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 Robotaxi appears to be heading to a new U.S. city
Things are expanding for Robotaxi, but the big sign that it is really moving along greatly will be with the expansion to a new city. Tesla has not gone outside of Austin or the Bay Area as of yet, and launching in a new city will be a great indicator of progress.
Tesla Robotaxi appears to be heading to a new U.S. city, and although the company has revealed plans to launch in six new metros this year, it has yet to establish a new location outside of Austin and the Bay Area of California, where it has operated since last Summer.
A lot full of Model Y vehicles was spotted in Henderson, a town just north of Las Vegas, but there seems to be more than just this hint indicating that the Sin City will be the next location to offer potentially driverless rides in a Tesla using its Full Self-Driving suite.
These Model Ys are not your typical vehicles, as they are fitted with hardware that is only on Robotaxis: a rear camera washer is the dead giveaway:
🚨 These rear camera washers are only present on Robotaxi vehicles
Maybe Las Vegas is the next city to get the Robotaxi suite 😀 https://t.co/my3da5L4zc pic.twitter.com/jYFQuX1j2E
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 17, 2026
The photos and video of the lot were taken by TheZacher on X, who spotted the Model Y fleet in the Henderson parking lot.
The rear camera washer is the main piece of evidence here that indicates Tesla could be looking to expand Robotaxi to Las Vegas, a major ride-hailing hot spot, as it is one of the biggest tourist attractions in the United States. Ride-sharing is a major industry in Vegas, especially for those who are staying off the Strip.
Tesla has also been extremely transparent that Vegas is on its radar for the Robotaxi fleet, as it revealed last year that it was one of five new U.S. cities that it planned to launch the ride-hailing service in this year.
Tesla confirms Robotaxi is heading to five new cities in the U.S.
The others were Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, and Miami.
Things are expanding for Robotaxi, but the big sign that it is really moving along greatly will be with the expansion to a new city. Tesla has not gone outside of Austin or the Bay Area as of yet, and launching in a new city will be a great indicator of progress.
It will also give Tesla a new benchmark against rival company Waymo, which has operated in Las Vegas for some time.
News
Tesla Roadster gets new unveiling date once again
Musk announced last year that the unveiling, which initially happened back in 2018, would take place on April Fool’s Day. Initial deliveries at the 2018 event were slotted for 2020, but delays in the project, as well as prioritization of other things, continued to push the Roadster back.
The Tesla Roadster is perhaps the most anticipated vehicle in the company’s history, but those who have been waiting anxiously for it will have to push their timelines back once again.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has revealed that the company is once again pushing back the unveiling event that was originally planned for April 1. It will now take place “probably in late April.”
True.
New Roadster unveil probably in late April. https://t.co/NShZxpK5cI
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 17, 2026
Musk announced last year that the unveiling, which initially happened back in 2018, would take place on April Fool’s Day. Initial deliveries at the 2018 event were slotted for 2020, but delays in the project, as well as prioritization of other things, continued to push the Roadster back.
There has been so much hype about the Roadster that people are right to be excited about the prospect of its existence.
Musk’s most recent rumblings about the vehicle came last Fall, when he appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, where he once again hinted the car would be able to hover for a short period.
He said:
“Whether it’s good or bad, it will be unforgettable. My friend Peter Thiel once reflected that the future was supposed to have flying cars, but we don’t have flying cars. I think if Peter wants a flying car, he should be able to buy one…I think it has a shot at being the most memorable product unveiling ever. [It will be unveiled] hopefully before the end of the year. You know, we need to make sure that it works. This is some crazy technology in this car. Let’s just put it this way: if you took all the James Bond cars and combined them, it’s crazier than that.”
Additionally, he said the vehicle would not be something that would prioritize safety. Musk said that “If safety is your number one goal, do not buy the Roadster.” It’s made for speed and excitement, not for grocery-getting.
Elon Musk just said some crazy stuff about the Tesla Roadster
As the April 1 unveiling event that was originally planned was nearing without any communication to fans, media, or anyone who would potentially be in attendance, it seemed to be pretty obvious that Tesla was not ready to pull the trigger on the event quite yet.
There could be some last-minute things to finalize, or it could be something else. One thing is for certain, though: we are not super surprised that things were moved back.
Tesla has definitely been putting some things in motion for the Roadster. A few months back, Tesla started to ramp up hiring for the Roadster, and earlier in March, it submitted a patent application for a new seat design.
Elon Musk
Tesla named by U.S. Gov. in $4.3B battery deal for American-made cells
What began as an open secret in the energy industry was confirmed by the U.S. Department of the Interior on Monday: Tesla is the buyer behind LG Energy Solution’s blockbuster $4.3 billion battery supply agreement.
What began as an open secret in the energy industry is becoming more real after the U.S. Department of the Interior named Tesla as the stakeholder in the LG Energy Solution’s blockbuster $4.3 billion battery supply agreement.
Tesla and LG Energy Solution are expanding their partnership to build a LFP prismatic battery cell manufacturing facility in Lansing, Michigan, launching production in 2027. The announcement, made as part of the Indo-Pacific Energy Security Summit results, ends months of speculation.
“American-made cells will power Tesla’s Megapack 3 energy storage systems produced in Houston, creating a robust domestic battery supply chain.”, notes a press release on the U.S. Department of the Interior website.
Tesla has long utilized China’s Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. (CATL), the world’s largest LFP battery maker, as one of its primary suppliers. That relationship made financial sense for years, considering that Chinese LFP cells were cheap, abundant, and reliable. But with escalated tariffs on Chinese imports and an increasingly growing Tesla Energy business that’s particularly reliant on LFP cells for products including its Megapack battery storage units designed for utilities and large-scale commercial projects.
The announcement of a deepened partnership between LG Energy Solution and Tesla has strategic logic for both parties. For Tesla, it secures a tariff-compliant, domestically produced battery supply for its fast-growing energy division. LGES, now producing LFP batteries in Michigan, becomes the only major supplier currently scaling U.S. production, outpacing rivals like Samsung SDI and SK On. LG Energy Solution’s Lansing plant, formerly known as Ultium Cells 3, was previously operated as a joint venture with General Motors. LGES acquired GM’s stake in May 2025 and now fully owns the site, with a production capacity of 50 GWh per year. LG Energy said the contract includes options to extend the supply period by up to seven years and boost volumes based on further consultations.
For the broader industry, the ripple effects are significant. This deal signals that domestic battery manufacturing can be financially viable and not just aspirational. Utilities, energy developers, and rival automakers will take note as American-made LFP supply becomes a competitive reality rather than a distant promise.
For consumers, the benefits will take time but are real. A more resilient, U.S.-based supply chain means fewer price shocks from trade disputes, more stable Megapack availability for the grid storage projects that reduce electricity costs, and long-term downward pressure on energy storage prices as domestic production scales.
Deliveries are set to begin in 2027 and run through mid-2030, and as grid storage demand accelerates, reliable, US-made battery supply is no longer a future ambition. It is becoming a core requirement of the country’s energy strategy.
Tesla Robotaxi appears to be heading to a new U.S. city
Tesla Roadster gets new unveiling date once again
