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 Model 3 wins ‘most economical EV to own’ title in new study
The Tesla Model 3 has captured another crown in a recent study showing the most cost-effective EVs
The Tesla Model 3 recently captured the title of “most economical electric vehicle to own” in a new study performed by research firm Zutobi.
Perhaps one of the biggest and most popular reasons people are switching to EVs is the cost savings. Combining home charging, lower maintenance costs, and tax credits has all enabled consumers to consider EVs as a way to save money on their daily drivers. However, there are some EVs that are more efficient and cost-effective than others.
Tesla police fleet saves nearly half a million in upkeep and repair costs
Zutobi‘s new study shows that EV cost-effectiveness comes at different levels. For example, some cars are simply better than others on a cost-per-mile basis. The study used a simple process to determine which EVs are more cost-effective than others by showing how much it would cost to drive 100 miles.
National averages for energy rates have been used to calculate the cost as they widely vary from state to state.
The Rear-Wheel Drive Tesla Model 3 was listed as the most economical vehicle in the study:
“The standard Tesla Model 3 is the most economical electric vehicle to drive in 2025. With a usable battery capacity of 57.5 kWh and a real-world range of 260 miles, it costs just $3.60 to drive 100 miles. That translates to an impressive 2,781 miles per $100 of electricity—making it the most efficient choice for EV owners nationwide.”
It had an estimated cost of just $3.60 to drive 100 miles.
The Tesla Model 3 Long Range All-Wheel Drive was second, the study showed:
“Next is the Long Range version of the Model 3, which offers extended range and dual-motor all-wheel drive. With a larger 75 kWh battery and 325 miles of range, the cost to drive 100 miles is slightly higher at $3.75, still equating to a strong 2,665 miles per $100.”
This version of the Model 3 had a price of just $3.75 to drive 100 miles.
In third, the BMW i4 eDrive35 surprised us with a cost of just $4.12 to drive 100 miles:
“Rounding out the top three is the BMW i4 eDrive35, with a 67.1 kWh battery and a real-world range of 265 miles. Drivers can expect to pay $4.12 per 100 miles, which still allows for 2,429 miles per $100—a solid choice for those seeking luxury and efficiency.”
Several other Teslas made the list as well. The Model 3 Performance ($4.34 per 100 miles) was sixth and tied with the Volkswagen ID.3 Pure, the Tesla Model S Long Range ($4.35 per 100 miles) was 8th, and the Tesla Model Y Long Range was ninth ($4.36 per 100 miles).
Elon Musk
Tesla offers new discounts on Cybertruck inventory
Tesla is knocking up to $10,550 off of Cybertruck units in inventory
Tesla is offering new discounts on Cybertruck units in inventory, giving customers a chance to snag a unit of the all-electric pickup for a slight reduction in price. Some are even coming with additional perks to make the offer even sweeter.
Tesla is now offering up to $10,550 off of Cybertruck inventory units across the United States. This is up from previous discounts of $6,000 on inventory Cybertrucks, and it will apply to 2024 model year vehicles.
Non-Foundation Series Cybertrucks are getting up to $10,550 off of their original prices, while Foundation Series pickups are getting up to $10,000 off. These are great deals and should help clear out some inventory from last year’s models.
Additionally, Foundation Series Cybertrucks purchased will receive free lifetime Supercharging, another great addition to make the deal even better than the $10,000 off.
NEWS: Tesla is now offering new Cybertruck inventory discounts in the U.S. of up to $10,550 off, up from $6,000 before.
• Non-Foundation Series (2024 model year): Up to $10,550 off
• Foundation Series (2024 model year): Up to $10,000 offAnyone who purchases a new Cybertruck… pic.twitter.com/8oGT6R2DDp
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) April 17, 2025
The move comes as Tesla is still ramping Cybertruck production and is hoping to stimulate some additional demand for the vehicle, as it is holding on to these units. These are not Demo Drive units that have been driven by any number of people who were looking for a quick test drive.
