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
Tesla FSD in Europe vs. US: It’s not what you think
Tesla FSD is approved in the Netherlands, but the European version differs from what US drivers use.
On April 10, 2026, the Dutch vehicle authority RDW granted Tesla the first European type approval for Full Self-Driving Supervised, making the Netherlands the first country on the continent to authorize Tesla’s semi-autonomous system for customer use on public roads.
As Teslarati reported, the RDW approval followed 18 months of testing, more than 1.6 million kilometers driven on EU roads, 13,000 customer ride-alongs, and documentation covering over 400 compliance requirements. Tesla Europe had been running public demo drives through cities like Amsterdam and Eindhoven since early 2026, giving passengers their first experience of the system on European streets.
The European version of FSD is not the same software US drivers use. The RDW’s own statement is direct, noting that the software versions and functionalities in the US and Europe “are therefore not comparable one-to-one.” We’ve compile a table below that captures the most significant differences between US-based Tesla FSD vs. European Tesla FSD that’s based on what regulators and Tesla have publicly confirmed.
| Feature | FSD US | FSD Europe (Netherlands) |
| Regulatory framework | Self-certification, post-market oversight | Pre-market type approval required (UN R-171 + Article 39) |
| Hands requirement | Hands-off permitted on highway | Hands must be available to take over immediately |
| Auto turning from stop lights | Available — navigates intersections, turns, and traffic signals autonomously | Available in EU build — confirmed in Amsterdam demo footage handling unprotected turns and signalized intersections |
| Driving modes | Multiple profiles including a more aggressive “Mad Max” mode | EU build is more conservative by default and errs on the side of restraint when it cannot confirm the limit |
| Summon | Available — Smart Summon navigates parking lots to driver | Status unclear — not confirmed as part of the RDW-approved feature set; urban FSD approval targeted separately for 2027 |
| Driver monitoring | Camera-based eye tracking | Stricter continuous monitoring with more frequent intervention alerts |
| Software version | FSD v14.3 | EU-specific builds that must be separately validated by RDW |
| Geographic restriction | US, Canada, China, Mexico, Australia, NZ, South Korea | Netherlands only; EU-wide vote pending summer 2026 |
| Subscription price | $99/month | €99/month |
| Full urban FSD scope | Available | Partial — separate urban application planned for 2027 |
The approval comes as Tesla is under real pressure to grow FSD subscriptions globally. Musk’s 2025 CEO compensation package, approved by shareholders, includes a milestone requiring 10 million active FSD subscriptions as one condition for his stock awards to vest. Tesla hit one million subscriptions during its Q4 2025 earnings call, which is a meaningful start, but still a long way from the target. Opening Europe as a market for subscriptions, rather than just hardware sales, directly accelerates that number.
Tesla has said it anticipates EU-wide recognition of the Dutch approval during summer 2026, which would extend FSD access to Germany, France, and other major markets through a mutual recognition process without each country repeating the full 18-month review. That timeline is Tesla’s projection, not a confirmed regulatory outcome. As Musk acknowledged at Davos in January 2026, “We hope to get Supervised Full Self-Driving approval in Europe, hopefully next month.”
News
Tesla’s troublesome Auto Wipers get a major upgrade
Tesla has quietly deployed a major over-the-air (OTA) update across its entire fleet, implementing a new patent that could finally solve one of the most complained-about features in its vehicles: the Auto Wipers.
One of Tesla’s most complained-about features is that of the Auto Wipers, but they have recently received a major upgrade that impacts every vehicle in the company’s fleet, a company executive confirmed.
Tesla has quietly deployed a major over-the-air (OTA) update across its entire fleet, implementing a new patent that could finally solve one of the most complained-about features in its vehicles: the Auto Wipers.
Confirmed by senior Tesla AI engineer Yun-Ta Tsai on April 10, the improvement is based on patent US 20260097742 A1. It introduces an “energy balance model” that adds a tactile, physics-driven layer to the existing camera-based system—without requiring any new hardware.
🚨 Tesla has already implemented a new patent that improves the accuracy of the Auto Wiper system https://t.co/QjjKHKxSNv pic.twitter.com/mEbd04oJAu
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 10, 2026
Tesla drivers have griped about auto wipers since the company ditched traditional rain sensors in favor of Tesla Vision around 2018.
Owners routinely report the wipers failing to activate in light drizzle or mist, leaving windshields streaked and visibility dangerously reduced. Just as often, they formerly blasted into high-speed mode on dry, sunny days, screeching across glass and risking scratches or premature blade wear.
This is a rare occurrence anymore, but many owners still report the feature having the wipers perform at the incorrect speed or frequency when precipitation is falling.
Tesla has tried repeatedly to fix the problem through software alone.
Early “Deep Rain” initiatives and the 2023 Autowiper v4 update used multi-camera video and refined neural networks, with Elon Musk promising “super good” performance. The 2024.14 update added manual sensitivity boosts, and later FSD versions claimed further gains. Yet complaints persisted.
