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.
Cybertruck
Tesla launches new Cybertruck trim with more features than ever for a low price
This is a considerable upgrade to the Cybertruck Rear-Wheel-Drive that Tesla offered last year. It was discontinued after just a few months, but we still have yet to see anyone share pictures of it online.
Tesla has officially launched a new trim of its all-electric Cybertruck, which has more features than previous offerings at this price point, which is an incredibly good value.
Tesla is now offering the Cybertruck All-Wheel-Drive, and starting at $59,990, it appears to be a lot of truck for the money.
Along with the sub-$60,000 starting price, Tesla gives the Cybertruck AWD a 325-mile range rating, a powered tonneau cover that houses three bed outlets. It also has Powershare capability, coil springs with adaptive damping for a refined suspension feel, Steer-by-wire and four-wheel-steering, a 6′ x 4′ composite bed, a towing capacity of 7,500 pounds, and a powered frunk.
This is a considerable upgrade to the Cybertruck Rear-Wheel-Drive that Tesla offered last year. It was discontinued after just a few months, but we still have yet to see anyone share pictures of it online.
Tesla has launched a new Cybertruck trim: the Cybertruck AWD
– Starts at $59,990
– Dual Motor AWD w/ est. 325 mi of range
– Powered tonneau cover
– Bed outlets (2x 120V + 1x 240V) & Powershare capability
– Coil springs w/ adaptive damping
– Heated first-row seats w/ textile… pic.twitter.com/erZBtlq3Bs— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 20, 2026
That truck did not have a power tonneau, did not have adaptive suspension, leather seats, or nearly any of the premium features in the upper-level trims. It was not a great deal, either. It was only a $10,000 discount from the next Cybertruck trim, which meant losing a motor and a lot of premium features for not that much of a savings.
This is a much better offering from Tesla and could help the company see a bit of a resurgence from a sales perspective. Although the Cybertruck is a popular vehicle from a fan perspective, it is not a great seller, and Tesla knows it.
Tesla Cybertruck undergoes interior mod that many owners wanted
Despite it being a crowd favorite, it was simply priced out of people’s budgets, so this All-Wheel-Drive configuration should be easier to handle financially for many of those who wanted the Cybertruck but not the price tag that came with it.
It is not a far cry from what Tesla priced back in 2019, as it unveiled three trim levels back in November, nearly seven years ago: a Single Motor for $39,990, a Dual Motor for $49,990, and a Tri-Motor for $69,990.
This new AWD trim is just $10,000 off from that price tag, and accounting for inflation, Tesla is pretty close.
Deliveries are expected to begin in June 2026.
News
Tesla dominates JD Power EV Satisfaction ranking, grabbing top two spots
The Model 3 was the highest ranking EV considered, with a score of 804, followed by the Model Y at 797, the BMW i4 at 795, and the BMW iX at 794.
Tesla dominated JD Power’s EV Owner Satisfaction ranking for 2026, grabbing the top two spots in the survey with the Model 3 and Model Y.
The two Tesla models grabbed the first and second spots, respectively, with scores of 804 and 797 out of 1,000 possible points.
Brent Gruber, Executive Director of JD Power’s EV practice, said:
“EV market share has declined sharply following the discontinuation of the federal tax credit program in September 2025, but that dip belies steadily growing customer satisfaction among owners of new EVs. Improvements in battery technology, charging infrastructure, and overall vehicle performance have driven customer satisfaction to its highest level ever. What’s more, the vast majority of current EV owners say they will consider purchasing another EV for their next vehicle, regardless of whether they benefited from the now-expired federal tax credit.”
JD Power’s study showed three key findings: Public charging satisfaction was higher than ever, premium BEVs saw more pronounced quality improvements, and BEVs held their satisfaction ratings compared to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs).
Tesla Grabs Top 2 Spots
Despite what some publications might try to make you believe, Tesla is still the cream of the crop when it comes to EV ownership, and real-world owners surveyed by JD Power will prove that to you.
The Model 3 was the highest ranking EV considered, with a score of 804, followed by the Model Y at 797, the BMW i4 at 795, and the BMW iX at 794. The segment average for “Premium Battery Electric Vehicles” was 786. The Cadillac OPTIQ (762), Rivian R1S (758), Lucid Air (740), Rivian R1T (739), and Audi Q6 e-Tron (690) all finished below that threshold.
