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 announced on Monday that the Roadster event scheduled for today would be postponed due to the need for it to be held outside.
Less than 24 hours later, CEO Elon Musk broadened that by stating it was due to high winds, immediately sending everyone into a frenzy over the Roadster’s potential ability to fly.
And realistically, it could definitely have to do with it flying, hovering, or hopping; whatever Tesla has in mind for this demonstration could not be impacted by wind. However, it might have nothing to do with the vehicle flying whatsoever, and instead could be a simple precaution, as the Roadster is a very unique vehicle with some already official specs that are just mind-blowing.
Tesla will very, very likely be showcasing both the acceleration rate and potentially even a top speed demo at the event in Waco. Both of these demonstrations, performed with a vehicle that has such incredibly fast metrics, could easily be impacted by wind as well.
Tesla Roadster event requires restricted airspace, and the FAA obliges
Top Speed Demo
At high speeds, aerodynamic forces are already overwhelmingly present. A crosswind or sudden gust adds a layer of sideways force that the tires must counter with slip angle. On a short demo course, that force can shove the car off the intended line, especially in a light car with a low frontal area and little mass to resist the push.
Electric cars, due to their battery packs, have an advantage of an extremely low center of gravity, giving them extra stability. However, the speeds at which the Roadster could travel at the demo could spell some issues if crosswinds are present.
Gusts are worse than a steady wind because the load changes faster than a driver can smoothly correct. That shows up as weaving or a late correction. Headwinds and tailwinds can also spell disaster. Headwinds cut a measured top speed but raise the power needed to get there or maintain it. Meanwhile, a tailwind can inflate the top speed, and downforce issues could become more noticeable.
Wind also loads the body unevenly. A low car can feel light on the upwind side or see a sudden change in downforce if the gust hits a wing or diffuser at an angle. Tire temperature and pressure might stay near a normal level, but lateral grip can be lost as the vehicle is spent fighting the wind.
Acceleration Demo
Launch and 0-60 MPH runs are shorter, so the car spends less time exposed to forces that could cause things to go awry. However, the first second is very sensitive, as a crosswind at launch could yaw the car before speed builds and prior to aerodynamic impact being too great. The driver will be required to correct traction control or manage how much the wheels are spinning, which will likely be corrected automatically by some sort of traction control system within the Roadster (we are fairly certain Tesla will implement something brilliant with it).
These things could cause an unstable run.
A headwind would increase drag as speed rises, while a tailwind would do the opposite. Meanwhile, surface effects, like wind-driven dust, light debris, or even rain, could reduce grip at the exact moment the tires are asked for peak longitudinal force. Standing water plus a crosswind is a common reason an acceleration attempt might be scrapped.
Flying or Not
No matter what Tesla has in store for the Roadster, waiting for ideal conditions is a great idea. People who follow and support the company, along with the engineers involved in the Roadster program, have been waiting nine years since the last unveiling for this moment. Everything should be ideal.
Some speculate that it’s just not ready, and that’s ridiculous. Why would Tesla even schedule the event — albeit prematurely — after nine years if it was not ready? Why would they jump the gun now?
We were all excited for today, but it truly is the most ideal thing in the world to wait two more weeks so everything, including the weather, can be perfect. The delay is simply worth it. But Tesla, seriously, make this the last one.
Elon Musk
SpaceX nails “Lucky 13” astronaut launch, leaning into Tesla tradition and superstition
SpaceX launched Crew-13 astronauts to the ISS Thursday, setting up a record fast Dragon docking.
SpaceX launched NASA’s Crew-13 mission to the International Space Station on Thursday morning, getting four astronauts to orbit despite a forecast of thunderstorms and gusty winds that had threatened to push the flight to Friday.
Falcon 9 lifted off from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station at 11:10 a.m. ET carrying Dragon Grace, NASA confirmed. On board are NASA commander Jessica Watkins, NASA pilot Luke Delaney, Canadian Space Agency astronaut Joshua Kutryk and Roscosmos cosmonaut Sergey Teteryatnikov. The first stage booster, B1101, landed at Landing Zone 40 beside the pad on its third flight after previously supporting Crew-12 and a Starlink mission.
