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.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk’s Boring Co. Tunnel Vision Challenge ends with a surprise for Louisiana, Maryland and Dallas
The Boring Company stunned three cities today, awarding New Orleans, Baltimore, and Dallas free underground Loop tunnels.
Elon Musk’s The Boring Company (TBC) announced today that it is building free underground Loop tunnels in three American cities: New Orleans, Louisiana; Baltimore, Maryland; and Dallas, Texas. The company had promised one winner when it launched the Tunnel Vision Challenge in January. After receiving 487 submissions, it selected three, committing to fund and construct all of them pending a feasibility review, entirely at its own expense. For a company that has faced years of skepticism over the gap between its promises and its delivered projects, choosing to expand its commitment rather than narrow it is a notable shift in both scale and accountability.
All three projects will now enter a rigorous, fully funded diligence phase that includes meetings with elected officials, regulators, community and business leaders, geotechnical borings, and a complete investigation of subsurface utilities and infrastructure. TBC confirmed that all costs associated with this diligence process are 100% funded by the company. If all three projects pass feasibility, all three get built. If only one clears the bar, that one gets built. The company’s willingness to fund the due diligence regardless of outcome removes one of the most common early-stage barriers that kills promising infrastructure proposals before they leave a spreadsheet.
Beyond the three winners, TBC announced it will continue working with two additional entrants it found compelling enough to pursue independently: the Hendersonville Utility Tunnel in Hendersonville, Tennessee, and the Morgan’s Wonderland Tunnel in San Antonio, Texas, which would notably serve one of the nation’s premier theme parks built specifically for guests with special needs.
The challenge also coincides with TBC’s most active construction period to date. The company recently began drilling on the Music City Loop near the Tennessee State Capitol in Nashville, and in February it broke ground on a Loop in Dubai. Musk has long argued that the fundamental problem with urban infrastructure is cost and bureaucratic inertia, not engineering. “The key to solving traffic is making going 3D either up or down,” he said in 2018, a conviction now reflected in a company structure built to absorb the financial risk that typically stalls public projects for years.
Music City Loop could highlight The Boring Company’s real disruption
The Tunnel Vision Challenge’s most underappreciated element may be what it produced beyond three winners. Submissions came from individuals, companies, and governments across states including Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, and Texas, as well as from international entrants. Musk captured the underlying logic years ago when he said, “Traffic is driving me nuts. I’m going to build a tunnel boring machine and just start digging.” Today, three American cities are counting on exactly that.
Tunnel Vision Challenge results!
We’ve been overwhelmed with the amazing submissions…so we are announcing three winners!
The Thrilling Three are:
– NOLA Loop (New Orleans, LA)
– Ravens Loop (Baltimore, MD)
– University Hills Loop (Dallas, TX)What happens next? TBC and the… https://t.co/cY2ULftfiK
— The Boring Company (@boringcompany) March 24, 2026
News
Tesla launches first ‘true’ East Coast V4 Supercharger: here’s what that means
What truly distinguishes this installation from the hundreds of “V4” stalls already scattered across the network? Most existing V4 dispensers, rolled out since 2023, feature welcome upgrades like longer cables, built-in touchscreen displays, integrated credit-card readers for non-Tesla users, and improved ergonomics.
Tesla has launched its first “true” V4 Supercharger on the East Coast, and while that may be sort of confusing, here’s what we mean by that.
Tesla has opened its first true V4 Supercharging station on the East Coast in Kissimmee, Florida, just south of Orlando.
The eight-stall site, powered by an advanced 1.2 MW V4 power cabinet, is capable of delivering up to 500 kW, making it one of only four fully operational 500 kW-capable V4 stations in the United States.
Pricing is dynamic and competitive, as Tesla owners pay $0.40 per kWh during peak hours (8 a.m. to midnight), dropping to an attractive $0.20/kWh off-peak (midnight to 8 a.m.).
Non-Tesla EVs, which can now plug directly into the NACS ports thanks to the open standard, are charged a premium—$0.56/kWh peak and $0.28/kWh off-peak—reflecting Tesla’s strategy to monetize network access while rewarding its own customers.
What’s Makes This a “True” V4 Supercharger
What truly distinguishes this installation from the hundreds of “V4” stalls already scattered across the network? Most existing V4 dispensers, rolled out since 2023, feature welcome upgrades like longer cables, built-in touchscreen displays, integrated credit-card readers for non-Tesla users, and improved ergonomics.
However, nearly all of these have been paired with legacy V3 power cabinets. These hybrid setups, sometimes informally called V3.5, deliver charging curves virtually identical to standard V3 stations, typically topping out at 250-325 kW depending on the vehicle and site conditions.
In contrast, Kissimmee’s true V4 architecture incorporates next-generation 1.2 MW power cabinets. These support battery voltages up to 1,000 V (double the 500 V of V3 systems) and can push up to 500 kW per stall.
NEWS: Tesla has opened its first true V4 Supercharging station on the East Coast, capable of delivering up to 500 kW charging speeds.