Tesla launched a new configuration of the Cybertruck just last week with the Long Range Rear-Wheel-Drive, which undercuts the All-Wheel-Drive option by roughly $10,000.
Tesla released the Cybertruck RWD to make the AWD look like a deal
However, Tesla stripped the vehicle of several features, including Air Suspension, a tonneau cover, and interior features. For example, the Rear-Wheel-Drive trim of the Cybertruck has textile seats and no rear touchscreen, two things that come standard in the other trim levels.
The Cybertruck is the best-selling electric pickup in the United States, outperforming formidable competitors like the Ford F-150 Lightning and Chevrolet Silverado EV. However, Tesla is still working to get the vehicle to a lower price point that makes it more accessible to consumers, as its current pricing is a far cry from what was intended.
News
Rivian grapples with challenges from Trump’s auto tariffs
Rivian CEO warns Trump’s auto tariffs will squeeze the EV industry. Scaringe says auto tariffs threaten rising costs & slower production.
Rivian is grappling with challenges arising from President Trump’s auto tariff. Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe recently enumerated the difficulties automakers face and elaborated on the impact of Trump’s auto tariffs on the electric vehicle (EV) industry.
President Trump’s auto tariffs were announced last month, imposing 25% tariffs on imported vehicles effective April 3, 2025, and levies on auto parts starting in May.
Scaringe talked a bit about the complexity of the automotive supply chain with Fox Business. Rivian’s R1T pickup, R1S SUV, and commercial electric van are manufactured at its Normal, Illinois plant. Scaringe boasted that Rivian has a “very U.S.-centric supply chain.
Yet, the complex global supply chain poses hurdles for U.S. automakers who want to comply with Trump’s auto tariffs.
“One of the things with automotive is the supply chain is so complex, where we have hundreds of suppliers providing parts from, say, a headlight or a tow hook or tires or the structure under the skin here that are coming from not only a set of suppliers that supply to us, but those suppliers have suppliers, and then in turn, those suppliers have suppliers, so there’s tier two, tier three,” Scaringe explained.
China’s restrictions on rare-earth material exports–in response to Trump’s 145% tariff on Chinese imports–further complicate matters. Rare-earth materials are critical for EV motor magnets and batteries. Nearly all rare-earth materials are processed exclusively in China.
“The trade restrictions and what we’re seeing in terms of rare earth metals out of China, that’s a real challenge for electric vehicles,” Scaringe noted.
Batteries comprise up to 40% of an EV’s cost. Goldman Sachs noted that battery costs have been falling in recent years. The investment bank estimated EV battery costs would drop by 50% between 2023 and 2026. However, China’s decision to restrict rare-earth materials may increase battery costs.
Wedbush analyst Dan Ives called the tariffs a source of “pure chaos” for the auto industry, stating, “A U.S. car made entirely with U.S. parts is a fictional tale.”
Ives warned automakers could increase car prices between $5,000 to $10,000. Wedbush predicts a potential change in Trump’s auto parts tariffs could ease disruptions.
For Rivian, starting prices near $70,000 limit room for cost increases without impacting sales. As trade tensions escalate, Rivian faces rising costs and potential production slowdowns, threatening its growth in a shifting EV landscape.
Tesla Model 3 wins ‘most economical EV to own’ title in new study
Tesla offers new discounts on Cybertruck inventory
Rivian grapples with challenges from Trump’s auto tariffs
-
News2 weeks agoTesla rolls out new, more affordable trim of the Model Y Juniper in U.S.
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoTesla Germany reports 4,935 units sold in Q1 2025
-
News2 weeks agoTesla expands Early Access Program (EAP) for early Full Self-Driving testing
-
News2 weeks agoTesla celebrates key milestone for 4680 battery cell production cost
-
News2 weeks agoElon Musk will continue as DOGE adviser: VP Vance
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoNeuralink’s Patient Registry is now open globally
-
Investor's Corner2 weeks ago“Nothing Magnificent about Tesla (TSLA),” claims Jim Cramer
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoThis Tesla vandal caused thousands in damage, but she was let off the hook: Here’s why