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.
Ferrari’s first electric vehicle, the Luce, is fully sold out for 2027, according to CEO Benedetto Vigna.
Presenting third-quarter results, he stated: “Everything we plan to sell next year is already fully allocated. Client test drives, scheduled for next year, will help further boost demand. We have no critical issues, neither on manufacturing nor on the demand side. Obviously, the car is more complex because it has many new parts and many new technologies.”
First customer deliveries are expected before the end of 2026, with the model already commanding waitlists despite a turbulent debut.
The Luce is a five-seat, four-door liftback saloon—the longest Ferrari ever produced—powered by four electric motors producing approximately 1,035 horsepower.
It features an 800-volt architecture, a 122-kWh battery, a claimed WLTP range of around 329 miles, 0-62 mph acceleration in 2.5 seconds, and a starting price near €550,000 in Europe (roughly $560,800–$615,000 in the U.S. depending on configuration).
Developed in collaboration with Jony Ive and Marc Newson’s LoveFrom studio alongside Ferrari’s own Centro Stile, it represents a deliberate departure from the brand’s traditional mid-engine sports cars toward a more spacious, grand-touring format.
Its exterior has proven deeply polarizing. Unveiled in Rome in May 2026, the design features smooth, sweeping surfaces, a large glass roof, and restrained detailing that critics described as bland, generic, or more reminiscent of an Apple product or mass-market EV than a Ferrari.
Ferrari unveils its Luce EV, and its reception has been a disaster
Online reactions included memes comparing it to a Nissan Leaf or Polestar, while former Ferrari chairman Luca di Montezemolo publicly warned of “the destruction of a myth” and suggested the prancing horse logo be removed. Italian politicians and longtime owners joined the chorus of disappointment, and Ferrari’s shares dropped roughly 8% in a single day, erasing billions in market value.
Design experts noted the absence of the brand’s signature tension, aggression, and emotional drama.
Yet the controversy has not translated into weak demand among the ultra-wealthy clientele who actually buy Ferraris. Production volumes remain tightly limited, as reports suggest fewer than 500 units in the current year and a longer-term pace of roughly 600 annually through 2030, preserving exclusivity.
One early chassis sold for $40 million at auction. Vigna has indicated that seeing the car in person, along with upcoming client test drives, is expected to strengthen rather than weaken interest. Ferrari aims for fully electric models to comprise 20 percent of its lineup by 2030, with a second EV now delayed to 2028.
For a brand defined by scarcity and desirability, the Luce’s sell-out status suggests that among those who can afford it, the polarizing design has not proven to be a commercial liability.
Tesla and SpaceX shares fell on Wednesday after Democrats swept both chambers of Congress. The decline stood out as broader market securities recovered and turned positive, while both of Musk’s publicly traded companies lagged.
CEO Elon Musk already joked about the unsuccessful campaigning for the Republicans, but now the new party will make pretty drastic changes to how it handles Tesla and SpaceX, and those companies will adjust their outlook.
Let’s take a deeper look.
Tesla ($TSLA)
Tesla shares traded lower during the regular session after Democrats secured both the House and Senate. The stock was down 2.32 percent at around 1:45 p.m. on the East Coast, trading at around $389.30.
The pressure is tied to more than the raw scale of Musk’s political spending, estimated at $450–474 million this cycle with roughly $224 million directed at Texas. In that state, Tesla now faces a Democratic governor and a Democratic senator after Gina Hinojosa unseated Greg Abbott and James Talarico defeated Ken Paxton.
The Austin Gigafactory, Robotaxi pilot programs in multiple Texas cities, and any related AI compute expansion sit under a new state executive who campaigned against certain corporate subsidies and floated a moratorium on new data-center construction.
Federally, Democratic control of key committees opens the door to deeper examination of Tesla’s autonomous-driving safety record, federal energy-storage and manufacturing incentives, and the national-security implications of any combination with SpaceX.
