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 gets strange-but-understandable comparison from Jay Leno
In a recent interview with MotorTrend, legendary comedian and automotive enthusiast Jay Leno shared his impressions after driving Tesla’s long-range Semi truck, offering one of the most vivid descriptions to date:
The Tesla Semi recently received a strange-but-understandable comparison from automotive enthusiast and former long-time late-night television show host Jay Leno.
In a recent interview with MotorTrend, legendary comedian and automotive enthusiast Jay Leno shared his impressions after driving Tesla’s long-range Semi truck, offering one of the most vivid descriptions to date:
“It’s like driving an office building.”
The comparison may seem quirky—office buildings evoke images of immobility rather than motion—but it aptly conveys the experience of commanding a massive 23,000-pound Class 8 electric truck that delivers sports-car acceleration.
Lenotested the production-spec Long Range model, which is rated for up to 500 miles of range. He was visibly impressed by its performance, noting how the enormous vehicle moves with surprising urgency.
“It’s as fast as a Tesla, but it’s like driving an office building,” he remarked. “It’s this huge thing that moves like right now. You go 500 miles. You get 60% charge in 30 minutes. You’re saving on fuel costs. It seems quite good.”
Jay Leno in new interview on what it’s like to drive the @Tesla Semi:
“I was quite impressed with that. It’s a fast as a Tesla, but it’s like driving an office building. It’s this huge thing that moves like right now. You go 500 miles. You get 60% charge in 30 mins. You’re… pic.twitter.com/YU7tk6a6pV
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 8, 2026
The reaction highlights the cognitive dissonance at the core of the Tesla Semi. Traditional diesel semi-trucks are slow, noisy, and expensive to run. The Semi rewrites the rules with instant torque from its tri-motor electric powertrain, producing up to 800 kW.
Despite its size, the truck feels agile thanks to full electric steering assist, upgraded actuators borrowed from the Cybertruck, and a 48-volt electrical architecture that improves responsiveness and efficiency.
Tesla reports real-world energy consumption below 1.7 kWh per mile for the Long Range version. Megacharger stations can deliver a 60% charge in roughly 30 minutes, making the truck suitable for long-haul operations.
Additional features include an electric Power Take-Off (ePTO) capable of 25 kW for trailer refrigeration or other equipment, and a driver-focused cab with a central seating position for optimal visibility and a quiet, high-tech interior.
Fleet operators stand to benefit significantly from the economics. Diesel trucks often cost nearly one dollar per mile when including fuel, maintenance, and downtime.
Tesla projects the Semi can reduce operating costs to as low as 15 cents per mile through cheaper electricity, regenerative braking that minimizes brake wear, and reduced service requirements. While early deployments, like Pepsi’s, focused on shorter routes, the 500-mile variant targets cross-country applications.
Obstacles remain. A fully loaded tractor-trailer can reach 80,000 pounds, which reduces real-world range compared to the unloaded test conditions. Building out a nationwide Megacharger network will be essential for broader adoption. The Semi also carries a higher upfront price than conventional diesels, though total cost of ownership and available incentives frequently tip the scales in its favor over time.
Tesla Semi hauls fresh Cybercab batch as Robotaxi era takes hold
Leno’s “office building” description resonates because it captures the unexpected thrill of piloting something so large yet so capable. As the trucking industry faces pressure to cut emissions and control rising fuel expenses, the Semi offers a compelling alternative that excels in performance, comfort, and efficiency.
Coming from a man who has driven everything from vintage classics to modern hypercars, Leno’s genuine enthusiasm adds weight to the verdict.
The Tesla Semi is emerging as more than an experimental EV—it represents a practical vision for the future of heavy-duty transport where massive rigs accelerate instantly, and the numbers finally make sense. If fleet results continue to validate the claims, the era of diesel dominance could be drawing to a close.
News
Tesla expands its mass-market color palette in the U.S.
Delivering a fresh splash of color to its lineup, Tesla is giving U.S. buyers two stunning new blue options that are already turning heads.
Tesla has expanded the color palette it offers on its mass market vehicles in the United States, giving buyers of the Model 3 and Model Y a few additional options than before.
Delivering a fresh splash of color to its lineup, Tesla is giving U.S. buyers two stunning new blue options that are already turning heads. Starting on May 8, the automaker updated its North American configurator to introduce Marine Blue on Model Y Premium trims and Frost Blue exclusively on the Model 3 Performance.
Tesla Model Y and Model 3 Premium get Marine Blue for $1000 in the U.S.!
