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 shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
