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.
News
Tesla discloses interesting collaboration partner for Supercharging
This BOXABL collaboration would be a great way to add a rest stop to a rural Supercharging location, and could lead to more of these chargers across the U.S.
Tesla disclosed an interesting collaboration partner in an SEC filing, which looks like an indication of a potential project at Supercharger sites.
Tesla said on Tuesday in the filing that it was entering an agreement with BOXABL to design and build a Micromenity structure. Simply put, this is a modular building, usually a few hundred square feet in size, and it has been seen at Superchargers in Europe.
In Magnant, France, Tesla opened a small building at a Supercharger that is available to all EV owners. There are snacks and drinks inside, including ice cream, coffee, a gaming console, and restrooms. It gives people an opportunity to get up and out of their cars while charging.
This building was not built by BOXABL, but instead by bk World Lounges. It is likely the final Supercharging stop before people get to Paris, as it is located 250 kilometers, or 155 miles, from the City of Light.
Voir cette publication sur Instagram
Magnant has 56 stalls, so it is a large Supercharging stop compared to most. The building could be a sign of things to come, especially as Tesla has opened up larger Supercharger stations along major roadways.
It is for just a single building, as the Scope of Work within the filing states “a comprehensive package for one Micromenity building.”
NEWS: BOXABL, a company that creates modular, prefabricated buildings, has entered into an agreement with @Tesla.
This is Tesla formally contracting BOXABL to design, engineer, and build a pilot “Micromenity” structure, a compact, modular building unit.
While some info in the… pic.twitter.com/RabJczGpEp
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) December 9, 2025
Superchargers are commonly located at gas stations, shopping centers, and other major points of interest. However, there are some stops that are isolated from retail or entertainment.
This BOXABL collaboration would be a great way to add a rest stop to a rural Supercharging location, and could lead to more of these chargers across the U.S.
Tesla has done a lot of really great things for Supercharging this year.
Along with widespread expansion, the company launched the “Charging Passport” this week, opened the largest Supercharger in the world in Lost Hills, California, with 168 chargers, opened the Tesla Diner, a drive-in movie restaurant in Los Angeles, and initiated access to the infrastructure to even more automakers.
Elon Musk
Tesla CEO Elon Musk confirms Robotaxi safety monitor removal in Austin: here’s when
Musk has made the claim about removing Safety Monitors from Tesla Robotaxi vehicles in Austin three times this year, once in September, once in October, and once in November.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk confirmed on Tuesday at the xAI Hackathon that the company would be removing Safety Monitors from Robotaxis in Austin in just three weeks.
This would meet Musk’s timeline from earlier this year, as he has said on several occasions that Tesla Robotaxis would have no supervision in Austin by the end of 2025.
On Tuesday, Musk said:
“Unsupervised is pretty much solved at this point. So there will be Tesla Robotaxis operating in Austin with no one in them. Not even anyone in the passenger seat in about three weeks.”
Musk has made the claim about removing Safety Monitors from Tesla Robotaxi vehicles in Austin three times this year, once in September, once in October, and once in November.
In September, he said:
“Should be no safety driver by end of year.”
The safety driver is just there for the first few months to be extra safe.
Should be no safety driver by end of year.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 4, 2025
On the Q3 Earnings Call in October, he said:
“We are expecting ot have no safety drivers in at least large parts of Austin by the end of this year.”
Finally, in November, he reiterated the timeline in a public statement at the Shareholder Meeting:
“I expect Robotaxis to operate without safety drivers in large parts of Austin this year.”
Currently, Tesla uses Safety Monitors in Austin in the passenger’s seat on local roads. They will sit in the driver’s seat for highway routes. In the Bay Area ride-hailing operation, there is always a Safety Monitor in the driver’s seat.
Three weeks would deliver on the end-of-year promise, cutting it close, beating it by just two days. However, it would be a tremendous leap forward in the Robotaxi program, and would shut the mouths of many skeptics who state the current iteration is no different than having an Uber.
Tesla has also expanded its Robotaxi fleet this year, but the company has not given exact figures. Once it expands its fleet, even more progress will be made in Tesla’s self-driving efforts.
News
SpaceX reportedly mulling IPO, eyeing largest of all time: report
“I do want to try to figure out some way for Tesla shareholders to participate in SpaceX. I’ve been giving a lot of thought to how to give people access to SpaceX stock,” Musk said.
SpaceX is reportedly mulling an initial public offering, eyeing what would be the largest valuation at the time of availability of all time, a new report from Bloomberg said on Tuesday.
It is one of many reports involving one of Elon Musk’s companies and a massive market move, as this is not the first time we have seen reports of an IPO by SpaceX. Musk himself has also dispelled other reports in the past of a similar nature, including an xAI funding round.
SpaceX and Musk have yet to comment on the report. In the past, untrue reports were promptly replied to by the CEO; this has not yet gained any response, which is a good sign in terms of credibility.
However, he said just a few days ago that stories of this nature are inaccurate:
“There has been a lot of press claiming SpaceX is raising money at $800B, which is not accurate. SpaceX has been cash flow positive for many years and does periodic stock buybacks twice a year to provide liquidity for employees and investors. Valuation increments are a function of progress with Starship and Starlink and securing global direct-to-cell spectrum that greatly increases our addressable market. And one other thing that is arguably most significant by far.”
There has been a lot of press claiming @SpaceX is raising money at $800B, which is not accurate.
SpaceX has been cash flow positive for many years and does periodic stock buybacks twice a year to provide liquidity for employees and investors.
Valuation increments are a…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 6, 2025
Musk has discussed a potential IPO for SpaceX in recent months, as the November 6 shareholder meeting, as he commented on the “downsides” of having a public company, like litigation exposure, quarterly reporting pressures, and other inconveniences.
Nevertheless, Musk has also said he wants there to be a way for Tesla shareholders to get in on the action. At the meeting in early November, he said:
“I do want to try to figure out some way for Tesla shareholders to participate in SpaceX. I’ve been giving a lot of thought to how to give people access to SpaceX stock.”
Additionally, he added:
“Maybe at some point., SpaceX should become a public company despite all the downsides of being public.”
Musk has been historically reluctant to take SpaceX public, at times stating it could become a barrier to colonizing Mars. That does not mean it will not happen.
Bloomberg’s report cites multiple unidentified sources who are familiar with the matter. They indicate to the publication that SpaceX wants to go public in mid-to-late 2026, and it wants to raise $30 billion at a valuation of around $1.5 trillion.
This is not the first time SpaceX has discussed an IPO; we reported on it nine years ago. We hope it is true, as the community has spoken for a long time about having access to SpaceX stock. Legendary investor Ron Baron is one of the lucky few to be a SpaceX investor, and said it, along with Tesla, is a “lifetime investment.”
Tesla bull Ron Baron reveals $100M SpaceX investment, sees 3-5x return on TSLA
The primary driver of SpaceX’s value is Starlink, the company’s satellite internet service. Starlink contributes 60-70 percent of SpaceX’s revenue, meaning it is the primary value engine. Launch services, like Falcon 9 contracts, and the development of Starship, also play supporting roles.
Tesla discloses interesting collaboration partner for Supercharging
Tesla CEO Elon Musk confirms Robotaxi safety monitor removal in Austin: here’s when
