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.
Investor's Corner
Tesla Optimus is already benefiting investors, top Wall Street firm says
Piper Sandler has updated its detailed valuation model for Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA), concluding that at recent share prices around $400–$420, investors are essentially acquiring the company’s ambitious Optimus humanoid robot project at no extra cost.
Tesla Optimus is already benefiting investors from a fiscal standpoint, at least that is what Alexander Potter at Piper Sandler, a top Wall Street firm covering the company, says.
Piper Sandler has updated its detailed valuation model for Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA), concluding that at recent share prices around $400–$420, investors are essentially acquiring the company’s ambitious Optimus humanoid robot project at no extra cost.
Analyst Alexander Potter, in the firm’s latest “Definitive Guide to Investing in Tesla,” built a comprehensive framework covering 17 separate product lines.
This granular approach values Tesla’s core businesses—including electric vehicles, energy storage, Full Self-Driving (FSD) software, in-house insurance, Supercharging network, and a standalone robotaxi operation—at approximately $400 per share, without assigning any value to Optimus or related inference-as-a-service opportunities.
“At $400/share, we think investors can buy Optimus for ‘free,’” Potter stated in the note. Piper Sandler maintained its Overweight rating on Tesla shares and a $500 price target, which implicitly attributes roughly $100 per share to the robot-related businesses— a figure the analyst views as potentially conservative.
The updated model incorporates elements often overlooked by other sell-side analysts, such as detailed forecasts for Tesla’s insurance operations, Supercharger revenue, and a distinct valuation for the robotaxi business separate from FSD software licensing. It also accounts for Tesla’s 2025 CEO compensation plan for the first time.
Potter acknowledged that his estimates for 2026 and 2027 fall below Wall Street consensus, citing factors like declining deliveries from certain discontinued models and reduced regulatory credit income.
However, he expressed limited concern, noting that traditional vehicle delivery metrics are expected to matter less over time as FSD subscriber growth and robotaxi deployment metrics gain prominence. On Optimus specifically, Potter suggested the humanoid robot program, combined with inference services, “arguably will be worth more than Tesla’s other businesses combined,” though the firm has not yet produced formal long-term forecasts for these segments.
Tesla shares have traded near the $400 range in recent sessions, reflecting ongoing investor focus on the company’s autonomous driving progress and expansion into robotics and AI. The Optimus project remains in early development stages, with Tesla aiming to deploy the robots initially for internal factory tasks before broader commercial applications.
This Piper Sandler analysis highlights the growing emphasis among some investors and analysts on Tesla’s long-term technology platform potential beyond its current automotive and energy businesses.
As with any forward-looking valuation, outcomes will depend on execution timelines, technological breakthroughs, regulatory approvals for autonomous systems, and market adoption of humanoid robotics—areas that carry significant uncertainty and execution risk.
The note underscores a common theme in Tesla coverage: differing views on how to quantify emerging high-growth opportunities like robotics within the company’s overall enterprise value. Investors are advised to consider their own risk tolerance and conduct thorough due diligence regarding these speculative elements.
News
Tesla Giga Texas buzzing as new Cybertruck appears to enter production
Additionally, the Cybercab manufacturing ramp-up is continuing amidst Tesla’s busy May, which includes a handful of things from an automotive perspective.
Tesla Giga Texas is buzzing with a lot of action, as it appears the new Cybertruck trim that was offered a few months back has entered production. Additionally, the Cybercab manufacturing ramp-up is continuing amidst Tesla’s busy May, which includes a handful of things from an automotive perspective.
Drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer captured striking footage over Giga Texas on the morning of May 11, 2026, revealing fresh batches of Cybertrucks that may mark the start of series production for the long-awaited $59,990 Dual Motor AWD variant.
Tesla launches new Cybertruck trim with more features than ever for a low price
The vehicles lined up in staging areas, and we got a great look at three of the units parked on the property:
Hard to say for sure, but production of the $59K AWD @Cybertruck may be just getting started here on this early and soggy morning at Giga Texas … this version is much harder to visually distinguish from the premium AWD versions, so I’ll come back on Wednesday and we’ll see if… pic.twitter.com/UX7yCQpgeC
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) May 11, 2026
Tegtmeyer notes the difficulty in visually distinguishing this base AWD model from higher-trim versions, unlike the earlier Long-Range RWD that lacked a motorized tonneau cover.
Tesla launched the $59,990 Dual Motor AWD Cybertruck in late February 2026 with a brief introductory pricing window that closed by month’s end.
Initial U.S. delivery estimates of June 2026 quickly slipped to September–October and, for newer orders, as far as April 2027.
The move underscores robust consumer interest in a more accessible all-wheel-drive Cybertruck priced under $60,000 before incentives—positioning it as a volume play for Tesla’s electric pickup lineup while premium AWD and Cyberbeast variants continue to be sold as usual.
