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
Celebrating SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Tesla Roadster launch, seven years later (Op-Ed)
Seven years later, the question is no longer “What if this works?” It’s “How far does this go?”
When Falcon Heavy lifted off in February 2018 with Elon Musk’s personal Tesla Roadster as its payload, SpaceX was at a much different place. So was Tesla. It was unclear whether Falcon Heavy was feasible at all, and Tesla was in the depths of Model 3 production hell.
At the time, Tesla’s market capitalization hovered around $55–60 billion, an amount critics argued was already grossly overvalued. SpaceX, on the other hand, was an aggressive private launch provider known for taking risks that traditional aerospace companies avoided.
The Roadster launch was bold by design. Falcon Heavy’s maiden mission carried no paying payload, no government satellite, just a car drifting past Earth with David Bowie playing in the background. To many, it looked like a stunt. For Elon Musk and the SpaceX team, it was a bold statement: there should be some things in the world that simply inspire people.
Inspire it did, and seven years later, SpaceX and Tesla’s results speak for themselves.
Today, Tesla is the world’s most valuable automaker, with a market capitalization of roughly $1.54 trillion. The Model Y has become the best-selling car in the world by volume for three consecutive years, a scenario that would have sounded insane in 2018. Tesla has also pushed autonomy to a point where its vehicles can navigate complex real-world environments using vision alone.
And then there is Optimus. What began as a literal man in a suit has evolved into a humanoid robot program that Musk now describes as potential Von Neumann machines: systems capable of building civilizations beyond Earth. Whether that vision takes decades or less, one thing is evident: Tesla is no longer just a car company. It is positioning itself at the intersection of AI, robotics, and manufacturing.
SpaceX’s trajectory has been just as dramatic.
The Falcon 9 has become the undisputed workhorse of the global launch industry, having completed more than 600 missions to date. Of those, SpaceX has successfully landed a Falcon booster more than 560 times. The Falcon 9 flies more often than all other active launch vehicles combined, routinely lifting off multiple times per week.
Falcon 9 has ferried astronauts to and from the International Space Station via Crew Dragon, restored U.S. human spaceflight capability, and even stepped in to safely return NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams when circumstances demanded it.
Starlink, once a controversial idea, now dominates the satellite communications industry, providing broadband connectivity across the globe and reshaping how space-based networks are deployed. SpaceX itself, following its merger with xAI, is now valued at roughly $1.25 trillion and is widely expected to pursue what could become the largest IPO in history.
And then there is Starship, Elon Musk’s fully reusable launch system designed not just to reach orbit, but to make humans multiplanetary. In 2018, the idea was still aspirational. Today, it is under active development, flight-tested in public view, and central to NASA’s future lunar plans.
In hindsight, Falcon Heavy’s maiden flight with Elon Musk’s personal Tesla Roadster was never really about a car in space. It was a signal that SpaceX and Tesla were willing to think bigger, move faster, and accept risks others wouldn’t.
The Roadster is still out there, orbiting the Sun. Seven years later, the question is no longer “What if this works?” It’s “How far does this go?”
Energy
Tesla launches Cybertruck vehicle-to-grid program in Texas
The initiative was announced by the official Tesla Energy account on social media platform X.
Tesla has launched a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) program in Texas, allowing eligible Cybertruck owners to send energy back to the grid during high-demand events and receive compensation on their utility bills.
The initiative, dubbed Powershare Grid Support, was announced by the official Tesla Energy account on social media platform X.
Texas’ Cybertruck V2G program
In its post on X, Tesla Energy confirmed that vehicle-to-grid functionality is “coming soon,” starting with select Texas markets. Under the new Powershare Grid Support program, owners of the Cybertruck equipped with Powershare home backup hardware can opt in through the Tesla app and participate in short-notice grid stress events.
During these events, the Cybertruck automatically discharges excess energy back to the grid, supporting local utilities such as CenterPoint Energy and Oncor. In return, participants receive compensation in the form of bill credits. Tesla noted that the program is currently invitation-only as part of an early adopter rollout.
The launch builds on the Cybertruck’s existing Powershare capability, which allows the vehicle to provide up to 11.5 kW of power for home backup. Tesla added that the program is expected to expand to California next, with eligibility tied to utilities such as PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E.
Powershare Grid Support
To participate in Texas, Cybertruck owners must live in areas served by CenterPoint Energy or Oncor, have Powershare equipment installed, enroll in the Tesla Electric Drive plan, and opt in through the Tesla app. Once enrolled, vehicles would be able to contribute power during high-demand events, helping stabilize the grid.
Tesla noted that events may occur with little notice, so participants are encouraged to keep their Cybertrucks plugged in when at home and to manage their discharge limits based on personal needs. Compensation varies depending on the electricity plan, similar to how Powerwall owners in some regions have earned substantial credits by participating in Virtual Power Plant (VPP) programs.
News
Samsung nears Tesla AI chip ramp with early approval at TX factory
This marks a key step towards the tech giant’s production of Tesla’s next-generation AI5 chips in the United States.
Samsung has received temporary approval to begin limited operations at its semiconductor plant in Taylor, Texas.
This marks a key step towards the tech giant’s production of Tesla’s next-generation AI5 chips in the United States.
Samsung clears early operations hurdle
As noted in a report from Korea JoongAng Daily, Samsung Electronics has secured temporary certificates of occupancy (TCOs) for a portion of its semiconductor facility in Taylor. This should allow the facility to start operations ahead of full completion later this year.
City officials confirmed that approximately 88,000 square feet of Samsung’s Fab 1 building has received temporary approval, with additional areas expected to follow. The overall timeline for permitting the remaining sections has not yet been finalized.
Samsung’s Taylor facility is expected to manufacture Tesla’s AI5 chips once mass production begins in the second half of the year. The facility is also expected to produce Tesla’s upcoming AI6 chips.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk recently stated that the design for AI5 is nearly complete, and the development of AI6 is already underway. Musk has previously outlined an aggressive roadmap targeting nine-month design cycles for successive generations of its AI chips.
Samsung’s U.S. expansion
Construction at the Taylor site remains on schedule. Reports indicate Samsung plans to begin testing extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography equipment next month, a critical step for producing advanced 2-nanometer semiconductors.
Samsung is expected to complete 6 million square feet of floor space at the site by the end of this year, with an additional 1 million square feet planned by 2028. The full campus spans more than 1,200 acres.
Beyond Tesla, Samsung Foundry is also pursuing additional U.S. customers as demand for AI and high-performance computing chips accelerates. Company executives have stated that Samsung is looking to achieve more than 130% growth in 2-nanometer chip orders this year.
One of Samsung’s biggest rivals, TSMC, is also looking to expand its footprint in the United States, with reports suggesting that the company is considering expanding its Arizona facility to as many as 11 total plants. TSMC is also expected to produce Tesla’s AI5 chips.
Celebrating SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Tesla Roadster launch, seven years later (Op-Ed)
SpaceX’s xAI merger keeps legal liability and debt at arm’s length: report