What do you think? pic.twitter.com/3FqMXcnmru
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 8, 2026
The move replaces the long-running Deep Blue Metallic, a staple for over eight years, and brings previously exclusive shades stateside.
Marine Blue, a deep, rich oceanic hue formerly limited to Europe and Asia-Pacific markets, is now available on Model 3 and Model Y RWD and Long Range AWD Premium variants. Priced at a $1,000 upgrade—standard for Tesla’s premium paints—it delivers a sophisticated, metallic finish that shifts beautifully under light.
Tesla Model Y and Model 3 Premium get Marine Blue for $1000 in the U.S.!
What do you think? pic.twitter.com/3FqMXcnmru
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 8, 2026
Tesla North America highlighted the change directly in an official post, confirming Marine Blue as the new flagship blue for non-Performance models.
Frost Blue, on the other hand, is the real crowd-pleaser for enthusiasts. Previously reserved for the flagship Model S and Model X, this lighter, icy metallic shade is now offered at no extra cost on Model 3 Performance and Model Y Performance trims.
Frost Blue now available on Tesla Model 3 Performance 😤 pic.twitter.com/rLOEh4pTkp
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 8, 2026
Performance buyers effectively get a premium color included in the base price, a smart perk that Tesla has extended to higher-end variants across the board. Early in-person sightings and configurator renders show Frost Blue’s cool, modern vibe popping against the cars’ sleek lines, especially with black wheels and red brake calipers.
The timing couldn’t be better. With Tesla pushing refreshed Model 3 and Model Y refreshes amid growing competition, these updates add visual excitement without major redesigns.
Deep Blue Metallic orders are being transitioned to the new shades, according to customer reports and Tesla communications. In the U.S., Puerto Rico, and Mexico, the options are live now; Canada sees limited Frost Blue availability on the Model 3 Performance.
Tesla’s color strategy continues to evolve, borrowing from higher-end models to refresh mass-market EVs. Now that we bid farewell to the Model S and Model X, some of their colors might be available on the more widely available Model 3 and Model Y.
Elon Musk
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
A California regulatory filing just confirmed the exact battery size inside each Tesla Semi variant.
A regulatory filing published by the California Air Resources Board in April 2026 has put official numbers on what Tesla Semi owners and fleet buyers have long wanted confirmed: the exact battery capacities of both the Long Range and Standard Range Semi truck variants. CARB is California’s independent air quality regulator, and it certifies zero-emission powertrains before they can be sold or operated in the state. When a manufacturer submits a vehicle for certification, the resulting executive order becomes a public document, making it one of the most reliable sources for confirmed production specs on any EV.
The document lists two certified powertrain configurations. The Long Range Semi carries a usable battery capacity of 822 kWh, while the Standard Range version comes in at 548 kWh. Both use lithium-ion NCMA chemistry and share the same peak and steady-state motor output ratings of 800 kW and 525 kW respectively. Cross-referencing Tesla’s published efficiency figure of approximately 1.7 kWh per mile under full load, the 822 kWh pack supports roughly 480 miles of real-world range, which aligns closely with Tesla’s advertised 500-mile figure for the Long Range trim. The 548 kWh Standard Range pack works out to approximately 320 miles, again consistent with Tesla’s stated 325-mile target.
Here is a direct comparison of the two versions based on the CARB filing and published specs:
| Tesla Semi Spec | Long Range | Standard Range |
| Battery Capacity | 822 kWh | 548 kWh |
| Battery Chemistry | NCMA Li-Ion | NCMA Li-Ion |
| Peak Motor Power | 800 kW | 525 kW |
| Estimated Range | ~500 miles | ~325 miles |
| Efficiency | ~1.7 kWh/mile | ~1.7 kWh/mile |
| Est. Price | ~$290,000 | ~$260,000 |
| GVW Rating | 82,000 lbs | 82,000 lbs |
The timing of this certification is not incidental. On April 29, 2026, Semi Programme Director Dan Priestley confirmed on X that high-volume production is now ramping at Tesla’s dedicated 1.7-million-square-foot facility in Sparks, Nevada. A key advantage of the Nevada location is vertical integration: the 4680 battery cells powering the Semi are manufactured in the same complex, eliminating the supply chain bottleneck that had delayed the program for years.
Tesla’s long-term goal is to reach a production capacity of 50,000 trucks annually at the Nevada factory, which would represent roughly 20 percent of the entire North American Class 8 market. With CARB certification now in hand and the production line running, the regulatory and manufacturing groundwork for that target is in place.
Tesla Semi gets strange-but-understandable comparison from Jay Leno
Tesla expands its mass-market color palette in the U.S.
