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 said the Tesla Cybercab will perform “a majority of all passenger miles” where it is allowed to operate and that point is “obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain.”
Musk used the point to double down on the company’s decision to ax the cult-favorite Cybertruck, as its production space will be removed and transitioned into additional Cybercab lines. The move has catalyzed a polarizing conversation on whether its right or wrong.
Whatever side you are on — it’s happening.
Dodge ended the Viper.
Audi retired the R8.
Mitsubishi said goodbye to the Lancer Evo.
Ford bid farewell to the Bronco (at one point).
Chevrolet sunset the Camaro.Tesla is ending the Cybertruck. I’m pissed. I’m upset.
Fans of those five automakers mentioned did the same thing. It happens. It sucks. I don’t like it.
But I still love Tesla. I love my Model Y. I hoped to be in a Cybertruck in a little under two years.
I won’t be. But I still won’t put my family in anything else. Too safe. Too advanced. Too much better than everything else.
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 10, 2026
Regardless, Musk seems to be getting to the point that he is done talking about the choice. At some point, you have to think that this was truly a difficult decision for him and the company as well, and this is not something he took lightly. In fact, he’s probably a little bit disappointed with it, too.
But the point remains that the Cybertruck is gone. Musk’s focus is purely on developing an autonomous platform that the world will utilize for transportation, and he’s telling you that anyone “with eyes and a brain” can see it:
@PalmerLuckey @carlhancock Cybercab will do a majority of all passenger miles in any jurisdiction where it is not prohibited by law.
Obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 10, 2026
Tesla is betting that all of its passengers in the future will be okay with not owning their own personal cars and will be fine with ride-hailing for the rest of their lives. Every dinner, every errand, every trip to the airport and transportation thereafter, will all be operated by ride-sharing, and in Tesla’s perfect world, it will happen in a Cybercab.
As of now, Cybercab is only active in Austin, but it has been spotted all over the country with a driver behind the wheel in those prototypes. In Austin, the car has no steering wheel or pedals for people to control the vehicle.
The Cybertruck dilemma is one that has truly come across the entire Tesla community and while it seems to be a great idea to keep it because people love it, the business side of things is steering Musk and Tesla in another direction.
Tesla has slimmed its Cybertruck offerings to offer only its most expensive trim: the Cyberbeast.
After announcing that the Cybertruck would no longer be produced and the company would wind down manufacturing sometime in the middle of 2027, Tesla started to eliminate some of the configurations offered to customers.
Tesla has stopped taking orders for the Cybertruck Premium AWD.
The Cyberbeast is now the only trim you can order, and its price went up $7,500 to $109,990.
Estimated deliveries have also slipped to March–June 2027 as the Giga Texas line heads toward its mid-2027 wind-down. https://t.co/o28epA0ZQl
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 10, 2026
Now, only one remains: the $109,990 Cyberbeast. This is truly what seems like Tesla’s last effort to deter any remaining orders from coming in: eliminate the cheap trims and leave only the high-dollar vehicle within the lineup of Cybertruck options.
Those who want to take advantage of this last-ditch opportunity to own Tesla’s symbolic pickup have to pay to play.
Tesla says the reason for the wind down is truly because of Cybercab and its importance to the future.
Despite cries for Tesla to continue production of the pickup, Musk says it is too difficult to ramp a high-volume line instead of ending the truck altogether. He also says Cybercab is what will take passengers around for the “majority of all miles in any jurisdiction where it is not prohibited by law.”
@PalmerLuckey @carlhancock Cybercab will do a majority of all passenger miles in any jurisdiction where it is not prohibited by law.
Obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 10, 2026
Tesla is going all in on autonomy, and that’s never been a secret. But the commitment to a two-door, two-seat Cybercab truly limits people from having options for labor or hobbies. It also limits people from having their entire family in a single car.
Parents with even a single child will be required to take multiple vehicles if Cybercab is truly the only option Tesla plans to have.
Elon Musk keeps justifying Tesla Cybertruck’s cancelation, but it’s confusing
Tesla has stated the Robovan will also be in production eventually, but it still does not seem like the most ideal vehicle to own. It seems like it is geared more toward commercial uses, but Tesla might have something in the pipeline for families.
News
Tesla exec hints at a wild fix for Robotaxi’s biggest weather problem
Tesla VP Lars Moravy says focused lasers could keep robotaxi cameras clear instead of wipers.
Tesla may one day use lasers instead of wiper blades to keep its robotaxi cameras clear. Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, floated the idea in a new episode of Jay Leno’s Garage released Monday, where he and design chief Franz von Holzhausen walked Leno through the Model Y L.
“If you fire them in a focused area, you can clean the sheet of water and create a barrier,” Moravy said. “When you think about autonomy, it might be a good solution to only clean the area where the camera is.” He added that clearing an entire windshield would take too many lasers to be practical.
🚨 Jay Leno has released a new episode breaking down the Model Y L. You can watch it here: https://t.co/umMp85UEaB — TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 9, 2026
The comment brings back one of Tesla’s stranger patents. The company filed for “Pulsed Laser Cleaning of Debris Accumulated on Glass Articles in Vehicles and Photovoltaic Assemblies” in May 2019, and the U.S. Patent Office granted it in September 2021. An updated divisional version was granted on March 31, 2026. The system detects debris on the glass, identifies what it is, and pulses the laser at a calibrated rate so the beam never penetrates deeper than the glass itself. The filing names windshields, side windows, camera lenses and solar panels as possible targets.
Lasers were once rumored for the Cybertruck, which appeared at its November 2019 unveiling with no wipers at all. Tesla eventually settled on a single oversized blade, and Elon Musk admitted the wiper was the part of the truck that troubled him the most. That production line is now scheduled to shut down around mid 2027 to make room for more Cybercab output.
What has changed since then is who is in the vehicle. A privately owned car has a driver who can notice a smeared windshield and do something about it. A Cybercab heading to its next pickup has nobody on board to check. Tesla has been chipping away at that problem with conventional hardware. Model Y Robotaxis in Austin were spotted with washers on their side repeater cameras in January, and a lens cleaning patent granted in May describes a fluid and wiper assembly for vehicle cameras and Optimus’ eyes. A laser would remove the fluid and the blades, both of which need regular replacement across a fleet.
The same episode gave Leno his first ride on Full Self-Driving (Supervised). The Model Y L pulled over on its own when an ambulance approached with its sirens on. “We got it on self-driving mode! I’m not touching anything,” Leno said. Moravy and von Holzhausen also explained that owners remain responsible while using FSD (Supervised), while Tesla takes responsibility for Robotaxi rides because it acts as the operator. Tesla launched the Model Y L in the U.S. in July at $61,990.
Moravy gave no timeline, and he described the laser setup as something Tesla is considering rather than a confirmed feature. The fleet it would serve keeps getting bigger, though. Tesla launched unsupervised Robotaxi service in San Antonio on Monday, its eighth city, and expanded its Austin service area to roughly 443 square miles on the same day. Several of those markets, including Houston, Miami and Tampa, see heavy seasonal rain.
Elon Musk says Tesla Cybercab future is ‘obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain’
Tesla slims Cybertruck offerings to only its most expensive trim
