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.
Investor's Corner
Tesla stock gets hit with shock move from Wall Street analysts
Despite Tesla not being an automotive company exclusively, the Wall Street firms and analysts covering its shares are widely dialed in on its performance regarding quarterly deliveries. While it holds some importance, Tesla, from an internal perspective, is more focused on end-to-end AI, Robotaxi, self-driving, and its Optimus robot.
Tesla price targets (NASDAQ: TSLA) have received several cuts over the past few days as Wall Street firms are adjusting their forecast for the company’s stock following a miss in quarterly delivery figures for the first quarter.
Despite Tesla not being an automotive company exclusively, the Wall Street firms and analysts covering its shares are widely dialed in on its performance regarding quarterly deliveries. While it holds some importance, Tesla, from an internal perspective, is more focused on end-to-end AI, Robotaxi, self-driving, and its Optimus robot.
In a notable shift underscoring mounting caution on Wall Street, three prominent investment banks slashed their price targets on Tesla Inc. shares over the past two weeks following the electric-vehicle giant’s disappointing first-quarter 2026 delivery numbers. The revisions highlight softening EV sales figures and, according to some, execution challenges.
Tesla delivered 358,023 vehicles in the January-to-March period, a 14 percent sequential decline and a miss versus consensus forecasts of roughly 365,000 to 370,000 units.
Production hit 408,000 vehicles, yet the delivery shortfall, paired with limited updates on autonomous-driving progress and new-model timelines, rattled investors. Shares fell about 8.7 percent since April 1.
Wall Street analysts are now adjusting their forecasts accordingly, as several firms have made adjustments to price targets.
Goldman Sachs
Goldman Sachs cut its target from $405 to $375 while maintaining a Hold rating. Analyst Mark Delaney pointed to soft EV sales trends and margin pressures.
Truist Financial followed on April 2, lowering its target from $438 to $400 (Hold unchanged), with analyst William Stein citing misses in both auto deliveries and energy-storage deployments, plus a lack of fresh details on AI initiatives and upcoming vehicles.
It is a strange drop if using AI initiatives and upcoming vehicles as a justification is the primary focus here. Tesla has one of the most optimistic outlooks in terms of AI, and CEO Elon Musk recently hinted that the company is developing something for the U.S. market that will be good for families.
Baird
Baird’s Ben Kallo made a very modest trim, reducing its target from $548 to $538, keeping and maintaining the ‘Outperform’ rating it holds on shares. Kallo said the price target adjustment was a prudent recalibration tied to near-term risks.
Truist
Truist analyst William Stein pointed to deliveries and energy storage missing expectations, and cut his price target to $400 from $438. He maintained the ‘Hold’ rating the firm held on the stock previously.
JPMorgan
Adding to the bearish tone on Monday, April 6, JPMorgan’s Ryan Brinkman reiterated an Underweight (Sell) rating and $145 price target, implying roughly 60 percent downside from recent levels.
Brinkman highlighted a “record surge in unsold vehicles” that adds to free-cash-flow woes, with inventory swelling to an estimated 164,000 units.
Tesla’s comfort level taking risks makes the stock a ‘must own,’ firm says
He lowered his Q1 2026 EPS estimate to $0.30 from $0.43 and full-year 2026 EPS to $1.80 from $2.00, both below consensus. Brinkman noted that expectations for Tesla’s performance have “collapsed” across financial and operating metrics through the end of the decade, yet the stock has risen 50 percent, and average price targets have increased 32 percent.
This disconnect, he argued, prices in an unrealistic sharp pivot to stronger results beyond the decade, while near-term realities remain materially weaker.
He advised investors to approach TSLA shares with a “high degree of caution,” citing elevated execution risk, competition, and valuation concerns in lower-price, higher-volume segments.
The revisions have pulled the overall consensus lower. Aggregators show the average 12-month price target now ranging from approximately $394 to $416 across roughly 32 analysts, with a prevailing Hold rating and a mixed split of Buy, Hold, and Sell recommendations.
