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.
Cybertruck
Tesla Cybertruck gets long-awaited safety feature
Tesla has announced the rollout of its innovative anti-dooring protection feature to the Cybertruck via the 2026.8 software update.
Tesla is rolling out a new and long-awaited feature to the Cybertruck all-electric pickup, and it is a safety addition geared toward pedestrian and cyclist safety, as well as accidents with other vehicles.
Tesla has announced the rollout of its innovative anti-dooring protection feature to the Cybertruck via the 2026.8 software update.
This safety enhancement uses the vehicle’s existing cameras to detect approaching cyclists, pedestrians, or vehicles in the blind spot while parked. Upon attempting to open a door, if a hazard is detected, the system activates: the blind spot indicator light flashes, an audible chime sounds, and the door will not open on the initial button press.
Drivers must wait briefly and press the button again to override, providing crucial seconds to avoid an accident.
Anti-dooring protection now rolling out to @Cybertruck
This feature comes standard on every new Model 3, Model Y & Cybertruck – using cameras to delay door opening if a cyclist, pedestrian or other vehicle is detected approaching in your blind spot
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) March 17, 2026
The feature, also known as Blind Spot Warning While Parked, comes standard on every new Model 3 and Model Y, and is now extending to the Cybertruck. Leveraging Tesla’s vision-based system without requiring new hardware, it represents a cost-effective software solution that builds on community suggestions dating back to 2018.
This technology addresses the persistent danger of “dooring,” where a driver opens a car door into the path of a passing cyclist or pedestrian.
Tesla implemented this little-known feature to make its cars even safer
Dooring incidents are alarmingly common in urban environments.
According to Chicago data, in 2011 alone, there were 344 reported dooring crashes, accounting for approximately 20 percent of all bicycle crashes in the city, nearly one incident per day.
While numbers have fluctuated (dropping to 11 percent in 2014 before rising again), dooring consistently represents 10-20 percent of bike-related crashes in major cities.
A national analysis of emergency department data estimates over 17,000 dooring-related injuries treated in the U.S. over a decade, with many involving fractures, contusions, and head trauma, particularly affecting upper extremities.
By automatically intervening, Tesla’s system not only protects vulnerable road users but also safeguards its owners from potential liability and enhances overall road safety.
As cities promote cycling for sustainable transport, features like this demonstrate how advanced driver assistance and camera systems can evolve beyond highway driving to everyday urban scenarios.
Enthusiastic responses on social media highlight appreciation for the proactive safety measure, with some calling for broader rollout to older models where hardware permits. Tesla continues to push the boundaries of vehicle safety through over-the-air updates, making its fleet smarter and safer over time.
Elon Musk
Tesla Roadster is ‘sorcery and magic’ and might be worth the wait, Uber founder says
Perhaps the wait will be worth it, especially according to Uber founder Travis Kalanick, who recently teased the Roadster’s potential capabilities based on what he has heard from internal Tesla sources.
Tesla is planning to unveil the Roadster in late April after years of waiting. But the wait might be worth it, according to Travis Kalanick, the founder of Uber, who recently shed some light on his expectations for the all-electric supercar.
We all know the Roadster is supposed to have some serious capability. CEO Elon Musk has said on numerous occasions that the Roadster will be unlike anything else ever produced. It might go from 0-60 MPH in about a second, it might hover, it might have SpaceX cold gas thrusters.
However, the constant delays in the Roadster program and its unveiling event continue to send Tesla fans into confusion because they’re just not sure when, or if, they’ll ever see the finished product.
Perhaps the wait will be worth it, especially according to Uber founder Travis Kalanick, who recently teased the Roadster’s potential capabilities based on what he has heard from internal Tesla sources.
Kalanick said on X:
When I’ve run into people who are in the know, I inquire, they tell me nothing, but their eyebrows raise and their eyes widen in a way that can only mean something of sorcery and magic is coming…
— travis kalanick (@travisk) March 17, 2026
Musk has said this vehicle is not going to be geared for safety, and that, “If safety is your number one goal, do not buy the Roadster.”
There has been so much hype regarding the Roadster that it is hard to believe the company could not come through on some kind of crazy features for the vehicle.
However, the latest delay that Tesla put on the unveiling event is definitely eye-opening, especially considering it is the latest in a series of pushbacks the company has put on the vehicle for the past several years.
Tesla has made several jumps in the Roadster project over the past few months, as it has ramped up hiring for the vehicle and also applied for a patent for a new seat design.
The car has been a back-burner project for Tesla, as it has been focusing primarily on autonomy and the rollout of Robotaxi and Cybercab. Additionally, its other vehicle projects, like the Model 3 and Model Y refreshes, took precedence.
Tesla still plans to unveil the Roadster next month, so we can hope the company can stick to this timeframe.
Cybertruck
Elon Musk clarifies viral Tesla Cybertruck accident with driver logs
Musk has come out to say that the driver logs have already shown that the driver “disengaged Autopilot four seconds before crashing,” in a post on X.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has clarified some details regarding the viral Tesla Cybertruck accident with company driver logs, which show various metrics at the time of an incident.
The logs have been used in the past to pull responsibility off of Tesla when the automaker’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) or Autopilot platforms are blamed for a collision or accident. It appears this will be no different.
On Tuesday, a video of a Cybertruck crashing into an overpass barrier in August 2025 was shared by Fox Business in a story that reported a woman was suing the automaker for $1 million in a liability and negligence case.
In the suit, Justine Saint Amour said that, “Something terrifying happened, without warning, the vehicle attempted to drive straight off an overpass.” Her attorney, Bob Hilliard, said Amour “tried to take control, but crashed into the barrier and was seriously injured (mostly her shoulder, neck, and back).”
The Tesla Model Y is leading China’s electric SUV segment by a wide margin
Tesla vehicle crashes are widely popular to report by mainstream media outlets because of the sensationalism of the event. Oftentimes, these outlets will include Tesla in the headline, especially because it will pique the interest of the masses, as most who read the story are waiting to see the claim that Autopilot or Full Self-Driving was the culprit of the accident.
However, Tesla has access to the logs of every vehicle in its fleet, which will show the various metrics, like whether either FSD or Autopilot was active, if the accelerator was pressed, the speed, and other important factors.
Musk has come out to say that the driver logs have already shown that the driver “disengaged Autopilot four seconds before crashing,” in a post on X.
Logs show driver disengaged Autopilot four seconds before crashing
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 18, 2026
If the logs do show this, which Tesla will likely have to prove in court, the real question would be why did the Amour disengage the suite?
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite is still not fully autonomous, meaning the driver cannot pull attention away from the road and must be ready to take over the vehicle at all times.
It will be interesting to see how this particular case pans out, especially considering the clip that was released by the law firm starts at about four seconds before the collision. Tesla logs have dispelled media reports in the past that have accused the company’s suite of being responsible for an accident, so there will be some major attention on what is proven in this particular case.
Tesla Cybertruck gets long-awaited safety feature
Tesla Roadster is ‘sorcery and magic’ and might be worth the wait, Uber founder says