Elon Musk apologizes for Tesla’s quirky auto wipers, hints at improvements
Vision systems struggle with edge cases—glare, bugs, reflections, or faint mist—because they rely purely on visual inference rather than physical detection
The new patent takes a different approach. The car’s computer constantly measures electrical power delivered to the wiper motor. It subtracts predictable losses—internal motor friction, linkage drag, and aerodynamic resistance—leaving only the friction force between the rubber blade and windshield glass.
Water lubricates the glass, sharply reducing friction; dry or icy surfaces increase it dramatically. This real-time “tactile” data acts as an independent check on the camera’s visual cues, instantly shutting down false triggers on dry glass and fine-tuning speed for actual rain.
The system can also detect ice and auto-activate defrost heaters, while long-term friction trends alert drivers when blades need replacing.
By fusing vision with precise motor-load physics, Tesla has created a hybrid sensor that is both elegant and cost-free. Owners have waited years for reliable auto wipers; this OTA rollout may finally deliver them.
News
Tesla Roadster unveiling set for this month: what to expect
As Tesla finally edges toward production and an updated reveal, enthusiasts aren’t asking for compromises; they’re demanding the original vision be honored. Here are five clear expectations that will come with the vehicle’s unveiling, which is still set for later this month, hopefully.
The Tesla Roadster has been the ultimate carrot on a stick since its 2017 unveiling. Promised as the fastest production car ever made, with 0-60 mph in under two seconds and a top speed over 250 mph, it has endured years of delays.
As Tesla finally edges toward production and an updated reveal, enthusiasts aren’t asking for compromises; they’re demanding the original vision be honored. Here are five clear expectations that will come with the vehicle’s unveiling, which is still set for later this month, hopefully.
Performance and Safety Do Not Go Hand in Hand, and That’s the Point
The Roadster is not a family sedan or a daily commuter. It is a no-holds-barred supercar meant to embarrass six-figure exotics on track days. Tesla should resist the temptation to load it with every passive-safety nanny and electronic guardian that dulls the raw feedback drivers crave.
Owners want to feel the road, not be shielded from it. Strip away unnecessary electronic limits so the car can deliver the visceral thrill Elon Musk originally described. Safety ratings will still be strong because of Tesla’s structural excellence, but the Roadster’s mission is speed, not coddling.
He said late last year:
“This is not a…safety is not the main goal. If you buy a Ferrari, safety is not the number one goal. I say, if safety is your number one goal, do not buy the Roadster…We’ll aspire not to kill anyone in this car. It’ll be the best of the last of the human-driven cars. The best of the last.”
Musk was clear that this will not be a car that will be the safest in Tesla’s lineup, but that’s the point. It’s not made for anything other than pushing the limits.
Tesla Needs to Come Through on a HUGE Feature
The Roadster unveiling would be wildly disappointing if it were only capable of driving. Tesla has long teased the potential ability to float or hover, and they need to come through on something that is along those lines.
The SpaceX cold-gas thruster package was never a joke. Musk, at one time, explicitly said owners could opt for a set of thrusters capable of lifting the car off the ground for short hops or dramatic launches. That feature is what separates the Roadster from every other hypercar on the planet.
If the production version arrives without it—or with a watered-down “maybe later” version—enthusiasts will feel betrayed. Deliver the thrusters, make them functional, and let the Roadster literally hover above the competition.
An Updated Design Might Be Warranted
It’s been nine years since Tesla first rolled off the next-gen Roadster design and showed it to the world.
The 2017 concept still looks sharp, but eight years is an eternity in automotive styling. The sharp lines and aggressive stance now compete against the angular Cybertruck and the next-generation vehicles rolling out of Fremont and Austin.
Tesla Roadster patent hints at radical seat redesign ahead of reveal
A subtle refresh, maybe with sharper headlights, revised aero elements, and modern materials, would keep the Roadster feeling current without losing its identity. Fans don’t want a complete redesign, just enough evolution to prove Tesla still cares.
Self-Driving Isn’t a Necessity for the Tesla Roadster
Full Self-Driving hardware and software belong in the Model 3, Model Y, and the upcoming robotaxi—not in a two-seat rocket built for canyon carving. The Roadster’s entire appeal is the direct connection between driver, steering wheel, and asphalt.
Offering FSD as standard would dilute the purity that separates it from every other Tesla. Make autonomy an optional delete or simply omit it. Let the Roadster remain the purest driving machine in the lineup, because that’s what it is all about.
Tesla Needs to Come Through on the Unveiling Timeline
The last thing Tesla needs right now is another complaint about not hitting timelines or expectations. This unveiling has already been pushed back one time, from April 1 to “probably in late April.”
Repeated delays have tested even the most patient fans. Whatever date the company now sets for the next major reveal or start of production must be met. No more “next year” promises. The Roadster has waited long enough. When it finally arrives, it must feel worth every extra month.
If Tesla hits these five marks, the Roadster won’t just be another fast car—it will be the machine that redefines what a Tesla can be. The world is watching.
Tesla FSD in Europe vs. US: It’s not what you think
Tesla’s troublesome Auto Wipers get a major upgrade