Investors are also weighing whether the company’s historically close alignment with the prior Republican leadership will invite slower permitting, additional hearings, or tighter rules on Full Self-Driving deployment.
For Tesla, the political shift adds near-term friction around state permitting and federal regulatory approvals for autonomy and energy storage. A potential merger with SpaceX may face slower review even if it proceeds.
Core growth drivers such as vehicle deliveries, energy deployments, and robotaxi rollout remain intact, yet the stock now carries a higher political-risk premium that could weigh on valuation until the company demonstrates workable relationships with the new Texas leadership and congressional majorities.
SpaceX ($SPCX)
SpaceX shares also declined in live trading on November 4 following the Democratic midterm sweep. The stock traded at $134.97, down 4.49 percent. The drop occurred even as broader indexes stabilized, highlighting a company-specific reaction to the election outcome.
Musk’s large contributions, concentrated in Texas races that both companies lost, place SpaceX’s Starbase launch facility and headquarters under a new Democratic governor.
At the federal level, Democratic control of Congress enables greater scrutiny of NASA, the Department of Defense, and other contracts that support a meaningful share of revenue, along with reviews of Starlink national-security uses and any Tesla merger. Analysts have noted that empowered committees can hold hearings and request documents on these relationships.
For SpaceX, the results raise the risk of delayed contract awards, higher compliance costs, and tighter constraints on AI and satellite infrastructure expansion, particularly in Texas where a data-center moratorium has been discussed.
A merger with Tesla could encounter political friction that slows integration of launch, connectivity, and autonomy capabilities.
While Starlink growth and launch cadence continue as primary drivers, the company faces a more contested path for federal funding and state-level operations, requiring management to rebuild ties with the new congressional majorities and Texas leadership to limit the overhang.
Tesla’s new vehicle registrations in Germany rose sharply in October, nearly quadrupling from the same month a year earlier. That’s according to data from the KBA, Germany’s federal motor transport authority.
The KBA reported 2,932 Tesla vehicles registered in October, a 290.9 percent year-over-year- increase. For the first ten months of the year, Tesla’s cumulative registrations reached 47,742 units. This number is up 206.1 percent compared with the January-October period of 2025. These gains occurred against a backdrop of strong overall growth in the BEV sector as a whole.
Germany registered 94,086 new BEVs in October, a 79.5 percent rise that brought the BEV share of the passenger car market to 37 percent of the 254,492 total cars registered that month.
🇩🇪 Tesla’s new registrations in Germany nearly quadrupled in October, according to KBA data.
October: 2,932 units, +290.9% YoY Jan–Oct: 47,742 units, +206.1%
Germany’s overall BEV market grew 79.5% to 94,086 units last month. https://t.co/GMwNqsFAOC
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 4, 2026
Despite the percentage surge, Tesla’s absolute numbers left it with a 1.2 percent share of all new car registrations for October. Chinese competitors did record higher volumes, as BYD registered 5,173 vehicles, a 2 percent share, Leapmotor with 3,661 cars, which equates to 1.4 percent, and Xpeng had a 0.5 percent share.
Year-to-date through October, BYD edged ahead of Tesla with 47,961 registrations versus Tesla’s 47,742.
The October results follow a notably strong September for Tesla in Germany, when it registered 12,552 vehicles, an increase of roughly 269 percent year-over-year and one of its strongest monthly totals on record in the country. That month, the Model Y led all EVs and ranked among the top-selling vehicles of any powertrain.
The figures form part of a broader recovery in Tesla’s European registrations after an extended period of softer demand. While monthly volumes remain subject to typical quarter-end patterns and competitive pressure from both established European brands and rapidly expanding Chinese manufacturers, the year-to-date growth indicates improved traction in Europe’s largest car market.
Tesla’s Gigafactory Berlin-Brandenburg continues to supply the region, positioning the company to capture a share of the expanding German BEV market as overall EV adoptions looks to be accelerating.
Ferrari Luce sold out for 2027 after design controversy
Musk’s Tesla and SpaceX decline after Democratic Midterm sweep
