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 blocks unauthorized Starlink terminals used by Russian troops
Ukrainian officials confirmed that Starlink terminals believed to be used by Russian troops were disabled after coordination with SpaceX.
SpaceX has taken steps to block unauthorized use of its Starlink satellite internet network, a move Ukrainian officials stated is already disrupting Russian military communications.
Russian units lose a key communications tool
As per a report from The Guardian, Ukrainian defense officials have confirmed that Starlink terminals believed to be used by Russian troops were recently disabled after coordination with SpaceX. The move reportedly affected frontline communications and drone operations, especially in areas where traditional military radios are unreliable or easily jammed.
For months, Russian units had relied on large numbers of illicitly obtained Starlink terminals to stay connected along the front. The satellite internet service allowed faster coordination and more precise drone use for Russian forces.
Several Russian military bloggers close to frontline units have acknowledged the impact of the Starlink shutdown, with some describing sudden connectivity problems in the satellite internet service.
Russia lacks comparable replacement
Russia does not have a satellite internet system that matches Starlink’s speed, coverage, and ease of deployment. Alternatives such as fiber-optic lines, short-range wireless links, and digital radio systems take longer to install and work inadequately for fast-moving units.
Russia does operate limited satellite communications through state-linked providers, but those systems rely mainly on geostationary satellites, which are notably slower. Coverage is uneven, and data capacity is far lower than Starlink’s low-Earth-orbit network.
For now, Ukraine has stated that it has introduced a verification system that allows only approved Starlink terminals to connect. Devices believed to be linked to Russian forces are blocked from the network. That being said, Ukrainian officials have also claimed Russian units are trying to work around the restrictions by asking civilians to register Starlink terminals in their names.
News
Tesla Semi pricing revealed after company uncovers trim levels
This is a step up from the prices that were revealed back in 2017, but with inflation and other factors, it is no surprise Tesla could not come through on the numbers it planned to offer nine years ago. When the Semi was unveiled in November 2017, Tesla had three pricing levels:
Tesla Semi pricing appears to have been revealed after the company started communicating with the entities interested in purchasing its all-electric truck. The pricing details come just days after Tesla revealed it planned to offer two trim levels and uncovered the specs of each.
After CEO Elon Musk said the Semi would enter volume production this year, Tesla revealed trim levels shortly thereafter. Offering a Standard Range and a Long Range trim will fit the needs of many companies that plan to use the truck for local and regional deliveries.
Tesla Semi lines up for $165M in California incentives ahead of mass production
It will also be a good competitor to the all-electric semi trucks already available from companies like Volvo.
With the release of specs, Tesla helped companies see the big picture in terms of what the Semi could do to benefit their business. However, pricing information was not available.
A new report from Electrek states that Tesla has been communicating with those interested companies and is pricing the Standard Range at $250,000 per unit, while the Long Range is priced at $290,000. These prices come before taxes and destination fees.
$TSLA – TESLA IS QUOTING $290,000 FOR ITS 500-MILES ELECTRIC SEMI TRUCK – ELECTREK
— *Walter Bloomberg (@DeItaone) February 10, 2026
This is a step up from the prices that were revealed back in 2017, but with inflation and other factors, it is no surprise Tesla could not come through on the numbers it planned to offer nine years ago. When the Semi was unveiled in November 2017, Tesla had three pricing levels:
- $150,000 for a 300-mile range version
- $180,000 for a 500-mile range version
- $200,000 for a limited “Founders Series” edition; full upfront payment required for priority production and limited to just 1,000 units
Tesla has not officially released any specific information regarding pricing on the Semi, but it is not surprising that it has not done so. The Semi is a vehicle that will be built for businesses, and pricing information is usually reserved for those who place reservations. This goes for most products of this nature.
The Semi will be built at a new, dedicated production facility in Sparks, Nevada, which Tesla broke ground on in 2024. The factory was nearly complete in late 2025, and executives confirmed that the first “online builds” were targeted for that same time.
Meaningful output is scheduled for this year, as Musk reiterated earlier this week that it would enter mass production this year. At full capacity, the factory will build 50,000 units annually.
News
Tesla executive moves on after 13 years: ‘It has been a privilege to serve’
“It is challenging to encapsulate 13 years in a single post. The journey at Tesla has been one of continuous evolution. From the technical intricacies of designing, building, and operating one of the world’s largest AI clusters to impactful contributions in IT, Security, Sales, and Service, it has been a privilege to serve,” Jegannathan said in the post.
Tesla executive Raj Jegannathan is moving on from the company after 13 years, he announced on LinkedIn on Monday.
“It is challenging to encapsulate 13 years in a single post. The journey at Tesla has been one of continuous evolution. From the technical intricacies of designing, building, and operating one of the world’s largest AI clusters to impactful contributions in IT, Security, Sales, and Service, it has been a privilege to serve,” Jegannathan said in the post.
After starting as a Senior Staff Engineer in Fremont back in November 2012, Jegannathan slowly worked his way through the ranks at Tesla. His most recent role was Vice President of IT/AI Infrastructure, Business Apps, and Infosec.
However, it was reported last year that Jegannathan had taken on a new role, which was running the North American sales team following the departure of Troy Jones, who had held the position previously.
While Jegannathan’s LinkedIn does not mention this position specifically, it seemed to be accurate, considering Tesla had not explicitly promoted any other person to the role.
It is a big loss for Tesla, but not a destructive departure. Jegannathan was one of the few company executives who answered customer and fan questions on X, a unique part of the Tesla ownership experience.
Tesla to offer Full Self-Driving gifting program: here’s how it will work
It currently remains unclear if Jegannathan was removed from the position or if he left under his own accord.
“As I move on, I do so with a full heart and excitement for what lies ahead. Thank you, Tesla, for this wonderful opportunity!” he concluded.
The departure marks a continuing trend of executives leaving the company, as the past 24 months have seen some significant turnover at the executive level.
Tesla has shown persistently elevated executive turnover over the past two years, as names like Drew Baglino, Rohan Patel, Rebecca Tinucci, Daniel Ho, Omead Afshar, Milan Kovac, and Siddhant Awasthi have all been notable names to exit the company in the past two years.
There are several things that could contribute to this. Many skeptics will point to Elon Musk’s politics, but that is not necessarily the case.
Tesla is a difficult, but rewarding place to work. It is a company that requires a lot of commitment, and those who are halfway in might not choose to stick around. Sacrificing things like time with family might not outweigh the demands of Tesla and Musk.
Additionally, many of these executives have made a considerable amount of money thanks to stock packages the company offers to employees. While many might be looking for new opportunities, some might be interested in an early retirement.
Tesla is also in the process of transitioning away from its most notable division, automotive. While it still plans to manufacture cars in the millions, it is turning more focus toward robotics and autonomy, and these plans might not align with what some executives might want for themselves. There are a wide variety of factors in the decision to leave a job, so it is important not to immediately jump to controversy.
SpaceX blocks unauthorized Starlink terminals used by Russian troops
Tesla Semi pricing revealed after company uncovers trim levels
