News
SpaceX rocket catch simulation raises more questions about concept
CEO Elon Musk has published the first official visualization of what SpaceX’s plans to catch Super Heavy boosters might look like in real life. However, the simulation he shared raises just as many questions as it answers.
Since at least late 2020, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has been floating the idea of catching Starships and Super Heavy boosters out of the sky as an alternative to having the several-dozen-ton steel rockets use basic legs to land on the ground. This would be a major departure from SpaceX’s highly successful Falcon family, which land on a relatively complex set of deployable legs that can be retracted after most landings. The flexible, lightweight structures have mostly been reliable and easily reusable but Falcon boosters occasionally have rough landings, which can use up disposable shock absorbers or even damage the legs and make boosters hard to safely recover and slower to reuse.
As a smaller rocket, Falcon boosters have to be extremely lightweight to ensure healthy payload margins and likely weigh about 25-30 tons empty and 450 tons fully fueled – an excellent mass ratio for a reusable rocket. While it’s still good to continue that practice of rigorous mass optimization with Starship, the vehicle is an entirely different story. Once plans to stretch the Starship upper stage’s tanks and add three more Raptors are realized, it’s quite possible that Starship will be capable of launching more than 200 tons (~440,000 lb) of payload to low Earth orbit (LEO) with ship and booster recovery.
One might think that SpaceX, with the most capable rocket ever built potentially on its hands, would want to take advantage of that unprecedented performance to make the rocket itself – also likely to be one of the most complex launch vehicles ever – simpler and more reliable early on in the development process. Generally speaking, that would involve sacrificing some of its payload capability and adding systems that are heavier but simpler and more robust. Once Starship is regularly flying to orbit and gathering extensive flight experience and data, SpaceX might then be able refine the rocket, gradually reducing its mass and improving payload to orbit by optimizing or fully replacing suboptimal systems and designs.
Instead, SpaceX appears to be trying to substantially optimize Starship before it’s attempted a single orbital launch. The biggest example is Elon Musk’s plan to catch Super Heavy boosters – and maybe Starships, too – for the sole purpose of, in his own words, “[saving] landing leg mass [and enabling] immediate reflight of [a giant, unwieldy rocket].” Musk, SpaceX executives, or both appear to be attempting to refine a rocket that has never flown. Further, based on a simulation of a Super Heavy “catch” Musk shared on January 20th, all that oddly timed effort may end up producing a solution that’s actually worse than what it’s trying to replace.
Based on the simulated telemetry shown in the visualization, Super Heavy’s descent to the landing zone appears to be considerably gentler than the ‘suicide burn’ SpaceX routinely uses on Falcon. By decelerating as quickly as possible and making landing burns as short as possible, Falcon saves a considerable amount of propellant during recovery – extra propellant that, if otherwise required, would effectively increase Falcon’s dry mass and decrease its payload to orbit. In the Super Heavy “catch” Musk shared, the booster actually appears to be landing – just on an incredibly small patch of steel on the tower’s ‘Mechazilla’ arms instead of a concrete pad on the ground.
Aside from a tiny bit of lateral motion, the arms appear motionless during the ‘catch,’ making it more of a landing. Further, Super Heavy is shown decelerating rather slowly throughout the simulation and appears to hover for almost 10 seconds near the end. That slow, cautious descent and even slower touchdown may be necessary because of how incredibly accurate Super Heavy has to be to land on a pair of hardpoints with inches of lateral margin for error and maybe a few square feet of usable surface area. The challenge is a bit like if SpaceX, for some reason, made Falcon boosters land on two elevated ledges about as wide as car tires. Aside from demanding accurate rotational control, even the slightest lateral deviation would cause the booster to topple off the pillars and – in the case of Super Heavy – fall about a hundred feet onto concrete, where it would obviously explode.
What that slow descent and final hover mean is that the Super Heavy landing shown would likely cost significantly more delta V (propellant) than a Falcon-style suicide burn. Propellant has mass, so Super Heavy would likely need to burn at least 5-10 tons more to carefully land on arms that aren’t actively matching the booster’s position and velocity. Ironically, SpaceX could probably quite easily add rudimentary, fixed legs – removing most of the bad aspects of Falcon legs – to Super Heavy with a mass budget of 10 tons. But even if SpaceX were to make those legs as simple, dumb, and reliable as physically possible and they wound up weighing 20 tons total, the inherent physics of rocketry mean that adding 20 tons to Super Heavy’s likely 200-ton dry mass would only reduce the rocket’s payload to orbit by about 3-5 tons or 1-3%.
