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.
Ferrari unveiled its Luce EV over the weekend, and so far, its reception has been an absolute disaster, gathering negative reactions from a wide variety of people, including former executives.
The stock even took a hit on its first day of trading following the unveiling, dropping over 7 percent at one point.
Ferrari moving to EVs from its traditional V12s and mid-engine sports cars is a massive move. It was designed by Sir Jony Ive and Marc Newsom’s LoveFrom studio, which is known for design work for tech giant Apple. “Luce” means “light” in Italian, so Ferrari drew inspiration for its name from its sleek design, characterized by a smooth, sculpted body with rounded edges.
But its reception has been far from what Ferrari expected. The overall design has drawn some harsh criticism since its reveal, and it is simply stunning that such a storied company, with a rich history of beautiful, powerful cars has revealed a design that many are not a fan of.
Ferrari unveiled its all-electric Luce over the weekend, and it has truly gotten some attention…not for the right reasons.
From an Italian legend that has built some beautiful cars in its history, this almost feels like a ploy to inevitably cancel its electric program. pic.twitter.com/rczSSb3pJx
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 26, 2026
Responses to the design were widely negative, with some saying, “Enzo is rolling in his grave,” and “This looks like a Nissan LEAF with a bad body kit.”
Former Ferrari Chairman Luca di Montezemolo said:
“If I said what I really think, I’d harm Ferrari. We’re risking the destruction of a myth, I’m very sorry about that. I hope they at least remove the Prancing Horse from that car.”
🚨 Luca di Montezemolo former Ferrari chairman reacts to the new electric Ferrari Luce:
“I’ve seen the project has already been delayed more than two years. I don’t like commenting from the stands—when I was in the game, it annoyed me when people did that. I think for now the… https://t.co/TzIDxFzHso
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 26, 2026
Ferrari has scaled back EV commitments in the past, primarily in response to weaker-than-expected demand for its electric powertrains.
Priced at roughly $640,000 in the U.S., it is tough to see how this car will ever truly live up to the massive expectations many had for it. It almost feels like, to a certain extent, Ferrari is looking for a way to get out of building EVs.
Tesla unveiled a juicy new detail on the Roadster, its long-delayed supercar project, and additionally hinted at a new unveiling timeline, as it appears yet another month will pass without seeing the capabilities of the vehicle.
Vice President of Vehicle Engineering at Tesla, Lars Moravy, revealed on the Ride the Lightning podcast that the Roadster will be built at Gigafactory Texas, adding that “you’ll start to see a lot of things unfold in the next months.”
While we get a good detail on the plant of manufacture, we also get another letdown, as it appears the unveiling event will not take place in May, as CEO Elon Musk hinted during the Earnings Call.
Franz von Holzhausen revealed in the Ride the Lightning podcast that the Tesla Roadster will be built at Gigafactory Texas https://t.co/t9Bu9k824Q pic.twitter.com/TT01IWJaFD
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 24, 2026
The Roadster was first unveiled back in 2017, alongside the Semi, which entered production earlier this year. It was Tesla’s attempt at a true supercar; it would be rare, expensive, and lightning quick, among other incredible capabilities, like potentially hovering for a short period thanks to a collaboration project with SpaceX.
However, the vehicle was set to be delivered in 2020. Parts and supply chain issues due to the COVID-19 pandemic started these delays, and since then, Tesla, and specifically Musk, have wanted to push the capabilities of the Roadster to somewhere the human mind may not be able to currently comprehend.
Both Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen and Moravy have said many things about the Roadster over the past few years, hinting that the car truly could be worth the wait. However, the continuous delays we’ve seen have undoubtedly been discouraging.
With that being said, it’s not like Tesla has been doing nothing. Instead, the company has been focusing on revamping current models, phasing out others, and working on developing the cars of the future, specifically, the Cybercab, which entered production at Giga Texas in April.
Despite the Roadster’s delays, there is still a ton of anticipation for the vehicle to be released. It will have a steering wheel, as Musk said it will be “the best of the last of the human-driven cars.”
NASA has filed a procurement notice announcing its intent to add six post-certification missions to SpaceX’s existing Commercial Crew Transportation Capability contract. The agency said it would order up to three of those missions immediately upon adding them to the contract, with the remaining three available as needed through the end of the International Space Station’s planned operations in 2030.
The reason for the expansion is straightforward. NASA cited recently shortened ISS mission durations, technical issues and schedule delays encountered by Boeing, the allocation of missions between Boeing and SpaceX, and the ongoing technical challenges of maintaining a reliable crew transportation capability as the driving factors behind the decision. Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner has still not been certified for crewed flights, and a cargo-only Starliner mission was not included on NASA’s most recent mission manifest. With Boeing effectively sidelined for the foreseeable future, SpaceX is the only American company capable of rotating crews to the station.
The history behind this contract tells the fuller story of how SpaceX got here. NASA originally awarded SpaceX its Commercial Crew contract in 2014 for $2.6 billion. In 2022 NASA modified the contract to add five missions covering Crew-10 through Crew-14, worth $1.436 billion, bringing the total contract value at that point to $4.9 billion. The recent May 18 filing by NASA extends that runway further, with Crew-12 currently docked at the station and Crew-13 assigned and targeting a mid-September 2026 launch.
According to a report by SpaceNews, NASA stated in its filing: “It is necessary to award additional PCMs to SpaceX given the recently shortened ISS mission durations, technical issues and schedule delays encountered by Boeing, the allocation of missions between Boeing and SpaceX, NASA’s projections for when an alternative crew transportation system may become available, and the ongoing technical challenges of maintaining a reliable capability for crewed flights to ISS.”
No dollar value for the new six missions has been publicly confirmed yet, but based on the 2022 precedent of roughly $287 million per mission, the new block could represent close to $1.7 billion in additional contract value. With SpaceX simultaneously preparing Starship as NASA’s Artemis lunar lander, filing its S-1 for a June IPO, and now absorbing more ISS crew rotation work, the company’s role as the primary contractor for American human spaceflight is no longer a matter of circumstance. It is NASA policy.
Ferrari unveils its Luce EV, and its reception has been a disaster
Tesla unveils juicy new detail on the Roadster and hints at new unveil timeline
