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 to discuss expansion of Samsung AI6 production plans: report
Tesla has reportedly requested an additional 24,000 wafers per month, which would bring total production capacity to around 40,000 wafers if finalized.
Tesla is reportedly discussing an expansion of its next-generation AI chip supply deal with Samsung Electronics.
As per a report from Korean industry outlet The Elec, Tesla purchasing executives are reportedly scheduled to meet Samsung officials this week to negotiate additional production volume for the company’s upcoming AI6 chip.
Industry sources cited in the report stated that Tesla is pushing to increase the production volume of its AI6 chip, which will be manufactured using Samsung’s 2-nanometer process.
Tesla previously signed a long-term foundry agreement with Samsung covering AI6 production through December 31, 2033. The deal was reportedly valued at about 22.8 trillion won (roughly $16–17 billion).
Under the existing agreement, Tesla secured approximately 16,000 wafers per month from the facility. The company has reportedly requested an additional 24,000 wafers per month, which would bring total production capacity to around 40,000 wafers if finalized.
Tesla purchasing executives are expected to discuss detailed supply terms during their visit to Samsung this week.
The AI6 chip is expected to support several Tesla technologies. Industry sources stated that the chip could be used for the company’s Full Self-Driving system, the Optimus humanoid robot, and Tesla’s internal AI data centers.
The report also indicated that AI6 clusters could replace the role previously planned for Tesla’s Dojo AI supercomputer. Instead of a single system, multiple AI6 chips would be combined into server-level clusters.
Tesla’s semiconductor collaboration with Samsung dates back several years. Samsung participated in the design of Tesla’s HW3 (AI3) chip and manufactured it using a 14-nanometer process. The HW4 chip currently used in Tesla vehicles was also produced by Samsung using a 5-nanometer node.
Tesla previously planned to split production of its AI5 chip between Samsung and TSMC. However, the company reportedly chose Samsung as the primary partner for the newer AI6 chip.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk: Tesla could be first to build AGI in humanoid form
Musk’s statement was shared in a post on social media platform X.
Elon Musk predicted that Tesla could become one of the developers of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) in humanoid form. Musk’s statement was shared in a post on social media platform X.
In his post, Musk stated that “Tesla will be one of the companies to make AGI and probably the first to make it in humanoid/atom-shaping form.”
The comment comes as Tesla expands development of its Optimus humanoid robot.
During Tesla’s Q4 earnings report, Elon Musk stated that production of the Model S and Model X would be phased out at its Fremont, California, facility. The vehicles’ production line will then be converted to a pilot line for Optimus. Tesla is looking to produce 1 million units of the humanoid robots annually to start.
Musk has previously stated that Optimus could eventually function as a von Neumann probe. The concept, proposed by mathematician John von Neumann, describes a machine capable of replicating itself using planetary resources and sending those replicas to other worlds.
Optimus would likely only be able to achieve this potential if it manages to achieve Artificial General Intelligence.
Other leaders in the AI sector have also expressed strong expectations about AGI’s potential. Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google DeepMind, recently spoke about the technology at the India AI Impact Summit 2026, as noted in a Benzinga report.
“It’s going to be something like ten times the impact of the Industrial Revolution, but happening at ten times the speed,” Hassabis said.
Elon Musk’s recent comments about Tesla producing a product with AGI could hint at further collaboration among his companies. So far, Tesla is actively pursuing autonomous driving, but it is xAI that is pursuing AGI with its Grok program.
Considering that Elon Musk mentioned a Tesla humanoid product with AGI, it appears that an Optimus robot running xAI’s AI models could become a reality.
xAI had recently merged with SpaceX, though reports suggest that Elon Musk is also considering an even bigger merger for all his companies, including Tesla.
News
Tesla influencers argue company’s polarizing Full Self-Driving transfer decision
Tesla maintains it will honor transfers for orders with initial delivery windows before the deadline and offers full deposit refunds otherwise, citing longstanding fine print that the program is “subject to change at any time.”
Tesla’s decision to tighten its Full Self-Driving (FSD) transfer promotion has ignited fierce debate among owners and enthusiasts.
The company quietly updated its terms in late February 2026, changing the eligibility from “order by March 31, 2026” to “take delivery by March 31, 2026.”
What began as a flexible incentive to boost sales, allowing buyers to transfer their paid FSD (Supervised) to a new vehicle, now excludes many, particularly Cybertruck owners facing delivery delays into summer or later.
Tesla maintains it will honor transfers for orders with initial delivery windows before the deadline and offers full deposit refunds otherwise, citing longstanding fine print that the program is “subject to change at any time.”
The reversal has polarized the Tesla community, with accusations of a “bait-and-switch” clashing against defenses of corporate pragmatism. Many owners who placed orders under the original wording feel betrayed, especially as production backlogs and new unsupervised FSD rollout complicate timelines.
However, Tesla has allowed them to cancel their orders and receive a refund.
Critics of the decision argue that the change disadvantages loyal customers who helped fund FSD development, calling it poor communication and a revenue grab as Tesla pivots toward subscriptions.
Popular influencers have amplified the divide. Whole Mars Catalog struck a measured but firm tone, acknowledging the original “order by” language but emphasizing Tesla’s right to adjust terms. He has continued to defend Tesla in this particular issue:
Sad to see so many fans trashing Tesla with such extreme language.
LIARS!!! PATHETIC!!! And if you aren’t as furious and angry as they are they are you’re “worshipping” and saying “they can do no wrong”.
Let’s get real here. They’re not liars. They offered FSD transfer to us… https://t.co/3Ay7vGaVR6
— Whole Mars Catalog (@wholemars) March 3, 2026
He criticized extreme backlash as “dramatization” and “spoiled kids,” noting the unsupervised FSD era and broader sales challenges make blanket transfers financially risky. Whole Mars advocated for polite outreach to CEO Elon Musk over the issue.
Rather than “calling them out”, I would simply say “Hey Elon, really hoped to be able to do FSD transfer on my cybertruck but the terms changed. Would really appreciate if Tesla could extend this to everyone who ordered before the terms changes”
that would probably work
— Whole Mars Catalog (@wholemars) March 3, 2026
In a contrasting perspective, Dirty TesLA voiced sharper frustration, posting that blocking transfers feels “crazy” and distancing himself from “people that want to worship a corporation and say they can do no wrong.” His stance resonated with owners who view the policy flip as disrespectful to early adopters.
Popular Tesla influencer Sawyer Merritt captured the frustration felt by thousands. In a widely shared thread viewed over 700,000 times, Merritt detailed how pre-change Cybertruck orders now risk losing FSD eligibility unless their initial delivery window falls before March 31.
It’s not a contradiction, it’s a change in policy that Tesla just made an hour ago. I am trying to check if the change is retroactive to all existing orders, including Cybertruck AWD orders, because if it is, that sucks big time.
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) February 28, 2026
The controversy underscores deeper tensions—between Tesla’s need for revenue discipline and owners’ expectations of goodwill. As FSD evolves toward unsupervised capability, the community remains split: some see the change as necessary business, others as a broken promise. Whether Tesla reconsiders under pressure or holds firm remains to be seen, but it does not appear they are planning to budge.
Tesla to discuss expansion of Samsung AI6 production plans: report
Elon Musk: Tesla could be first to build AGI in humanoid form