Further, per Musk’s argument that landing on the arms would enhance the speed of reuse, it’s difficult to see how landing Super Heavy or Starship in the exact same corridor – but on the ground instead of on the arms – would change anything. If Super Heavy is accurate enough to land on a few square meters of steel, it must inherently be accurate enough to land within the far larger breadth of those arms. The only process landing on the arms would clearly remove is reattaching the arms to a landed booster or ship, which it’s impossible to imagine would save more than a handful of minutes or maybe an hour of work. SpaceX’s Falcon booster turnaround record is currently 27 days, so it’s even harder to imagine why SpaceX would be worrying about cutting minutes or a few hours off of the turnaround and reuse of a rocket that has never even performed a full static fire test – let alone attempted an orbital-class launch, reentry, or landing.
Put simply, while Starbase’s launch tower arms will undoubtedly be useful for quickly lifting and stacking Super Heavy and Starship, it’s looking more and more likely that using those arms as a landing platform will, at best, be an inferior alternative to basic Falcon-style landings. More importantly, even if everything works perfectly, the arms actually cooperate with boosters to catch them, and it’s possible for Super Heavy to avoid hovering and use a more efficient suicide burn, the apparent best-case outcome of all that effort is marginally faster reuse and perhaps a 5% increase in payload to orbit. Only time will tell if such a radical change proves to be worth such marginal benefits.
Elon Musk
Tesla is ramping up its advertising strategy on social media
Tesla has long stood out in the automotive world for its unconventional approach to advertising—or, more accurately, its near-total avoidance of it. For over a decade, the company spent virtually nothing on traditional marketing.
Tesla seems to be ramping up its advertising strategy on social media once again. Marketing and advertising have not been a major focus of Tesla’s, something that has brought some criticism to the company from its fans.
However, the company looks to be making adjustments to that narrative, as it has at times in the past, as ads were spotted on several different platforms over the past few days.
On Facebook and YouTube, ads were spotted that were evidently placed by Tesla. On Facebook, Tesla was advertising Full Self-Driving, and on YouTube, an ad for its Energy Division was spotted:
Tesla also threw up some ads on YouTube for Energy https://t.co/19DGQMjBsA pic.twitter.com/XQRfgaDKxY
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 9, 2026
Tesla has long stood out in the automotive world for its unconventional approach to advertising—or, more accurately, its near-total avoidance of it. For over a decade, the company spent virtually nothing on traditional marketing.
In 2022, Tesla’s U.S. ad spend was roughly $152,000, a rounding error compared to General Motors’ $3.6 billion the following year.
Traditional automakers averaged about $495 per vehicle on ads; Tesla spent $0. CEOElon Musk’s stance was explicit: “Tesla does not advertise or pay for endorsements,” he posted on X in 2019. “Instead, we use that money to make the product great.”
The strategy relied on word-of-mouth from delighted owners, Elon’s massive X following, viral product launches, media frenzy, and customer referrals. A great product, Musk argued, sells itself. It does not need Super Bowl spots or billboards. Resources poured into R&D instead, with Tesla investing nearly $3,000 per car, far more than rivals.
Tesla counters jab at lack of advertising with perfect response
This reluctance wasn’t arrogance; it was philosophy, and Musk made it clear that the money was better spent on the product. Heavy spending on ads was seen as wasteful when innovation and authenticity drove organic demand. Shareholder calls for marketing budgets were ignored.
The current shift, paid Facebook ads promoting Full Self-Driving (Supervised) and YouTube Shorts offering up to $1,000 back on Powerwall batteries, marks a pragmatic evolution.
These targeted campaigns coincide with the end of one-time FSD purchases and a March 31 deadline for FSD transfer eligibility on new vehicles.
This move likely signals Tesla adapting to scale, as well as a more concerted effort to stop misinformation regarding its platform. As EV competition intensifies and the company bets big on robotaxis and energy storage, pure organic buzz may not suffice to hit adoption targets. Selective digital ads allow precise, cost-effective reach without abandoning core principles.
If successful, it could foreshadow measured expansion into marketing, boosting high-margin software and home energy revenue while preserving Tesla’s innovative edge. But, it’s nice to see the strategy return, especially as Tesla has been reluctant to change its mind in the past.
