous netizens poking fun at the gaffe.
-->Others also pointed out that such a gaffe would have resulted in widespread controversy had the vehicle involved been a Tesla on FSD. Tesla is constantly under scrutiny, with TSLA shorts and similar groups actively trying to put down the company’s FSD program.
A Tesla on FSD or Robotaxi accidentally driving into an active police standoff would likely cause lawsuits, nonstop media coverage, and calls for a worldwide ban, at the least.
This was one of the reasons why even minor traffic infractions committed by the company’s Robotaxis during their initial rollout in Austin received nationwide media attention. This particular Waymo incident, however, will likely not receive as much coverage.
Tesla Model Y demand in China is through the roof, and new delivery dates show the company has already sold out its allocation of the all-electric crossover for 2025.
The Model Y has been the most popular vehicle in the world in both of the last two years, outpacing incredibly popular vehicles like the Toyota RAV 4. In China, the EV market is substantially more saturated, with more competitors than in any other market.
However, Tesla has been kind to the Chinese market, as it has launched trim levels for the Model Y in the country that are not available anywhere else. Demand has been strong for the Model Y in China; it ranks in the top 5 of all EVs in the country, trailing the BYD Seagull, Wuling Hongguang Mini EV, and the Geely Galaxy Xingyuan.
The other three models ahead of the Model Y are priced substantially lower.
Tesla is still dealing with strong demand for the Model Y, and the company is now pushing delivery dates to early 2026, meaning the vehicle is sold out for the year:
NEWS: New orders for all four Tesla Model Y trims in China are now officially sold out for 2025, as the factory’s remaining production capacity for the year has been fully allocated.
Estimated delivery dates for new orders now show January-February 2026. pic.twitter.com/Dfnu7yY58N
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) December 1, 2025
Tesla experienced a 9.9 percent year-over-year rise in its China-made EV sales for November, meaning there is some serious potential for the automaker moving into next year despite increased competition.
There have been a lot of questions surrounding how Tesla would perform globally with more competition, but it seems to have a good grasp of various markets because of its vehicles, its charging infrastructure, and its Full Self-Driving (FSD) suite, which has been expanding to more countries as of late.
Tesla Model Y is still China’s best-selling premium EV through October
Tesla holds a dominating lead in the United States with EV registrations, and performs incredibly well in several European countries.
With demand in China looking strong, it will be interesting to see how the company ends the year in terms of global deliveries.
Elon Musk and Tesla try to save legacy automakers from Déjà vu
Waymo driverless taxi drives directly into active LAPD standoff
