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 Full Self-Driving has officially landed in a new country today, its seventh overall after it launched in both Australia and New Zealand earlier this year.
On Sunday, Tesla owners in South Korea reported that the company’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) had started arriving in their vehicles. Owners reported that it was v14.1.4, which is not the latest version available in other countries, but is one of the most recent releases Tesla has deployed to drivers:
From 6 to 7
Tesla Full Self-Driving has launched in South Korea; the 7th country to have FSD https://t.co/X6gm1SyoxV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 23, 2025
This marks the seventh country in which Tesla has enabled its Full Self-Driving suite, following the United States and Puerto Rico, Canada, China, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand.
Tesla launched Full Self-Driving most recently in Australia and New Zealand about three months ago. The expansion is a major breakthrough for the company as it aims to launch Full Self-Driving on a global scale.
However, the company’s biggest challenge thus far has been getting European regulatory agencies to handle the red tape that has inhibited Tesla from launching its semi-autonomous driving suite on the continent. Recently, it admitted that it sees a pathway through Dutch regulatory bodies, which seem to be the most willing to work with Tesla to get FSD in Europe.
Tesla Full Self-Driving appears to be heading to Europe soon
The company said that it has driven over 1 million kilometers safely on European roads across 17 different countries in internal testing. But its path to success will be by “partnering with the Dutch approval authority RDW to gain exemption for the feature. This involves proving compliance with existing regulations (UN-R-171 DCAS) + filing an exemption (EU Article 39) for yet-to-be-regulated behaviors like Level 2 systems off-highway, system-initiated lane changes with hands-off the wheel, etc.”
Perhaps the expansion into Europe will be the biggest challenge for Tesla, but it could also yield major results and advantages for the company moving forward. Tesla said it hopes to have FSD available in Europe sometime early next year.
For now, the expansion in South Korea is the latest win for Tesla and its self-driving efforts. In the U.S., it now turns its focus toward fully autonomous operation, as it works with state agencies to launch Robotaxi outside of Texas, California, and most recently, Arizona.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk teased the insane capabilities of the next major Full Self-Driving update just hours after the company rolled out version 14.2 to owners.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2 had some major improvements from the previous iteration of v14.1.x. We were on v14.1.7, the most advanced configuration of the v14.1 family, before Tesla transitioned us and others to v14.2.
However, Musk has said that the improvements coming in the next major update, which will be v14.3, will be where “the last big piece of the puzzle finally lands.”
14.3 is where the last big piece of the puzzle finally lands
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 21, 2025
There were some major improvements with v14.2, most notably, Tesla seemed to narrow in on the triggers that caused issues with hesitation and brake stabbing in v14.1.x.
One of the most discussed issues with the past rollout was that of brake stabbing, where the vehicle would contemplate proceeding with a route as traffic was coming from other directions.
We experienced it most frequently at intersections, especially four-way stop signs.
Elon Musk hints at when Tesla can fix this FSD complaint with v14
In our review of it yesterday, it was evident that this issue had been resolved, at least to the extent that we had no issues with it in a 62-minute drive, which you can watch here.
Some owners also reported a more relaxed driver monitoring system, which is something Tesla said it was working on as it hopes to allow drivers to text during operation in the coming months. We did not test this, as laws in Pennsylvania prohibit the use of phones at any time due to the new Paul Miller’s Law, which took effect earlier this year.
However, the improvements indicate that Tesla is certainly headed toward a much more sentient FSD experience, so much so that Musk’s language seems to be more indicative of a more relaxed experience in terms of overall supervision from the driver, especially with v14.3.
Musk did not release or discuss a definitive timeline for the release of v14.3, especially as v14.2 just rolled out to Early Access Program (EAP) members yesterday. However, v14.1 rolled out to Tesla owners just a few weeks ago in late 2025. There is the potential that v14.3 could be part of the coming Holiday Update, or potentially in a release of its own before the New Year.
