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 has secured regulatory approval for its Full Self-Driving (Supervised) system in Denmark, marking a significant step in the technology’s expansion across Europe.
Announced on June 9, the approval positions Denmark as the fourth European country to greenlight FSD Supervised, following the Netherlands, Lithuania, and Estonia.
Rollout to Danish vehicle owners is expected to begin soon, the company said.
The Danish Road Traffic Authority granted provisional approval after reviewing the original type approval issued by the Dutch vehicle authority (RDW) on April 10, 2026.
FSD Supervised now approved in Denmark 🇩🇰
Rollout will begin soon pic.twitter.com/Xpxwcme10k
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) June 9, 2026
This national recognition approach allows individual countries to bypass slower EU-wide harmonization processes, accelerating deployment. Lithuania activated the system on May 20, with Estonia following on May 29, demonstrating a rapid domino effect across the region.
FSD Supervised enables advanced driver assistance capabilities, including automatic steering, acceleration, braking, lane changes, and navigation through complex urban and rural environments. The system is designed for supervised use, as its name states, meaning drivers must remain attentive and ready to intervene at all times.
It adapts to diverse conditions, such as rain, night driving, and varied road types common in Denmark, but it is important to note that the tech is not fully autonomous.
Following a launch in Europe just a few months ago, with its first approval coming in the Netherlands, Tesla is just now highlighting the successful start.
Early data from the Netherlands highlights strong safety performance. Between April 10 and June 5, vehicles using FSD Supervised recorded 3.5 times fewer collisions than manual driving overall, with zero crashes reported on highways across more than 16.6 million kilometers driven.
These results underscore the potential of the technology to enhance road safety when properly supervised.
Tesla’s European push builds on its global footprint, now reaching 12 countries with FSD Supervised availability. The software receives continuous over-the-air updates, improving performance based on real-world data from millions of miles.
In Denmark, owners with compatible hardware—particularly newer vehicles equipped with Hardware 4 (HW4)—are anticipated to gain access first, though exact timelines and eligibility details will be confirmed during rollout.
This approval reflects growing regulatory confidence in supervised autonomy across Europe. As more nations recognize the Dutch certification, Tesla continues to demonstrate how its AI-driven approach can navigate real-world driving scenarios effectively. Denmark’s addition strengthens Tesla’s position in the region, paving the way for broader adoption on a continent that his been surprisingly slow to adopt the technology.
With FSD Supervised now approved in four European markets in just two months, the technology is steadily advancing toward wider availability. Tesla aims to refine the system further through ongoing data collection and software iterations, supporting its vision for safer and more efficient transportation.
Tesla has apparently revised the policy it previously had listed for Full Self-Driving transfers on the newest All-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck that the company had sold for a steal price of just $59,000 earlier this year.
After initially stating that customers who bought the pickup would be able to transfer FSD purchases, Tesla recently changed the language in those terms and conditions to reflect that this would no longer be the case.
Tesla launches new Cybertruck trim with more features than ever for a low price
The adjustment in terminology has caused a handful of orderers to cancel their reservations due to the loss of FSD transfer:
Just cancelled my 59k CT order today. My screenshot from that day of order (feb 20th) clearly shows that it would be eligible.
Terms were retroactively modified. Our 2020 Y and 2023 S are just fine for now. pic.twitter.com/D9PFnId1B4
— Ryan Scanlan 👥 (@Xenius) June 8, 2026
Tesla said orders for the new Cybertruck AWD must be placed by March 31, 2026, to qualify for the FSD transfer. The language in the document from earlier this year explicitly states that they “may qualify” for the transfer program, but the date of March 31 is explicitly mentioned.
Additionally, Tesla Delivery Advisors reached out to some orderers of the AWD Cybertruck, who were told there was “an update to the eligibility of the Full Self-Driving (Supervised) transfer.” Tesla stated they could:
- proceed without the transfer,
- upgrade to a Premium or Cyberbeast trim and request an FSD Transfer
- cancel the order and be refunded the $250 order fee.
Tesla turning around and changing these terms will undoubtedly result in a handful of cancellations on the part of those who have placed an order for this truck. They could pay $99 per month for an FSD subscription, which is now the only option available, but having purchased the suite outright on another vehicle and being told the transfer policy would be upheld, only to have it cancelled, is a tough pill to swallow.
These moves were also made by Tesla just before deliveries were set to begin on the Cybertruck AWD configuration. Reservation holders have started receiving VINs for their trucks, and Tesla is preparing to hand over the first units.
It’s a disappointing move from Tesla that will undoubtedly make some of its fans who have bought the truck frustrated.
In the world of autonomous ride-hailing, there are only a handful of names. Among those few companies lies a strategy play by each to keep the opposition on their toes. Tesla, on the other hand, already tipped its hand at where it is headed next.
Tesla has signaled its next major push in the autonomous ride-hailing market by filing for an Autonomous Vehicle Network Company permit in Nevada (Docket 26-05015). Through Tesla Robotaxi, LLC, the company seeks approval to operate up to 5,000 robotaxis in Clark County, including high-traffic areas like Las Vegas and Henderson airports, within the first 12 months of launch.
This filing builds on Tesla’s earlier testing approvals from the Nevada DMV in September 2025 and preparations such as maintenance hubs in the Las Vegas area. Nevada represents a strategic expansion into a major tourist destination, where high visitor volumes could drive strong utilization and showcase the reliability of unsupervised autonomy to a broad audience.
We’d have to assume this means Tesla is targeting Las Vegas, and it’s a great move from a business perspective.
Vegas is such a melting pot of people from all around the country and the world. It will expose people from all corners of the globe to Tesla’s autonomy capabilities https://t.co/Qz3fQmhULF pic.twitter.com/Du5pj2RyWC
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 6, 2026
Approval would mark a significant step toward commercial operations in a new state, following progress in Texas.
Tesla’s shareholder decks and earnings calls have clearly outlined these ambitions. In the Q4 2025 shareholder deck, the company listed planned Robotaxi coverage for the first half of 2026, explicitly naming Las Vegas alongside Phoenix, Miami, Orlando, and Tampa, with Dallas and Houston already advancing. Austin was noted as “ramping unsupervised,” while the Bay Area remained in safety-driver mode.
By Q1 2026, the deck updated statuses to reflect launches in Dallas and Houston, with “preparations underway” for the remaining cities, including Las Vegas. Paid Robotaxi miles nearly doubled sequentially in Q1, underscoring momentum even as broader timelines adjusted slightly for regulatory and operational readiness.
On earnings calls, CEO Elon Musk and executives have emphasized a phased rollout prioritizing safety. Unsupervised operations in Texas have shown strong results with no reported accidents or injuries in the program. Tesla continues groundwork in additional major U.S. metros through testing and permitting, positioning it to scale quickly once approvals clear.
This Nevada move aligns with Tesla’s vision of transforming from an EV maker into an AI and robotics leader. The forthcoming Cybercab, which started production at Giga Texas in April, is expected to eventually dominate the fleet, replacing many Model Y vehicles and driving down costs to enable affordable rides.
For investors and the industry, this signals Tesla’s intent to dominate key Sun Belt and tourist markets where weather, regulations, and demand favor rapid scaling. Success in Las Vegas could validate the model for denser urban and high-tourism environments, accelerating the shift toward a future where robotaxis generate meaningful revenue.
Las Vegas will also expand knowledge among the general public at Tesla’s capabilities, helping people experience driverless ride-hailing from several companies during their time on The Strip.
Tesla Full Self-Driving is taking over Europe: fourth country gets FSD approval
Tesla revises FSD transfer policy on new Cybertruck trim, causing cancellations
