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’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works
For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions appeared to be dead in the water after a large amount of speculation late last year that the company would add the user interface seemed to cool down after several weeks of reports.
However, it appears that CarPlay might make its way to Tesla vehicles after all, as a recent report seems to indicate that it is still being worked on by software teams for the company.
The real question is whether it is truly needed or if it is just a want by so many owners that Tesla is listening and deciding to proceed with its development.
Back in November, Bloomberg reported that Tesla was in the process of testing Apple CarPlay within its vehicles, which was a major development considering the company had resisted adopting UIs outside of its own for many years.
Nearly one-third of car buyers considered the lack of CarPlay as a deal-breaker when buying their cars, a study from McKinsey & Co. outlined. This could be a driving decision in Tesla’s inability to abandon the development of CarPlay in its vehicles, especially as it lost a major advantage that appealed to consumers last year: the $7,500 EV tax credit.
Tesla owners propose interesting theory about Apple CarPlay and EV tax credit
Although we saw little to no movement on it since the November speculation, Tesla is now reportedly in the process of still developing the user interface. Mark Gurman, a Bloomberg writer with a weekly newsletter, stated that CarPlay is “still in the works” at Tesla and that more concrete information will be available “soon” regarding its development.
While Tesla already has a very capable and widely accepted user interface, CarPlay would still be an advantage, considering many people have used it in their vehicles for years. Just like smartphones, many people get comfortable with an operating system or style and are resistant to using a new one. This could be a big reason for Tesla attempting to get it in their own cars.
Tesla gets updated “Apple CarPlay” hack that can work on new models
For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.
It holds one distinct advantage over Tesla’s UI in my opinion, and that’s the ability to read and respond to text messages, which is something that is available within a Tesla, but is not as user-friendly.
With that being said, I would still give CarPlay a shot in my Tesla. I didn’t particularly enjoy it in my Bronco Sport, but that was because Ford’s software was a bit laggy with it. If it were as smooth as Tesla’s UI, which I think it would be, it could be a really great addition to the vehicle.
With the launch of a new trim level for the Model Y last night, something almost went unnoticed — the loss of a moniker that Tesla just recently added to a couple of its variants of the all-electric crossover.
Tesla launched the Model Y All-Wheel-Drive last night, competitively priced at $41,990, but void of the luxurious features that are available within the Premium trims.
Upon examination of the car, one thing was missing, and it was noticeable: Tesla dropped the use of the “Standard” moniker to identify its entry-level offerings of the Model Y.
The Standard Model Y vehicles were introduced late last year, primarily to lower the entry price after the U.S. EV tax credit changes were made. Tesla stripped some features like the panoramic glass roof, premium audio, ambient lighting, acoustic-lined glass, and some of the storage.
Last night, it simply switched the configurations away from “Standard” and simply as the Model Y Rear-Wheel-Drive and Model Y All-Wheel-Drive.
There are three plausible reasons for this move, and while it is minor, there must be an answer for why Tesla chose to abandon the name, yet keep the “Premium” in its upper-level offerings.
“Standard” carried a negative connotation in marketing
Words like “Standard” can subtly imply “basic,” “bare-bones,” or “cheap” to consumers, especially when directly contrasted with “Premium” on the configurator or website. Dropping it avoids making the entry-level Model Y feel inferior or low-end, even though it’s designed for affordability.
Tesla likely wanted the base trim to sound neutral and spec-focused (e.g., just “RWD” highlights drivetrain rather than feature level), while “Premium” continues to signal desirable upgrades, encouraging upsells to higher-margin variants.
Simplifying the overall naming structure for less confusion
The initial “Standard vs. Premium” split (plus Performance) created a somewhat clunky hierarchy, especially as Tesla added more variants like Standard Long Range in some markets or the new AWD base.
Removing “Standard” streamlines things to a more straightforward progression (RWD → AWD → Premium RWD/AWD → Performance), making the lineup easier to understand at a glance. This aligns with Tesla’s history of iterative naming tweaks to reduce buyer hesitation.
Elevating brand perception and protecting perceived value
Keeping “Premium” reinforces that the bulk of the Model Y lineup (especially the popular Long Range models) remains a premium product with desirable features like better noise insulation, upgraded interiors, and tech.
Eliminating “Standard” prevents any dilution of the Tesla brand’s upscale image—particularly important in a competitive EV market—while the entry-level variants can quietly exist as accessible “RWD/AWD” options without drawing attention to them being decontented versions.
You can check out the differences between the “Standard” and “Premium” Model Y vehicles below:
@teslarati There are some BIG differences between the Tesla Model Y Standard and Tesla Model Y Premium #tesla #teslamodely ♬ Sia – Xeptemper
Elon Musk
Tesla bull sees odds rising of Tesla merger after Musk confirms SpaceX-xAI deal
Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities wrote on Tuesday that there is a growing chance Tesla could be merged in some form with SpaceX and xAI over the next 12 to 18 months.
A prominent Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) bull has stated that the odds are rising that Tesla could eventually merge with SpaceX and xAI, following Elon Musk’s confirmation that the private space company has combined with his artificial intelligence startup.
Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities wrote on Tuesday that there is a growing chance Tesla could be merged in some form with SpaceX and xAI over the next 12 to 18 months.
“In our view there is a growing chance that Tesla will eventually be merged in some form into SpaceX/xAI over time. The view is this growing AI ecosystem will focus on Space and Earth together…..and Musk will look to combine forces,” Ives wrote in a post on X.
Ives’ comments followed confirmation from Elon Musk late Monday that SpaceX has merged with xAI. Musk stated that the merger creates a vertically integrated platform that combines AI, rockets, satellite internet, communications, and real-time data.
In a post on SpaceX’s official website, Elon Musk added that the combined company is aimed at enabling space-based AI compute, stating that within two to three years, space could become the lowest-cost environment for generating AI processing power. The transaction reportedly values the combined SpaceX-xAI entity at roughly $1.25 trillion.
Tesla, for its part, has already increased its exposure to xAI, announcing a $2 billion investment in the startup last week in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter.
While merger speculation has intensified, notable complications could emerge if SpaceX/xAI does merge with Tesla, as noted in a report from Investors Business Daily.
SpaceX holds major U.S. government contracts, including with the Department of Defense and NASA, and xAI’s Grok is being used by the U.S. Department of War. Tesla, for its part, maintains extensive operations in China through Gigafactory Shanghai and its Megapack facility.
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works
Tesla brings closure to Model Y moniker with launch of new trim level
