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.
News
Tesla Semi gets new product launch as mass manufacturing hits Plaid Mode
While the 1.2 MW Megacharger handles quick 30-minute en-route boosts, the Basecharger serves as a reliable overnight solution for longer dwell times at warehouses, distribution centers, fleet yards, and even, potentially, homes.
The Tesla Semi is getting a new production launch as mass manufacturing on the all-electric truck is gearing up to hit Plaid Mode.
Tesla has introduced a game-changing addition to its commercial charging lineup with the new 125 kW Basecharger for Semi. Launched this week as part of the new “Semi Charging for Business” program, this compact unit is purpose-built for depot and overnight charging of Tesla Semi trucks.
While the 1.2 MW Megacharger handles quick 30-minute en-route boosts, the Basecharger serves as a reliable overnight solution for longer dwell times at warehouses, distribution centers, fleet yards, and even, potentially, homes.
Our new 125 kW Basecharger is designed for longer dwell times and overnight charging of Semis. It’s the “home charging” for heavy-duty fleets.
It features a fully integrated design that eliminates the need for a separate AC-to-DC cabinet, simplifying installation. The 6 meter… https://t.co/ovy1C4PsRW pic.twitter.com/vBUCNMzs57
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) May 1, 2026
Delivering up to 60 percent of the Semi’s range in roughly four hours, perfect for overnight top-ups during mandated driver rest periods or while trucks are loaded or unloaded. Its fully integrated design eliminates the need for bulky separate AC-to-DC cabinets.
Tesla engineers tucked one of the power modules from a V4 Supercharger Cabinet directly inside the sleek post, resulting in a compact footprint. It also features a six-meter cable for layout flexibility. This is one thing that must have been learned through the V4 Supercharger rollout.
Installation and operating costs drop dramatically thanks to daisy-chaining. Up to three Basechargers can share a single 125 kVA breaker, slashing electrical infrastructure requirements. The unit outputs 150 amps continuous across an 180–1,000 VDC range, matching the Semi’s high-voltage architecture while supporting the MCS 3.2 standard.
Tesla Semi sends clear message to Diesel rivals with latest move
Priced from $40,000 for a minimum order of two units, the Basecharger is far more affordable than the $188,000 Megacharger setup for two posts. Deliveries begin in early 2027. Buyers also receive Tesla’s full network-level software, remote monitoring, maintenance, and a guaranteed 97 percent or higher uptime—critical for fleet reliability.
This launch arrives as Tesla accelerates high-volume Semi production at its Nevada factory, targeting 50,000 units annually. By pairing affordable depot charging with ultra-fast highway options, Tesla removes one of the biggest obstacles to electrifying Class 8 trucking: infrastructure cost and complexity.
Fleet operators stand to gain lower electricity rates during off-peak hours, dramatically reduced maintenance compared to diesel, and quieter yards at night. The Basecharger isn’t just another charger—it’s the practical bridge that makes large-scale electric semi adoption economically viable.
With the Basecharger handling “home” duties and Megachargers powering the road, Tesla is delivering a complete ecosystem that could finally tip the scales toward zero-emission freight. For trucking companies ready to go electric, the future just got a whole lot more charger-friendly.
News
Tesla revises new Intervention Reporting system with Full Self-Driving
It is the second revision to the program as Tesla is trying to make it easier to decipher driver and owner complaints, but also to make it easier to report issues within the suite for them.
Tesla has revised its new Intervention Reporting system within the Full Self-Driving suite that now categorizes reasons that drivers take over when the semi-autonomous driving functionality is active.
It is the second revision to the program as Tesla is trying to make it easier to decipher driver and owner complaints, but also to make it easier to report issues within the suite for them.
With the initial rollout of Full Self-Driving v14.3.2, Tesla included a new reporting menu that gave four options for an intervention: Preference, Comfort, Critical, and Other. A slightly revised version of Full Self-Driving with the same ID number then came out a few days later, changing the “Other” option to “Navigation” after numerous complaints from owners.
It appears Tesla has listened to those owners once again and has not only made it smaller and more compact, but also easier to report the issues than previously.
The new menu is now embedded within the request for a Voice Memo from Tesla, and does not block the entire screen, as the second rollout of the menu was:
Thank you Tesla! The new intervention screen is much better! @Tesla_AI pic.twitter.com/1lea9G27N1
— Dirty Tesla (@DirtyTesLa) May 1, 2026
There will likely be one additional revision to the Interventions Menu, as we have coined it here at Teslarati.
Unfortunately, at times, there are no reasons for an intervention at all, but the menu does not give an option to simply disregard the reporting and forces the driver to choose one of the options. We, as well as other notable Tesla influencers, indicated that there is not always a reason for an intervention.
For example, I choose to back into my parking spot in my neighborhood at least some of the time for the reason of charging. I usually hit “Preference” for this, but it sends a false positive to Tesla that there was a reason I took over that I was unhappy with.
Tesla begins probing owners on FSD’s navigation errors with small but mighty change
Instead, I’m simply performing a maneuver that is not yet available to us. When Tesla allows drivers to choose the orientation at which their car enters a parking spot, I and many others won’t have to deal with this menu.
Others are still skeptical that it will help resolve any issues whatsoever and prefer to disregard the menu altogether. It does seem as if Tesla will issue another revision in the coming days to allow this to happen.
Lifestyle
California hits Tesla Cybercab and Robotaxi driverless cars with new law
California just gave police power to ticket driverless cars, including Tesla’s Cybercab fleet.
California DMV formally adopted new rules on April 29, 2026 that allow law enforcement to issue “notices of noncompliance”, or in other words ticket autonomous vehicle companies when their cars commit moving violations. The rules take effect July 1, 2026 and officially closes a regulatory gap that previously let driverless cars operate on public roads with nearly no traffic enforcement consequences.
Until now, state traffic laws only applied to human “drivers,” which meant that when no person was behind the wheel, police had no mechanism to issue a ticket. Officers were limited to citing driverless vehicles for parking violations only. A well-known example came in September 2025, when a San Bruno officer watched a Waymo robotaxi execute an illegal U-turn and could do nothing but notify the company.
Under the new framework, when an officer observes a violation, the autonomous vehicle company is effectively treated as the driver. Companies must report each incident to the DMV within 72 hours, or 24 hours if a collision is involved. Repeated violations can result in fleet size restrictions, operational suspensions, or full permit revocation. Local officials also gained new authority to geofence driverless vehicles out of active emergency zones within two minutes and require a live emergency response line answered within 30 seconds.
Tesla Cybercab ramps Robotaxi public street testing as vehicle enters mass production queue
California’s new enforcement rules arrive at a pivotal moment for Tesla. The company is ramping Cybercab production at Giga Texas toward hundreds of units per week, targeting at least 2 million units annually at full capacity, while simultaneously pushing to expand its Robotaxi service to dozens of U.S. cities by end of 2026. Unsupervised FSD for consumer vehicles is currently targeted for Q4 2026, and when it arrives, Tesla’s fleet may not have a human to absorb legal accountability, under the July 1 rules.
Tesla has confirmed plans to expand its Robotaxi service to seven new cities in the first half of 2026, including Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Miami, Orlando, Tampa, and Las Vegas, with the service already running without safety drivers in Austin. Musk has said he expects robotaxis to cover between a quarter and half of the United States by end of year.
Tesla Semi gets new product launch as mass manufacturing hits Plaid Mode
Tesla revises new Intervention Reporting system with Full Self-Driving
