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.
News
Tesla Semi is already winning over truck drivers
The consensus among participants is clear: the Semi feels quieter, quicker, and far less physically demanding than diesel rigs while delivering three times the power and dramatically lower operating costs.
Tesla’s all-electric Semi is proving more than just a flashy concept as it is winning converts among the professionals who know trucks best.
As fleets roll out Pilot Programs for Tesla across North America, drivers are raving about the Class 8 electric truck’s unique features, including a centered driver’s seat, massive touchscreen visibility, instant torque, and absence of gear-shifting fatigue.
These features are transforming long days behind the wheel into noticeably easier, less stressful shifts.
Tesla Semi pricing revealed after company uncovers trim levels
In a recent Wall Street Journal profile of early pilots, Dakota Shearer of IMC Logistics described backing out of a tight spot he had mistakenly entered:
“I backed right out of there, no problem. It’s like I’d never done it in the first place. That right there showed me that the technology the Tesla has makes a big difference.”
His colleague Angel Rodriguez of Hight Logistics, who switched from a 13-speed diesel, agreed:
“It’s just easier on your body. It’s less stressful because you’re not really having to engage the clutch and the stick shift.”
Veteran drivers in other tests echo the same enthusiasm. Tom Sterba, a Senior Driver at Saia, spent days testing the Semi and came away impressed with the navigation and overall feel:
“The navigation systems in these trucks are just unbelievable. That’s what I love about it.”
Sterba summed up the experience with a line that has since gone viral among trucking circles:
“I hope I retire in this truck.”
Pilot programs with ArcBest, thyssenkrupp Supply Chain Services, and Mone Transport delivered similar feedback. Drivers consistently praised the center-seat layout for eliminating blind spots, the smooth acceleration, and the overall comfort and safety.
Real-world data backed the hype, as ArcBest logged thousands of miles at efficient consumption rates, even over the challenging routes, like Donner Pass, while other fleets beat Tesla’s own efficiency targets.
The consensus among participants is clear: the Semi feels quieter, quicker, and far less physically demanding than diesel rigs while delivering three times the power and dramatically lower operating costs.
The latest chapter in the Semi’s story arrived just days ago on Jay Leno’s Garage, as Leno became the first outsider to drive the updated long-range production model, joined by Tesla Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen, and Semi Program Director Dan Priestley.
Tesla reveals various improvements to the Semi in new piece with Jay Leno
The episode revealed major upgrades heading to volume production this year: the truck sheds roughly 1,000 pounds, adopts a 48-volt architecture, switches to fully electric steering with Cybertruck-derived actuators, and uses 4680 battery cells engineered for an over-one-million-mile lifespan.
Aerodynamics improved, enabling a 500-mile range on the long-haul version, and about 325 miles on the shorter-wheelbase standard-range model. Megachargers can now deliver up to 1.2 megawatts, adding roughly 300 miles in about 30 minutes.
Leno hauled heavy loads and marveled at the turning radius and effortless power delivery. “I don’t feel like I’m pulling anything,” he said during the episode.
With hundreds of Semis already accumulating over 13.5 million fleet miles and high uptime, the future of heavy-duty trucking looks electric. Drivers are giving raving reviews, and they’re ready to climb aboard the electric trucking industry for good.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX to merge in 2027, Wall Street analyst predicts
The move, Ives argues, is no longer a distant possibility but a logical next step, fueled by deepening operational ties, shared AI ambitions, and Elon Musk’s vision for dominating the next era of technology.
Tesla and SpaceX are two of Elon Musk’s most popular and notable companies, but a new note from one Wall Street analyst claims the two companies will become one sometime next year, as 2027 could see the dawn of a new horizon.
In a bold new research note, Wedbush analyst Dan Ives has reaffirmed his long-standing prediction: Tesla and SpaceX will merge in 2027.
The move, Ives argues, is no longer a distant possibility but a logical next step, fueled by deepening operational ties, shared AI ambitions, and Elon Musk’s vision for dominating the next era of technology.
He writes:
“Still Expect Tesla and SpaceX to Merge in 2027. We continue to believe that SpaceX and Tesla will eventually merge into one company in 2027 with the groundwork already in place for both operations to become one organization. Tesla already owns a stake in SpaceX after the company’s $2 billion investment in xAI got converted to SpaceX shares following SpaceX’s acquisition of xAI earlier this year initially tying both of Musk’s ventures closer together but still represents <1% of SpaceX’s expected valuation. The recent announcement of a joint Terafab facility between SpaceX and Tesla further ties both operations together making it more feasible to merge operations given the now existing overlap being built out across the two with this the first step.”
The groundwork is already being laid. Earlier this year, SpaceX acquired xAI, converting Tesla’s $2 billion investment in the AI startup into a small equity stake, less than 1 percent, in SpaceX.
Regulatory filings cleared the transaction in March 2026, formally linking the two Musk-led companies financially for the first time. Then came the announcement of a joint TERAFAB facility in Austin, Texas: two advanced chip factories, one dedicated to Tesla’s AI needs for vehicles and Optimus robots, the other targeting space-based data centers.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
Ives calls Terafab the “first step” toward full operational integration.
SpaceX’s impending IPO, expected as soon as mid-June 2026, will turbocharge these plans. The company aims to raise approximately $75 billion at a roughly $1.75 trillion valuation, far exceeding earlier estimates.
Proceeds will fund Starship rocket flights, a NASA-contracted lunar base, expanded Starlink services across maritime, aviation, and direct-to-mobile applications, and crucially, orbital AI infrastructure
A major driver is the exploding demand for AI compute. U.S. data centers are projected to consume 470 TWh of electricity by 2030, constrained by power grids and land.