Brinkman’s $145 target stands as a notable outlier on the bearish side.
Not Everyone Has Turned Bearish on Tesla Shares
Not all firms turned more pessimistic. Wedbush Securities held its bullish $600 target, stressing that AI and full self-driving technology represent the core value drivers, with current delivery softness viewed as temporary.
These moves reflect a broader Wall Street recalibration: near-term EV demand faces pressure from high interest rates, intensifying competition, especially from lower-cost Chinese rivals, and slower adoption.
At the same time, many analysts continue to see Tesla’s technology leadership in software-defined vehicles, autonomy, robotaxis, and energy storage as pathways to outsized long-term gains once macro conditions ease and new models launch.
With Tesla’s first-quarter earnings report due later this month, upcoming details on cost discipline, Cybertruck ramp-up, and AI roadmaps will likely shape whether these target adjustments prove prescient or overly cautious. Investors remain divided between immediate delivery realities and the company’s ambitious vision.
Tesla shares are trading at $348.82 at the time of publishing.
Elon Musk
Tesla Full Self-Driving feature probe closed by NHTSA
Actually Smart Summon allows owners to move their parked Tesla via a smartphone app remotely, directing the vehicle short distances in parking lots or private property while the driver supervises from the phone.
A probe into a popular Tesla self-driving feature has been closed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) after over a year of scrutiny from the government agency.
The NHTSA has officially closed its investigation into Tesla’s Actually Smart Summon (ASS) feature, marking a regulatory win for the electric vehicle maker after more than a year of scrutiny.
Here’s our coverage on the launch of the probe:
Tesla’s Actually Smart Summon feature under investigation by NHTSA
The preliminary investigation, opened last January, examined roughly 2.59 million Tesla vehicles equipped with the feature across the Model S, Model X, Model 3, and Model Y lineups. ASS is not available for Cybertruck currently.
Actually Smart Summon allows owners to move their parked Tesla via a smartphone app remotely, directing the vehicle short distances in parking lots or private property while the driver supervises from the phone.
Here’s a clip of us using it:
Summon has had some good performances for me in the past
This was in October: https://t.co/w69Zp2bqeg pic.twitter.com/PVXSRj19E0
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 5, 2026
Introduced as an upgrade to the original Smart Summon, the feature was designed to enhance convenience but drew attention after reports of low-speed incidents where vehicles bumped into stationary objects like posts, parked cars, or garage doors.
The NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation reviewed 159 incidents, including one formal Vehicle Owner’s Questionnaire complaint and media reports.
Notably, all events occurred at very low speeds, resulted only in minor property damage, and involved zero injuries or fatalities. The agency determined that the incidents were “extremely rare”, a fraction of one percent across millions of Summon sessions, and did not indicate a systemic safety-related defect.
A key factor in the closure was Tesla’s proactive response through over-the-air (OTA) software updates.
During the probe, Tesla deployed at least six updates that improved camera-based object detection, enhanced neural network performance for obstacle recognition, and refined the system’s response to potential hazards. These iterative improvements, delivered wirelessly to the entire fleet, addressed the primary concerns around detection reliability and operator reaction time.
Critics of Tesla’s autonomous features had initially pointed to the crashes as evidence of rushed deployment, especially given the feature’s reliance on the company’s vision-only Full Self-Driving (FSD) stack. However, NHTSA’s decision to close the case without seeking a recall underscores the low-severity nature of the events and the effectiveness of software-based fixes in modern vehicles.
It definitely has its flaws. I used ASS yesterday unsuccessfully:
It was pouring when I left the gym so I tried to Summon my Model Y
It turned the opposite way and drove out of range, stopping here and forcing me to walk even further across the lot in the rain for it 🤣
One day pic.twitter.com/iD10c8sriB
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 5, 2026
However, improvements will come, and I’m confident in that.
