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.
Tesla has reportedly pushed the unveiling of the Roadster once again, but there are also evidently new details about the event that the company plans to show off.
The Information reported this morning that Tesla will now unveil, for the second time, the next-generation Roadster in August, a further delay from the multiple timeline that the company had previously stated.
The report has not been confirmed or denied by Tesla at any capacity.
It also states the unveiling event will take place in Texas, the same place that Tesla executives revealed in May would be the place of manufacture for the company’s highly-anticipated supercar, which boasts a top speed of over 250 MPH and 650 miles of range, according to its website.
Tesla is also expected to showcase the SpaceX package, which will be used for faster acceleration and potentially hovering capabilities, at the unveiling event, the report states. Musk has always planned for this to happen, but now it seems it is more realistic than ever
The report also states the Roadster unveiling is planned for August pic.twitter.com/By26XZIJzU
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
The Roadster has had its unveiling date and manufacturing date pushed back on many occasions. It was set to start production in 2020, but the COVID-19 pandemic crippled supply chain operations, forcing Tesla to push its timeline back considerably.
However, COVID has been over for some time, and Tesla has still not managed to successfully schedule and execute an unveiling event, which is something fans and enthusiasts, as well as those who have put down a $50,000 deposit, have been waiting for.
The vehicle was close to completion last year, but Musk truly wanted Lars Moravy and Franz von Holzhausen to push the limits of the Roadster. In July of last year, Moravy said:
“Roadster is definitely in development. We did talk about it last Sunday night. We are gearing up for a super cool demo. It’s going to be mind-blowing; We showed Elon some cool demos last week of the tech we’ve been working on, and he got a little excited.”
It is important to note two things: Tesla has not confirmed these details, and the company has regularly pushed these dates back. Until Tesla sends out formal invitations with a concrete date, taking any unveiling event reports with a grain of salt is a good idea.
Tesla is offering a tasty Supercharging incentive on certain Model 3 trims, but the company has officially put a concrete end date on it, so those interested should act fast.
Tesla is offering Free Supercharging for One Year on the Model 3 Premium and Performance trims, the top two offerings of the all-electric sedan. There are three trims of the Model 3 that will have the Free Supercharging offer attached:
- Premium Rear-Wheel-Drive – $42,490
- Premium All-Wheel-Drive – $47,490
- Performance – $54,990
Tesla has now announced that this offer will expire on June 15, giving potential buyers about ten days to take advantage of the incentive.
This could be an additional incentive for car buyers to transition to electric vehicles. Many states are showing gas prices well over $4 per gallon, with the national average currently sitting at $4.22, according to AAA.
A free year of Supercharging miles would allow people to charge and travel for free, other than routine maintenance, which is already incredibly cheap compared to a gas car.
🚨 Tesla is now showing that it’s Free Supercharging offer for Model 3 Premium and Performance trims ends June 15 pic.twitter.com/VCLeddNSj8
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
At Tesla Superchargers, peak rates, meaning prices between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m., average between $0.45 and $0.60. One year of driving at an average of 12,000 miles would cost between $1,000 and $1,500 at $0.50 per kWh. It’s a pretty good deal.
Supercharging prices have also increased recently:
Many of the Superchargers in my area just had their peak rates increased from $0.44 per kWh to $0.49, $0.52, and $0.54 per kWh
If you’re looking to save on your commute/travel for the next year, this Model 3 Free Supercharging incentive might not be a bad idea https://t.co/YDwwl4xxHk pic.twitter.com/DleURW7eqa
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
Tesla has used Free Supercharging to move units in the past, and it’s a great strategy for those who plan to use the car for longer commutes, cross-country drives, or do not have reliable access to home charging.
It should be noted that Tesla recommends that Supercharging be used at a minimum to preserve the life of the battery, as fast-charging is more stressful on the cells.
However, some people might not have an option, so the Free Supercharging incentive could truly be a great reason for many people to charge their cars.
The Supercharging incentive is short-term, and it is pretty rare that Tesla utilizes it, so once this offer is gone, we probably will not see it on the Model 3 for some time.
Ferrari CEO Benedetto Vigna revealed that the Italian automaker’s future will not involve self-driving, a point that echoes that of Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s — sort of.
You might be thinking, “Are you insane? Musk has been so incredibly hellbent on delivering self-driving vehicles to the public, so much so that he has even hinted that Tesla won’t need the ever-popular and widely-requested Model Y L in the U.S.”
However, when it comes to electric supercars with high-performance specs and lofty price tags, Vigna’s stance is exactly what Musk wants for Tesla’s own hypercar project, the Tesla Roadster.
🚨 Tesla Roadster vs. Ferrari Luce
Price – $250,000 vs. $640,000
Horsepower – 1,000+ vs. 1,035
0-60 MPH – 1.1s OR 1.9s vs. 2.4s
Top Speed – 250+ MPH vs. 194 MPH
Range – 620 miles vs. 280 miles https://t.co/uEgswwVLeD pic.twitter.com/XcP58ZRO6Z— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
In a new interview with Australian media outlet Drive, Vigna made it clear that Ferrari’s ambitions for the future do not involve autonomy, simply because the company’s cars are not designed for anything but manual, spirited driving.
He said:
“We will not make fully autonomous cars — loud and clear. We want the people to have fun, not the [computer] chips. We want to have a steering wheel and a man or a woman behind the steering wheel. Otherwise, why do you buy a Ferrari?”
This seems to be a reasonable assertion. Ferraris are not made for daily commutes, cross-country road trips, or bumper-to-bumper traffic. They’re made for fast, spirited driving, and many of their buyers will only put a few thousand miles on them throughout their lifetime. True, exciting, fun driving is meant to be done manually.
That is not to say Full Self-Driving or other semi-autonomous suites are not “fun,” but they are meant to take the stress out of driving. They are made for the daily commutes, the rush hour traffic, and the parking lots and garages. It’s made to take the stress out of driving.
Tesla Full Self-Driving attempts 150-mile stress test: the good and the bad
Musk had stated in an interview in early 2026 that the Roadster would also be geared toward fun, manually-controlled driving. On the Moonshots podcast with Peter Diamandis, Musk said about the Roadster:
“This is not a…safety is not the main goal. If you buy a Ferrari, safety is not the number one goal. I say, if safety is your number one goal, do not buy the Roadster…We’ll aspire not to kill anyone in this car. It’ll be the best of the last of the human-driven cars. The best of the last.”
There are cars out there that simply are meant to be driven by humans, and Ferraris and Roadsters are a few of them. Ferrari has no true advantage in developing self-driving; their cars sell at low volumes with high price tags, and their performance specs and engineering are all geared toward spirited driving.
Tesla Roadster unveiling gets pushed again, but new event details emerge
Tesla Model 3 has a tasty Supercharging incentive, but it’s ending soon
