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 puts Giga Berlin in Plaid Mode with new massive investment
The facility, Tesla’s first in Europe, opened in 2022 and has become a cornerstone for Model Y production and, increasingly, in-house battery manufacturing. Recent announcements highlight a dual focus on scaling vehicle output and advancing vertical integration through 4680 battery cells.
Tesla is pushing forward with significant upgrades at its Gigafactory Berlin-Brandenburg in Grünheide, Germany, signaling renewed confidence in its European operations despite past market challenges.
The facility, Tesla’s first in Europe, opened in 2022 and has become a cornerstone for Model Y production and, increasingly, in-house battery manufacturing. Recent announcements highlight a dual focus on scaling vehicle output and advancing vertical integration through 4680 battery cells.
In April, plant manager André Thierig announced a 20 percent increase in Model Y production starting in July, following a record Q1 output of more than 61,000 vehicles. To support the ramp-up, Tesla plans to hire approximately 1,000 new employees beginning in May and convert 500 temporary workers to permanent positions.
The move is expected to lift weekly production significantly, addressing rebounding demand in Europe after a challenging 2025.
Today, we announced a $ 250m investment for our Giga Berlin Cell factory. This will enable 18GWh of annual 4680 cell production and create more than 1500 new jobs. Good news during challenging times for the German industry. pic.twitter.com/ou4SWMfWh9
— André Thierig (@AndrThie) May 12, 2026
The expansion builds on earlier progress. In 2025, Tesla secured partial approvals to add roughly 2 million square feet of factory space, raising potential annual vehicle capacity from around 500,000 toward 800,000 units, with longer-term ambitions approaching one million vehicles per year. Logistical improvements, new infrastructure, and battery-related facilities are already underway on company-owned land.
Battery production is the latest major focus. On May 12, Thierig revealed an additional $250 million investment in the on-site cell factory. This more than doubles the planned 4680 battery cell capacity to 18 gigawatt-hours annually—up from the 8 GWh target set in December 2025—while creating over 1,500 new battery-related jobs.
Total cell investments at the site now exceed previous figures, bringing the factory closer to full vertical integration: cells, packs, and vehicles produced under one roof. Tesla describes this as unique in Europe and a step toward stronger supply chain resilience.
The plans come amid regulatory and community hurdles. Earlier expansion proposals faced protests over environmental concerns and water usage, leading to phased approvals beginning in 2024. Tesla has navigated these by emphasizing sustainable practices and economic benefits, including thousands of local jobs in Brandenburg.
With nearly 12,000 employees already on site and production steadily climbing, Gigafactory Berlin is poised for growth. The combined vehicle and battery expansions position the plant as a key hub for Tesla’s European ambitions, potentially making it one of the continent’s largest manufacturing complexes if local support continues.
As EV demand recovers, these investments underscore Tesla’s commitment to scaling efficiently in Germany while addressing regional supply chain needs.
News
Honda gives up on all-EV future: ‘Not realistic’
Mibe believes the demand for its gas vehicles is certainly strong enough and has changed “beyond expectations.” As many drivers went for EVs a few years back, hybrids are becoming more popular for consumers as they offer the best of both worlds.
Honda has given up on a previous plan to completely changeover to EVs by 2040, a new report states. The company’s CEO, Toshihiro Mibe, said that the idea is “not realistic.”
Mibe believes the demand for its gas vehicles is certainly strong enough and has changed “beyond expectations.” As many drivers went for EVs a few years back, hybrids are becoming more popular for consumers as they offer the best of both worlds.
Mibe said (via Motor1):
“Because of the uncertainty in the business environment and also the customer demand, is changing beyond our expectation and, therefore, we have judged that it’ll be difficult to achieve. That ratio [100-percent electric in 2040] is not realistic as of now. We have withdrawn this target.”
Instead of going all-electric, Honda still wants to oblige by its hopes to be net carbon neutral by 2050. It will do this by focusing on those popular hybrid powertrains, planning to launch 15 of them by March 2030.
