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
SpaceX maintains unbelievable Starship target despite Booster 18 incident
It appears that it will take more than an anomaly to stop SpaceX’s march towards Starship V3’s refinement.
SpaceX recently shared an incredibly ambitious and bold update about Starship V3’s 12th test flight.
Despite the anomaly that damaged Booster 18, SpaceX maintained that it was still following its plans for the upgraded spacecraft and booster for the coming months. Needless to say, it appears that it will take more than an anomaly to stop SpaceX’s march towards Starship V3’s refinement.
Starship V3 is still on a rapid development path
SpaceX’s update was posted through the private space company’s official account on social media platform X. As per the company, “the Starbase team plans to have the next Super Heavy booster stacked in December, which puts it on pace with the test schedule planned for the first Starship V3 vehicle and associated ground systems.”
SpaceX then announced that Starship V3’s maiden flight is still expected to happen early next year. “Starship’s twelfth flight test remains targeted for the first quarter of 2026,” the company wrote in its post on X.
Elon Musk mentioned a similar timeline on X earlier this year. In the lead up to Starshp Flight 11, which proved flawless, Musk stated that “Starship V3 is a massive upgrade from the current V2 and should be through production and testing by end of year, with heavy flight activity next year.” Musk has also mentioned that Starship V3 should be good enough to use for initial Mars missions.
Booster 18 failure not slowing Starship V3’s schedule
SpaceX’s bold update came after Booster 18 experienced a major anomaly during gas system pressure testing at SpaceX’s Massey facility in Starbase, Texas. SpaceX confirmed in a post on X that no propellant was loaded, no engines were installed, and personnel were positioned at a safe distance when the booster’s lower section crumpled, resulting in no injuries.
Still, livestream footage showed significant damage around the liquid oxygen tank area of Booster 18, leading observers to speculate that the booster was a total loss. Booster 18 was among the earliest vehicles in the Starship V3 series, making the failure notable. Despite the setback, Starship V3’s development plans appear unchanged, with SpaceX pushing ahead of its Q1 2026 test flight target.
News
Tesla Sweden faces fresh union blockade at key Gothenburg paint shop
Allround Lack works with painting and damage repair of passenger cars, including Teslas.
Tesla’s ongoing labor conflict in Sweden escalated again as the trade union IF Metall issued a new blockade halting all Tesla paintwork at Allround Lack in Gothenburg.
Allround Lack works with painting and damage repair of passenger cars, including Teslas. It currently employs about 20 employees.
Yet another blockade against Tesla Sweden
IF Metall’s latest notice ordered a full work stoppage for all Tesla-related activity at Allround Lack. With the blockade in place, paint jobs on Tesla-owned vehicles, factory-warranty repairs, and transport-damage fixes, will be effectively frozen, as noted in a report from Dagens Arbete. While Allround Lack is a small paint shop, its work with Tesla means that the blockade would add challenges to the company’s operations in Sweden, at least to some degree.
Paint shop blockades have been a recurring tool in the longstanding conflict. The first appeared in late 2023, when repair shops were barred from servicing Tesla vehicles. Days later, the Painters’ Union implemented a nationwide halt on Tesla paint work across more than 100 shops. Since then, a steady stream of workshops has been pulled into the conflict.
Earlier blockades faced backlash from consumers
The sweeping effects of the early blockades drew criticism from industry groups and consumers. Employers and industry organization Transportföretagen stated that the strikes harmed numerous workshops across Sweden, with about 10 of its members losing about 50% of their revenue.
Private owners also expressed their objections. Tibor Blomhäll, chairman of Tesla Club Sweden, told DA in a previous statement that the blockades from IF Metall gave the impression that the union was specifically attacking consumers. “If I get parking damage to my car, I pay for the paint myself. The company Tesla is not involved in that deal at all. So many people felt singled out, almost stigmatized. What have I done as a private individual to get a union against me?” Blomhäll stated.
In response to these complaints, IF Metall introduced exemptions, allowing severely damaged vehicles to be repaired. The union later reopened access for private owners at workshops with collective agreements. The blockades at the workshops were also reformulated to only apply to work that is “ordered by Tesla on Tesla’s own cars, as well as work covered by factory warranties and transport damage on Tesla cars.”
News
Tesla breaks Norway’s all-time annual sales record with one month to spare
With November alone delivering 4,260 new registrations, Tesla has cemented its most dominant year ever in one of Europe’s most mature EV markets.
Tesla shattered Norway’s decade-old annual sales record this month, overtaking Volkswagen’s long-standing milestone with over one month still left in the year. Backed by surging demand ahead of Norway’s upcoming VAT changes, Tesla has already registered 26,666 vehicles year-to-date, surpassing Volkswagen’s 2016 record of 26,572 units.
With November alone delivering 4,260 new registrations month-to-date, Tesla has cemented its most dominant year ever in one of Europe’s most mature EV markets.
Model Y drives historic surge in Norway
Tesla’s impressive momentum has been led overwhelmingly by the Model Y, which accounted for 21,517 of Norway’s registrations this year, as noted in a CarUp report, citing data from Elbil Statistik. The Model 3 followed with 5,087 units, while the Model S and Model X contributed 30 and 19 vehicles, respectively. Even the parallel-imported Cybertruck made the charts with 13 registrations.
Demand intensified sharply through autumn as Norwegian buyers rushed to secure deliveries before the country’s VAT changes take effect in January. The new regulation is expected to add roughly NOK 50,000 to the price of a Model Y, prompting a wave of early purchases that helped lift Tesla beyond the previous all-time record well before year-end.
With December still ahead, Tesla is positioned to extend its historic lead further. Needless to say, it appears that Norway will prove to be one of Tesla’s strongest markets in Europe.
FSD could be a notable demand driver in 2026
What’s especially interesting about Tesla’s feat in Norway is that the company’s biggest selling point today, Full Self-Driving (Supervised), is not yet available there. Tesla, however, recently noted in a post on X that the Dutch regulator RDW has reportedly committed to issuing a Netherlands national approval for FSD (Supervised) in February 2026.
The RDW posted a response to Tesla’s post, clarifying the February 2026 target but stating that FSD’s approval is not assured yet. “The RDW has drawn up a schedule with Tesla in which Tesla is expected to be able to demonstrate that FSD Supervised meets the requirements in February 2026. RDW and Tesla know what efforts need to be made to make a decision on this in February. Whether the schedule will be met remains to be seen in the coming period,” the RDW wrote in a post on its official wesbite.
If FSD (Supervised) does get approved next year, Tesla’s vehicles could gain a notable advantage over competitors, as they would be the only vehicles on the market capable of driving themselves on both inner-city streets and highways with practically no driver input.
SpaceX maintains unbelievable Starship target despite Booster 18 incident
Tesla Sweden faces fresh union blockade at key Gothenburg paint shop