Meanwhile, a separate category for “Mass Market Battery Electric Vehicles” had the Ford Mustang Mach-E as the EV with the highest rating at 760. The segment average for this class was 727.
🚨 Tesla topped J.D. Power’s new EV Owner Satisfaction Study for 2026, with the Model 3 (804) and Model Y (797) being the top-rated vehicles, beating out the BMW i4 (795) and iX (794)
Additionally, Tesla Superchargers helped public charging satisfaction rise to new highs:
“The… pic.twitter.com/4WIxoDxHig
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 19, 2026
Tesla Supercharging Improves Public Charging Satisfaction
JD Power said the availability of public charging is “by far the most improved index factor,” and that the consistent growth of publicly available charging has helped push many consumer sentiments in a positive direction.
Most of this is due to the Tesla Supercharger Network and its expansion. However, Tesla owners are also becoming more satisfied with the infrastructure after expanding access to other EV brands, the study said.
Elon Musk
Musk company boycott proposal at City Council meeting gets weird and ironic
The City of Davis in California held a weekly city council meeting on Tuesday, where it voted on a proposal to ban Musk-operated companies. It got weird and ironic.
A city council meeting in California that proposed banning the entry of new contracts with companies controlled by Elon Musk got weird and ironic on Tuesday night after councilmembers were forced to admit some of the entities would benefit the community.
The City of Davis in California held a weekly city council meeting on Tuesday, where it voted on a proposal called “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies.”
The proposal claimed that Musk ” has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”
We reported on it on Tuesday before the meeting:
California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX
However, the meeting is now published online, and it truly got strange.
While it was supported by various members of the community, you could truly tell who was completely misinformed about the influence of Musk’s companies, their current status from an economic and competitive standpoint, and how much some of Musk’s companies’ projects benefit the community.
City Council Member Admits Starlink is Helpful
One City Council member was forced to admit that Starlink, the satellite internet project established by Musk’s SpaceX, was beneficial to the community because the emergency response system utilized it for EMS, Fire, and Police communications in the event of a power outage.
After public comments were heard, councilmembers amended some of the language in the proposal to not include Starlink because of its benefits to public safety.
One community member even said, “There should be exceptions to the rule.”
🚨 After the City of Davis, California, held its City Council meeting on Tuesday and voted on a resolution called “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” it was forced to admit that it needs… pic.twitter.com/hQiCIX3yll
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 19, 2026
Community Members Report Out of Touch Mainstream Media Narratives
Many community members very obviously read big bold headlines about how horribly Tesla is performing in terms of electric vehicles. Many pointed to “labor intimidation” tactics being used at the company’s Fremont Factory, racial discrimination lawsuits, and Musk’s political involvement as clear-cut reasons why Davis should not consider his companies for future contracts.
However, it was interesting to hear some of them speak, very obviously out of touch with reality.
Musk has encouraged unions to propose organizing at the Fremont Factory, stating that many employees would not be on board because they are already treated very well. In 2022, he invited Union leaders to come to Fremont “at their convenience.”
The UAW never took the opportunity.
Some have argued that Tesla prevented pro-union clothing at Fremont, which it did for safety reasons. An appeals court sided with Tesla, stating that the company had a right to enforce work uniforms to ensure employee safety.
Another community member said that Tesla was losing market share in the U.S. due to growing competition from legacy automakers.
“Plus, these existing auto companies have learned a lot from what Tesla has done,” she said. Interestingly, Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis have all pulled back from their EV ambitions significantly. All three took billions in financial hits.
One Resident Crosses a Line
One resident’s time at the podium included this:
Another member of the community did this…a member of the City Council admonished him and it came to a verbal spat https://t.co/zWvKCiCkie pic.twitter.com/1L334qq9av
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 19, 2026
He was admonished by City Council member Bapu Vaitla, who said his actions were offensive. The two sparred verbally for a few seconds before their argument ended.
City Council Vote Result
Ultimately, the City of Davis chose to pass the motion, but they also amended it to exclude Starlink because of its emergency system benefits.
Tesla launches new Cybertruck trim with more features than ever for a low price
Tesla dominates JD Power EV Satisfaction ranking, grabbing top two spots