Liftoff of Crew-13! pic.twitter.com/vteT0DXMTh
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) October 1, 2026
It was the first spaceflight for Delaney, Kutryk and Teteryatnikov. Watkins, who flew on Crew-4 in 2022, became the first NASA astronaut to launch aboard a Crew Dragon twice.
Before launch, the crew rode to the pad in Teslas, a tradition on NASA’s SpaceX crew flights since 2020. This time the cars carried specialty plates reading “Lucky 13.” Watkins said the mission patch leans into the number on purpose, as a nod to Apollo 13 and the resilience of that crew.
Grace is now on a short trip to the station. Docking at the forward port of the Harmony module is scheduled for about 7 p.m. ET, roughly 7 hours and 50 minutes after liftoff, which Space.com notes would be the fastest Crew Dragon transit to the ISS yet. Most Dragon flights take around 15 to 24 hours to catch the station. Hatch opening is planned for 8:25 p.m. ET.
The launch came more than two weeks later than originally planned. An oxidizer leak was found in Grace’s propulsion system in August, and NASA and SpaceX added time for tests. That pushed back the return of Crew-12, which has been aboard the station since February and is now set to splash down off Southern California next week. Crew-13 is expected to stay about six months.
SpaceX rescue mission for stranded ISS astronauts nears end — Here’s when they’ll return home
SpaceX already holds NASA orders for crew rotations through Crew-17, while Boeing is preparing an uncrewed Starliner flight to the station as early as December.
Crew-13 was only the first of three SpaceX launches planned for Thursday, as Teslarati previewed on Wednesday. A Falcon 9 launched its Transporter-18 mission from California today, where Google will be launching its first orbital artificial intelligence (AI) test satellite. Meanwhile, Falcon Heavy is set to launch the classified NROL-97 mission for the National Reconnaissance Office from Launch Complex 39A at 11:53 p.m. ET. Its two side boosters will return to Landing Zones 1 and 2, which means Central Florida could hear up to three sonic booms in a single day. The busy stretch follows Starship’s Flight 14 on Monday, which reached orbit for the first time.
Tesla has moved its Wireless Charging efforts for its electric vehicles forward, as it had a new patent published today, one that it submitted back in March.
The patent describes a system for detecting foreign objects on the wireless charging pad under varying temperatures, aiming to mitigate any undesired results that could come from something being on top of the charging pad.
🚨 Tesla has a new patent application published today, which was submitted back in March, for a Wireless Charging Pad:
“The present disclosure relates to methods and systems that can reliably detect foreign objects on a wireless charging pad under varying temperatures. In some… pic.twitter.com/LIeLfZAuDJ
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 1, 2026
The abstract of the patent states:
“The present disclosure relates to methods and systems that can reliably detect foreign objects on a wireless charging pad under varying temperatures. In some examples, an object detector can utilize a set of inductive coils included in resonant tanks, and excite the resonant tanks using signals in a range of frequencies including or near a nominal resonant frequency of the resonant tanks. The object detector can detect a metal object based on resistance of a coil increasing and inductance of the coil decreasing. By analyzing the shifts and/or distributions in resonant frequencies and output magnitudes (e.g., output voltage peaks), the object detector can distinguish between changes of frequencies and magnitudes caused by temperature and those caused by foreign objects to accurately detect the foreign objects.”
The object detection system will utilize a set of inductive coils included in resonant tanks, and “excite the resonant tank using signals in a range of frequencies including or near a nominal resonant frequency of the tanks.” Metal can be detected by an increase in the coil’s resistance and a decrease in the coil’s inductance.
By analyzing shifts or disruptions in resonant frequencies and output magnitudes, the system can detect foreign objects. These types of safeguards need to be implemented through the normal operation of the charging pads.
Tesla says its Cybercab wireless charging efficiency is ‘well above 90%’
Tesla plans to utilize wireless charging with Cybercab and Robotaxi-enabled units to help streamline the fully autonomous experience from A to Z. The last thing the company wants to do is have any sort of small obstruction preventing the rider from experiencing Robotaxi as intended.
Why Tesla Roadster unveiling delay might have nothing to do with it flying
SpaceX nails “Lucky 13” astronaut launch, leaning into Tesla tradition and superstition