🚨 Wedbush’s Dan Ives says that Tesla and SpaceX will merge in 2027. SpaceX will IPO soon, his new note says:
“According to media reports, SpaceX could file a prospectus for an IPO imminently with the goal of raising ~$75 billion above the prior expectation of ~$50 billion…
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 27, 2026
SpaceX’s strategy, launching millions of solar-powered satellites to host data centers in orbit, bypasses Earth’s energy bottlenecks. Solar energy captured in space avoids atmospheric losses and day-night cycles, offering a scalable solution for AI training and inference.
The xAI acquisition ties directly into this vision, positioning the combined entity as a leader in extraterrestrial computing.
The merger would create a formidable conglomerate spanning electric vehicles, robotics, satellite communications, human spaceflight, and defense.
Ives highlights SpaceX’s role in the Trump administration’s “Golden Dome” missile defense shield, which would leverage Starlink satellites for tracking.
For Tesla, access to SpaceX’s launch cadence and orbital assets could accelerate autonomous driving, Robotaxi fleets, and Optimus deployment.
Musk, who has signaled his desire to own roughly 25 percent of Tesla to steer its AI future, views the combination as essential to overcoming fragmented regulatory scrutiny from the FTC and DOJ.
Challenges remain. Antitrust hurdles could delay or reshape the deal, and shareholder approvals on both sides would be required. Yet Ives remains bullish, maintaining an Outperform rating on Tesla with a $600 price target, implying substantial upside from current levels. The analyst sees the merger as the “holy grail” for consolidating Musk’s disruptive tech empire.
If realized, a 2027 Tesla-SpaceX union would not only reshape corporate boundaries but redefine humanity’s trajectory in AI and space exploration. It would mark the moment two pioneering companies become one unstoppable force, pushing the limits of what’s possible on Earth and beyond.
News
Tesla ‘Killer’ heads to the graveyard as AFEELA taps out
SHM has officially discontinued development of its highly anticipated AFEELA electric vehicles. On March 25, the joint venture between Sony and Honda announced it would halt the AFEELA 1 luxury sedan and a planned SUV model.
There have been many Tesla “Killers” over the years, all of which have either failed to dethrone the automaker from its dominance in the United States, or even make it to the market altogether.
The Sony Honda Mobility (SHM) project, known as AFEELA, is the latest to make it to the grave, as the company announced its intentions to abandon the project earlier this week, Bloomberg reported.
SHM has officially discontinued development of its highly anticipated AFEELA electric vehicles. On March 25, the joint venture between Sony and Honda announced it would halt the AFEELA 1 luxury sedan and a planned SUV model.
🚗 Tesla Killers Graveyard:
Sony-Honda AFEELA
The sleek, AI-packed luxury sedan with PlayStation integration. Officially cancelled in March 2026 after Honda scaled back its EV plans.Fisker Ocean
Stylish SUV with solar roof promises. Company filed for bankruptcy in 2024 amid… https://t.co/Om14UhISOy— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 26, 2026
The decision follows Honda’s March 12 reassessment of its electrification strategy, which scrapped several upcoming EV programs amid slowing demand, high costs, and shifting market conditions.
SHM stated that it could no longer rely on key Honda technologies and manufacturing assets, leaving “no viable path forward.” Reservation fees for early buyers in California are being fully refunded, and the joint venture’s future is now under review.
Launched with fanfare in 2022, the AFEELA was positioned as a tech-forward premium EV blending Honda’s engineering reliability with Sony’s entertainment and AI expertise.
Prototypes featured advanced autonomous driving systems, immersive in-cabin displays, and even PlayStation integration, earning it early media labels as a potential “Tesla Killer.”
Priced around $90,000, the sedan was slated for limited production at Honda’s Ohio plant with deliveries targeted for late 2026. Industry watchers saw it as a serious challenger to Tesla’s dominance in software, connectivity, and premium appeal.
Yet, like many ambitious EV projects, it fell victim to broader industry headwinds: softening consumer demand, persistent high interest rates, and intense competition from established players.
The AFEELA joins a long list of vehicles once hyped as “Tesla Killers” that failed to deliver. In the late 2010s, Fisker’s second act, the Ocean SUV, promised stylish design and solid-state battery tech but collapsed into bankruptcy in 2024 after production delays, quality issues, and financial shortfalls.
Faraday Future poured billions into the FF 91 luxury sedan, touting it as a hyper-tech rival with unmatched performance and features; the company delivered fewer than 100 vehicles before fading into obscurity.
Lordstown Motors’ Endurance electric pickup generated massive pre-order buzz and Wall Street excitement but imploded after exaggerated range claims, a factory sale, and eventual bankruptcy.
Even Lucid Motors’ Air sedan, frequently called a Tesla slayer for its superior range and luxury, has struggled with sluggish sales and missed growth targets despite strong reviews.
Rivian’s R1T and R1S trucks enjoyed similar early acclaim and a blockbuster IPO, yet production ramp-up challenges and profitability woes have prevented it from dethroning Tesla.
The AFEELA’s quiet demise underscores a harsh reality in the EV sector. While Tesla’s first-mover advantage in software, charging infrastructure, and brand loyalty remains formidable, legacy automakers and tech newcomers alike continue to underestimate the complexities of scaling affordable, desirable electric vehicles.
As market realities force tough choices, the graveyard of “Tesla Killers” grows longer, another reminder that innovation alone is rarely enough to topple an established leader.
Tesla Semi is already winning over truck drivers
Tesla and SpaceX to merge in 2027, Wall Street analyst predicts
Tesla lands on Fortune’s 2026 Most Innovative Companies and the Cybercab is why
Elon Musk says Tesla is developing a new vehicle: ‘Way cooler than a minivan’
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