Honda will invest 4.4 trillion yen, or almost $28 billion, to build hybrid powertrains built around four and six-cylinder gas engines.
There are so many companies abandoning their all-electric ambitions or even slowing their roll on building them so quickly. Ford, General Motors, Mercedes, and Nissan have all retreated from aggressive EV targets by either cancelling, delaying, or pausing the development of electric models.
Hyundai’s 2030 targets rely on mixed offerings of electric, hybrid & hydrogen vehicles
Early-decade pledges from multiple brands proved overly ambitious as infrastructure lags, battery costs remain high in some markets, and many buyers prefer hybrids for their convenience and range. Toyota has long championed hybrids, while others have quietly extended internal-combustion timelines.
For Honda—historically known for reliable gasoline engines—this shift leverages its core strengths while buying time to refine electric technology. Whether the hybrid-heavy strategy will protect market share in an increasingly competitive landscape remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the gas engine is far from dead at Honda, unfortunately.
Elon Musk
Delta Airlines rejects Starlink, and the reason will probably shock you
In a pointed exchange on X, Elon Musk defended SpaceX’s uncompromising approach to Starlink’s in-flight internet service, explaining why Delta Air Lines walked away from a deal.
SpaceX frontman Elon Musk explained on Wednesday why commercial airline Delta got cold feet over offering Starlink for stable internet on its flights — and the reason will probably shock you.
In a pointed exchange on X, Elon Musk defended SpaceX’s uncompromising approach to Starlink’s in-flight internet service, explaining why Delta Air Lines walked away from a deal.
Delta rejected Starlink because it insisted on routing all connectivity through its branded “Delta Sync” portal rather than allowing a simple Starlink experience.
Instead, the airline partnered with Amazon’s Project Kuiper—rebranded as Amazon Leo—for high-speed Wi-Fi on up to 500 aircraft, with rollout targeted for 2028. At the time of the announcement, Kuiper had roughly 300 satellites in orbit, while Starlink operated more than 10,400.
The use of the “Delta Sync” portal would not work for SpaceX, as Musk went on to say that:
“SpaceX requires that there be no annoying ‘portal’ to use Starlink. Starlink WiFi must just work effortlessly every time, as though you were at home. Delta wanted to make it painful, difficult and expensive for their customers. Hard to see how that is a winning strategy.”
Musk doubled down in a follow-up post:
“Yes, SpaceX deliberately accepted lower revenue deals with airlines in exchange for making Starlink super easy to use and available to all passengers.”
Not exactly. SpaceX requires that there be no annoying “portal” to use Starlink.
Starlink WiFi must just work effortlessly every time, as though you were at home.
Delta wanted to make it painful, difficult and expensive for their customers. Hard to see how that is a winning…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 13, 2026
SpaceX has structured its airline agreements to prioritize zero-friction access—no captive portals, no SkyMiles logins, no paywalls or ads blocking basic connectivity.
While this means forgoing higher-margin deals that would let carriers monetize the service more aggressively, it ensures Starlink feels like home broadband at 35,000 feet. Passengers on partner airlines such as United, Qatar Airways, and Air France have already praised the service for enabling seamless video calls, streaming, and work mid-flight without interruptions.
Delta’s choice reflects a different philosophy. By keeping Wi-Fi behind its Delta Sync ecosystem, the airline aims to drive loyalty program engagement and control the digital passenger journey. Yet, critics argue this short-term control comes at the expense of immediate competitiveness.
Airlines already installing Starlink are pulling ahead in customer satisfaction surveys, while Delta passengers face years of reliance on slower, legacy systems until Leo launches.
SpaceX’s decision to trade revenue for simplicity will pay off in the longer term, as Starlink is already positioning itself as the default high-speed option for carriers that value passenger satisfaction over incremental fees.
Musk’s focus on creating not only a great service but also a reasonable user experience highlights SpaceX’s prowess with Starlink as it continues to expand across new partners and regions.
Tesla puts Giga Berlin in Plaid Mode with new massive investment
Honda gives up on all-EV future: ‘Not realistic’