• Location: Kissimmee, Florida (near Orlando)
• 8 charging stalls
• Fees for Tesla owners: $0.40/kWh ($0.20/kWh off-peak)
• Fees for all… pic.twitter.com/E8AkaibWsC— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) March 19, 2026
One compact cabinet efficiently powers all eight stalls, slashing the physical footprint and reportedly keeping deployment costs under $40,000 per stall, far cheaper than earlier designs.
Right now, the primary beneficiary is the Cybertruck, which can achieve dramatically faster charging at low states of charge.
Everyday models like the Model 3 and Model Y see little immediate difference in peak speeds, but the hardware lays the groundwork for future vehicles with higher-voltage batteries.
Tesla launches faster Cybertruck charging at all V4 Superchargers
This milestone signals Tesla’s accelerating push toward a high-power, future-proof Supercharger network.
As true V4 sites multiply, charging times will shrink, grid efficiency will improve, and the entire EV ecosystem, Tesla and non-Tesla alike, will benefit from the infrastructure lead Tesla continues to expand. For drivers in central Florida, the Kissimmee station is more than just another charging stop; it’s a glimpse of the faster, smarter charging era that’s finally arriving.
Elon Musk
Tesla reveals various improvements to the Semi in new piece with Jay Leno
Tesla Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen and Semi Program Director Dan Priestley joined Leno in a 47-minute segment revealing all of the various things it did to make the Semi even better as it heads toward volume production this year.
Tesla has revealed the various improvements it has made to the Semi with its redesign, which was unveiled late last year, on a new episode of Jay Leno’s Garage.
Tesla Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen and Semi Program Director Dan Priestley joined Leno in a 47-minute segment revealing all of the various things it did to make the Semi even better as it heads toward volume production this year.
Last year, Tesla revealed it had updated the Semi design to fit the bill of its aesthetic, which, on its other vehicles, includes things like lightbars and a sleeker and more aerodynamic design. The changes were not all to appease the eye, but the drivers who will use the Semi on a daily basis to haul goods regionally as the program gets off the ground running.
Weight Reduction
Priestley revealed almost immediately that Tesla was able to cut out about 1,000 pounds of weight from the Semi compared to the previous version.
This does several things, all of which are positive to the mission of a Class 8 truck, which is to haul goods and obtain more efficient travel to cut down on logistics costs.
Initially, this can increase payload capacity, which is often the biggest value driver for fleets that frequently hit gross vehicle weight limits. Tesla’s early Pilot Program members, like PepsiCo. and Frito-Lay, are large-scale companies. They will benefit from a decreased overall weight.
Lighter vehicles also require less energy to accelerate, climb hills, and maintain highway speeds. This new design has that advantage, and as Leno said in his first drive with the Semi as he hauled another unit behind, “I don’t feel like I’m pulling anything.”
Drag Coefficient
Franz said one of the goals of the Semi was to get the drag coefficient down below that of a Bugatti Veyron. This would increase efficiency tremendously, a major need with a large truck like a Semi.
Drag coefficient is extremely valuable when it comes to electric vehicles, because the displacement of air is incredibly important for range ratings.
Franz said aerodynamic efficiency has been improved by 7 percent compared to the last model. He says the coefficient is around 0.4.
New Features and Improvements
Priestley shed some additional light on the Semi and some of the improvements the company has made under the hood.
These include:
- Fully Electric Steering Assist
- Cybertruck actuators are being used for more strength
- Tesla included a 48-volt architecture
- Semi will utilize 4680 battery cells, which are designed to last 1 million miles
These changes come after Tesla rolled out the Semi to various companies for its Pilot Program, which yielded tremendous results. Due to the years it has been working with those companies, it knew what things it had to change and what it had to improve upon before selling the Semi openly.
Fleet Data
The fleet data Tesla has gathered from the Pilot Program has been one of the most widely discussed parts of the Semi program.
Franz and Priestley said that there are currently a few hundred Semi units in the real world, and Tesla has gathered 13.5 million miles. One of those units has traveled over 440,000 miles in the years it has been on the road.
Tesla Semi’s latest adoptee will likely encourage more of the same
Pilot Program members have reported an uptime of 95 percent, and Tesla’s maintenance and Service teams have kept things running:
“80% of breakdowns if you have one, are returned back to the customer in less than 24 hours, and half are back in less than 1 hour.”
Demand
Priestley says demand for the Semi has never been higher, and due to the recent political climate and the impact things have had on gas prices, Tesla has never received more inquiries for the Semi than it has recently.
Many companies will be surprised to hear that the Semi Pilot Program has been an overwhelming success. As Tesla begins to build out the infrastructure for the vehicle, it will only benefit the all-electric Class 8 trucks that keep things moving.
CEO Elon Musk said Tesla plans to start high-volume production this year. The company also plans to start deliveries this year.
Elon Musk’s Boring Co. Tunnel Vision Challenge ends with a surprise for Louisiana, Maryland and Dallas
Tesla launches first ‘true’ East Coast V4 Supercharger: here’s what that means