Tesla rolled out Full Self-Driving version 14.2 yesterday to members of the Early Access Program (EAP). Expectations were high, and Tesla surely delivered.
With the rollout of Tesla FSD v14.2, there were major benchmarks for improvement from the v14.1 suite, which spanned across seven improvements. Our final experience with v14.1 was with v14.1.7, and to be honest, things were good, but it felt like there were a handful of regressions from previous iterations.
While there were improvements in brake stabbing and hesitation, we did experience a few small interventions related to navigation and just overall performance. It was nothing major; there were no critical takeovers that required any major publicity, as they were more or less subjective things that I was not particularly comfortable with. Other drivers might have been more relaxed.
With v14.2 hitting our cars yesterday, there were a handful of things we truly noticed in terms of improvement, most notably the lack of brake stabbing and hesitation, a major complaint with v14.1.x.
However, in a 62-minute drive that was fully recorded, there were a lot of positives, and only one true complaint, which was something we haven’t had issues with in the past.
The Good
Lack of Brake Stabbing and Hesitation
Perhaps the most notable and publicized issue with v14.1.x was the presence of brake stabbing and hesitation. Arriving at intersections was particularly nerve-racking on the previous version simply because of this. At four-way stops, the car would not be assertive enough to take its turn, especially when other vehicles at the same intersection would inch forward or start to move.
This was a major problem.
However, there were no instances of this yesterday on our lengthy drive. It was much more assertive when arriving at these types of scenarios, but was also more patient when FSD knew it was not the car’s turn to proceed.
Can report on v14.2 today there were ZERO instances of break stabbing or hesitation at intersections today
It was a significant improvement from v14.1.x
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 21, 2025
This improvement was the most noticeable throughout the drive, along with fixes in overall smoothness.
Speed Profiles Seem to Be More Reasonable
There were a handful of FSD v14 users who felt as if the loss of a Max Speed setting was a negative. However, these complaints will, in our opinion, begin to subside, especially as things have seemed to be refined quite nicely with v14.2.
Freeway driving is where this is especially noticeable. If it’s traveling too slow, just switch to a faster profile. If it’s too fast, switch to a slower profile. However, the speeds seem to be much more defined with each Speed Profile, which is something that I really find to be a huge advantage. Previously, you could tell the difference in speeds, but not in driving styles. At times, Standard felt a lot like Hurry. Now, you can clearly tell the difference between the two.
It seems as if Tesla made a goal that drivers should be able to tell which Speed Profile is active if it was not shown on the screen. With v14.1.x, this was not necessarily something that could be done. With v14.2, if someone tested me on which Speed Profile was being used, I’m fairly certain I could pick each one.
Better Overall Operation
I felt, at times, especially with v14.1.7, there were some jerky movements. Nothing that was super alarming, but there were times when things just felt a little more finicky than others.
v14.2 feels much smoother overall, with really great decision-making, lane changes that feel second nature, and a great speed of travel. It was a very comfortable ride.
The Bad
Parking
It feels as if there was a slight regression in parking quality, as both times v14.2 pulled into parking spots, I would have felt compelled to adjust manually if I were staying at my destinations. For the sake of testing, at my first destination, I arrived, allowed the car to park, and then left. At the tail-end of testing, I walked inside the store that FSD v14.2 drove me to, so I had to adjust the parking manually.
This was pretty disappointing. Apart from parking at Superchargers, which is always flawless, parking performance is something that needs some attention. The release notes for v14.2. state that parking spot selection and parking quality will improve with future versions.
Any issues with parking on your end? 14.1.7 didn’t have this trouble with parking pic.twitter.com/JPLRO2obUj
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 21, 2025
However, this was truly my only complaint about v14.2.
You can check out our full 62-minute ride-along below:
Tesla Full Self-Driving lands in a new country, its 7th
Tesla CEO Elon Musk teases insane capabilities of next major FSD update