Meanwhile, Cybercab production at the same Austin facility shows steady, if deliberate, progress. Tegtmeyer’s latest flyover documented dozens of glossy production-spec Cybercabs parked in the outbound lot—consistent with Tesla’s early statements that initial output would remain modest before scaling later in 2026.
The purpose-built robotaxi, unveiled in 2024 and lacking a steering wheel or pedals, rolled its first unit off the line in February. Volume manufacturing began in April, with early examples already undergoing autonomous testing around the factory grounds.
Elon Musk has repeatedly emphasized that Cybercab and Semi production will start slowly before ramping “exponentially” toward year-end. The presence of multiple finished units signals Tesla’s Unboxed manufacturing process is maturing, even as the company balances Cybertruck output with autonomy milestones.
Recent drone imagery also shows ongoing construction for Optimus and test-track expansions, highlighting Giga Texas’s evolving role as Tesla’s hub for next-generation vehicles.
For Cybertruck buyers, the potential ramp of the $59K AWD offers hope of shorter waits and broader market access. For autonomy enthusiasts, the growing fleet of Cybercabs hints at robotaxi service trials on the horizon.
While official confirmation from Tesla remains pending, Tegtmeyer’s footage provides the clearest public signal yet that both programs are advancing in parallel at Giga Texas.
News
Tesla Full Self-Driving gains momentum in Europe with new country mulling approval
Tesla is advancing FSD’s technology across Europe with fresh talks underway in Ireland, signaling broader regulatory progress. On May 10, Ireland’s Department of Transport confirmed that Tesla is actively engaging with national authorities, including the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI) to secure approval for FSD Supervised.
Tesla Full Self Driving (FSD) technology is gaining momentum in Europe, with yet another new country mulling a potential approval for operation on its roads.
Tesla is advancing FSD’s technology across Europe with fresh talks underway in Ireland, signaling broader regulatory progress. On May 10, Ireland’s Department of Transport confirmed that Tesla is actively engaging with national authorities, including the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI) to secure approval for FSD Supervised.
While the department noted that full rollout in Ireland would ultimately depend on EU-level clearance, the engagement marks a notable step forward in Tesla’s European expansion strategy, Irish media outlet RTE said.
The news comes on the heels of a landmark breakthrough in the Netherlands. In April, Dutch vehicle authority RDW granted the first-ever EU type approval for FSD Supervised after 18 months of rigorous testing on public roads and tracks. The provisional approval allows the system on all Dutch roads, with Tesla already rolling it out to select owners following mandatory safety training.
The Netherlands has since notified the European Commission and is advocating for wider recognition, positioning the Dutch decision as a potential template for the bloc.
Europe has long lagged behind the United States, China, and other markets where FSD is more widely available. Strict EU regulations on automated driving systems have required extensive validation, but momentum is building.
Tesla now lists the Netherlands alongside established markets such as the U.S., Canada, Australia, and South Korea on its regional FSD page. Other countries, including Belgium, are reportedly fast-tracking their own review processes in response to the Dutch precedent.
Analysts see Ireland’s involvement as strategic. As a smaller EU member with unique road challenges—narrow rural lanes, hedgerows, and variable weather—successful validation there could demonstrate FSD’s adaptability and strengthen the case for harmonized EU approval.
Tesla has indicated it aims for broader EU deployment as early as summer 2026, though the timeline remains fluid. Discussions at the EU’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles continue, with a possible vote later in the year. Some member states, particularly in Scandinavia, have expressed reservations over edge cases like speeding protocols and long-term safety data.
For Tesla, European expansion is more than a software update; it unlocks significant growth. The continent’s dense population and high vehicle ownership could accelerate data collection, refine the AI models powering FSD, and pave the way for unsupervised autonomy and robotaxi services.
Owners stand to benefit from enhanced safety features and reduced driver fatigue, while regulators weigh innovation against proven risk reduction. Early Dutch results already cite safety improvements:
Tesla Full Self-Driving shows stunning maneuver in Europe to silence skeptics
But the work is far from done, and challenges are still present. FSD Supervised still requires driver attention and a readiness to intervene. EU rules emphasize that the technology is not fully autonomous, placing legal responsibility on the human operator. Tesla must also navigate varying national road conditions and public perception.
Nevertheless, the Ireland talks underscore a clear trajectory: one national approval at a time, Europe is inching closer to widespread FSD access. If the Dutch model gains traction, Summer 2026 could mark the beginning of a transformative chapter for autonomous driving on European roads.
Tesla’s persistent engagement with regulators is starting to pay off, and it suggests the company is still heavily committed to the expansion efforts across Europe, despite the red tape it has had to persist through.
Tesla Optimus is already benefiting investors, top Wall Street firm says
Tesla Giga Texas buzzing as new Cybertruck appears to enter production