News
Tesla Model Y outsells everything in three states, but Ford dominates
The Model Y’s success here highlights accelerating mainstream adoption of electric SUVs, which offer spacious interiors, impressive range, rapid acceleration, and low operating costs.
The Tesla Model Y was the best-selling vehicle in three different states in the U.S. last year, according to new data that shows the all-electric crossover outsold every other car in a few places. However, Ford widely dominated the sales figures with its popular F-Series of pickups.
According to new vehicle registration data compiled by Edmunds and visualized by Visual Capitalist, the Ford F-Series, encompassing models like the F-150, F-250, F-350, and F-450, claimed the title of best-selling vehicle in 29 states.
This dominance underscores the pickup truck’s unbreakable appeal across much of the country, particularly in rural, Midwestern, Southern, and Western states, where towing capacity, durability, and utility for work or recreation remain top priorities.
The Tesla Model Y is the best-selling vehicle in California, Washington, and Nevada
How many states will it dominate next year? https://t.co/ERyoyce42D
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 9, 2026
The F-Series has held the crown as America’s overall best-selling vehicle for decades, a streak that continued strong into 2025 despite broader market shifts.
Yet, amid this truck-heavy reality, Tesla made a notable breakthrough. The Model Y emerged as the top-selling vehicle, not just the leading EV, but the outright best-seller in three key states: California, Nevada, and Washington.
These West Coast strongholds reflect regions with robust EV infrastructure, high environmental awareness, generous incentives, and tech-savvy populations. In California alone, nearly 50 percent of new vehicle registrations were electrified, far outpacing the national average of around 25 percent.
The Model Y’s success here highlights accelerating mainstream adoption of electric SUVs, which offer spacious interiors, impressive range, rapid acceleration, and low operating costs.
Elon Musk: Tesla Model Y is world’s best-selling car for 3rd year in a row
Elsewhere, Japanese crossovers filled many gaps: Toyota’s RAV4 and Honda’s CR-V topped charts in several urban and densely populated Northeastern and Midwestern states, where fuel efficiency, reliability, and family-friendly features win out over larger trucks.
While Ford’s broad reach shows traditional preferences persist, at least for now, Tesla’s Model Y victories in high-population, influential states signal a gradual but undeniable transition toward electrification. As charging networks expand and battery technology improves, more states could follow the West Coast’s lead in the coming years.
This 2025 map captures a pivotal moment: pickup trucks still rule the majority, but EVs are carving out meaningful territory where consumer priorities align with sustainability and innovation. The road ahead promises continued competition between legacy giants and electric disruptors.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk shares updated Starship V3 maiden launch target date
The comment was posted on Musk’s official account on social media platform X.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk shared a brief Starship V3 update in a post on social media platform X, stating the next launch attempt of the spacecraft could take place in about four weeks.
The comment was posted on Musk’s official account on social media platform X.
Musk’s update suggests that Starship Flight 12 could target a launch around early April, though the schedule will depend on several remaining milestones at SpaceX’s Starbase launch facility in Texas.
Among the key steps is testing and certification of the site’s new launch tower, launch mount, and tank farm systems. These upgrades will support the next generation of Starship vehicles.
Booster 19 is expected to roll to the launch site and be placed on the launch mount before returning to the production facility to receive its 33 Raptor engines. The booster would then return for a static fire test, which could mark the first time a Super Heavy booster equipped with Raptor V3 engines is fired on the pad.
Ship 39 is expected to undergo a similar preparation process. The vehicle will likely return to the production site to receive its six engines before heading to Massey’s test site for static fire testing.
Once both stages are prepared, the booster and ship will roll out to the launch site for the first full stack of a V3 Super Heavy and V3 Starship. A full wet dress rehearsal is expected to follow before any launch attempt.
Elon Musk has previously shared how SpaceX plans to eventually recover Starship’s upper stage using the launch tower’s robotic arms. Musk noted that the company will only attempt to catch the Starship spacecraft after two successful soft landings in the ocean. The approach is intended to reduce risk before attempting a recovery over land.
“Should note that SpaceX will only try to catch the ship with the tower after two perfect soft landings in the ocean. The risk of the ship breaking up over land needs to be very low,” Musk wrote in a post on X.
Such a milestone would represent a major step toward the full reuse of the Starship system, which remains a central goal for SpaceX’s long-term launch strategy.
Tesla is ramping up its advertising strategy on social media
Tesla Model Y outsells everything in three states, but Ford dominates