The closure comes as Tesla continues to push boundaries with its autonomous driving ambitions, including unsupervised FSD rollouts and robotaxi initiatives. For owners, the ruling reinforces confidence in Actually Smart Summon as a convenient, low-risk tool rather than a hazardous experiment.
While broader NHTSA reviews of Tesla’s higher-speed FSD capabilities remain ongoing, this outcome highlights how data-driven analysis and rapid OTA remediation can satisfy regulators in the evolving landscape of automated driving technology.
Tesla has not issued an official statement on the closure, but the move is widely viewed as bullish for the company’s autonomy roadmap, reducing one layer of regulatory overhang and allowing focus on further refinements.
Elon Musk
Tesla uses Model S and X ‘sentimental’ value to enforce massive pricing move
By slashing production and creating immediate scarcity, the company has transformed these remaining vehicles into limited-edition relics. The price hike is not driven by rising material costs or new features.
Tesla is using the “sentimental” value that CEO Elon Musk talked about with the Model S and Model X to enforce one of the most massive pricing moves it has ever applied as it begins to phase out the flagship vehicles.
Tesla quietly executed one of its most calculated pricing plays yet. After officially ending production of the Model S and Model X, the company raised prices on every remaining new and demo unit by roughly $15,000.
The refreshed starting prices now sit at:
- $109,990 for the Model S AWD
- $124,900 for the Model S Plaid
- $114,900 for the Model X AWD
- $129,900 for the Model X Plaid
NEWS: Tesla has raised the price on all remaining new (and demo) Model S and Model X vehicles left in inventory by $15,000.
New starting prices:
• Model S AWD: $109,990
• Model S Plaid: $124,900
• Model X AWD: $114,900
• Model X Plaid: $129,900 pic.twitter.com/qBEhsYAfXr— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) April 5, 2026
Every vehicle comes fully loaded with the Luxe Package, Full Self-Driving Supervised, four years of premium connectivity and service, and lifetime free Supercharging. What looks like a simple inventory adjustment is, in reality, a masterclass in monetizing nostalgia.
These are not ordinary cars. For many owners, the Model S and Model X represent the purest expression of Tesla’s original promise—the sleek, over-engineered flagships that proved electric vehicles could be faster, quieter, and more desirable than their gasoline counterparts.
Tesla removes Model S and X custom orders as sunset officially begins
They are the vehicles that carried Elon Musk’s vision from Silicon Valley startup to global automaker.
The final units rolling off the line carry an emotional weight that numbers alone cannot capture. Buyers are not simply purchasing transportation; they are acquiring a piece of Tesla history, the last examples of the very models that defined the brand’s first decade.
Tesla, with this move, understands this sentiment deeply.
By slashing production and creating immediate scarcity, the company has transformed these remaining vehicles into limited-edition relics. The price hike is not driven by rising material costs or new features.
It is driven by the knowledge that a certain segment of buyers, loyalists, collectors, and enthusiasts, will pay a premium precisely because these cars are about to disappear. The strategy converts emotional attachment into margin.
Where other automakers might discount outgoing models to clear lots, Tesla is betting that sentiment is worth more than volume.
The move also quietly rewards existing owners. Scarcity instantly boosts resale values for the hundreds of thousands of Model S and X already on the road, reinforcing brand loyalty among the very people who helped build Tesla’s reputation.
In the end, Tesla’s pricing decision reveals a sophisticated understanding of its audience. As the company pivots toward next-generation platforms, it has found a way to extract one final, lucrative chapter from its heritage.
For buyers willing to pay the new prices, the premium is not just for the car; it is for the feeling of owning the last true originals. Tesla has turned sentiment into strategy, and in the process, reminded everyone that even in the EV era, emotion remains a powerful line on the balance sheet.
Tesla stock gets hit with shock move from Wall Street analysts
Tesla Full Self-Driving feature probe closed by NHTSA
