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
Man credits Grok AI with saving his life after ER missed near-ruptured appendix
The AI flagged some of the man’s symptoms and urged him to return to the ER immediately and demand a CT scan.
A 49-year-old man has stated that xAI’s Grok ended up saving his life when the large language model identified a near-ruptured appendix that his first ER visit dismissed as acid reflux.
After being sent home from the ER, the man asked Grok to analyze his symptoms. The AI flagged some of the man’s symptoms and urged him to return immediately and demand a CT scan. The scan confirmed that something far worse than acid reflux was indeed going on.
Grok spotted what a doctor missed
In a post on Reddit, u/Tykjen noted that for 24 hours straight, he had a constant “razor-blade-level” abdominal pain that forced him into a fetal position. He had no fever or visible signs. He went to the ER, where a doctor pressed his soft belly, prescribed acid blockers, and sent him home.
The acid blockers didn’t work, and the man’s pain remained intense. He then decided to open a year-long chat he had with Grok and listed every detail that he was experiencing. The AI responded quickly. “Grok immediately flagged perforated ulcer or atypical appendicitis, told me the exact red-flag pattern I was describing, and basically said “go back right now and ask for a CT,” the man wrote in his post.
He copied Grok’s reasoning, returned to the ER, and insisted on the scan. The CT scan ultimately showed an inflamed appendix on the verge of rupture. Six hours later, the appendix was out. The man said the pain has completely vanished, and he woke up laughing under anesthesia. He was discharged the next day.
How a late-night conversation with Grok got me to demand the CT scan that saved my life from a ruptured appendix (December 2025)
byu/Tykjen ingrok
AI doctors could very well be welcomed
In the replies to his Reddit post, u/Tykjen further explained that he specifically avoided telling doctors that Grok, an AI, suggested he get a CT scan. “I did not tell them on the second visit that Grok recommended the CT scan. I had to lie. I told them my sister who’s a nurse told me to ask for the scan,” the man wrote.
One commenter noted that the use of AI in medicine will likely be welcomed, stating that “If AI could take doctors’ jobs one day, I will be happy. Doctors just don’t care anymore. It’s all a paycheck.” The Redditor replied with, “Sadly yes. That is what it felt like after the first visit. And the following night could have been my last.”
Elon Musk has been very optimistic about the potential of robots like Tesla Optimus in the medical field. Provided that they are able to achieve human-level articulation in their hands, and Tesla is able to bring down their cost through mass manufacturing, the era of AI-powered medical care could very well be closer than expected.
News
Tesla expands Model 3 lineup in Europe with most affordable variant yet
The Model 3 Standard still delivers more than 300 miles of range, potentially making it an attractive option for budget-conscious buyers.
Tesla has introduced a lower-priced Model 3 variant in Europe, expanding the lineup just two months after the vehicle’s U.S. debut. The Model 3 Standard still delivers more than 300 miles (480 km) of range, potentially making it an attractive option for budget-conscious buyers.
Tesla’s pricing strategy
The Model 3 Standard arrives as Tesla contends with declining registrations in several countries across Europe, where sales have not fully offset shifting consumer preferences. Many buyers have turned to options such as Volkswagen’s ID.3 and BYD’s Atto 3, both of which have benefited from aggressive pricing.
By removing select premium finishes and features, Tesla positioned the new Model 3 Standard as an “ultra-low cost of ownership” option of its all-electric sedan. Pricing comes in at €37,970 in Germany, NOK 330,056 in Norway, and SEK 449,990 in Sweden, depending on market. This places the Model 3 Standard well below the “premium” Model 3 trim, which starts at €45,970 in Germany.
Deliveries for the Standard model are expected to begin in the first quarter of 2026, giving Tesla an entry-level foothold in a segment that’s increasingly defined by sub-€40,000 offerings.
Tesla’s affordable vehicle push
The low-cost Model 3 follows October’s launch of a similarly positioned Model Y variant, signaling a broader shift in Tesla’s product strategy. While CEO Elon Musk has moved the company toward AI-driven initiatives such as robotaxis and humanoid robots, lower-priced vehicles remain necessary to support the company’s revenue in the near term.
Reports have indicated that Tesla previously abandoned plans for an all-new $25,000 EV, with the company opting to create cheaper versions of existing platforms instead. Analysts have flagged possible cannibalization of higher-margin models, but the move aims to counter an influx of aggressively priced entrants from China and Europe, many of which sell below $30,000. With the new Model 3 Standard, Tesla is reinforcing its volume strategy in Europe’s increasingly competitive EV landscape.
News
Tesla FSD (Supervised) stuns Germany’s biggest car magazine
FSD Supervised recognized construction zones, braked early for pedestrians, and yielded politely on narrow streets.
Tesla’s upcoming FSD Supervised system, set for a European debut pending regulatory approval, is showing notably refined behavior in real-world testing, including construction zones, pedestrian detection, and lane changes, as per a recent demonstration ride in Berlin.
While the system still required driver oversight, its smooth braking, steering, and decision-making illustrated how far Tesla’s driver-assistance technology has advanced ahead of a potential 2026 rollout.
FSD’s maturity in dense city driving
During the Berlin test ride with Auto Bild, Germany’s largest automotive publication, a Tesla Model 3 running FSD handled complex traffic with minimal intervention, autonomously managing braking, acceleration, steering, and overtaking up to 140 km/h. It recognized construction zones, braked early for pedestrians, and yielded politely on narrow streets.
Only one manual override was required when the system misread a converted one-way route, an example, Tesla stated, of the continuous learning baked into its vision-based architecture.
Robin Hornig of Auto Bild summed up his experience with FSD Supervised with a glowing review of the system. As per the reporter, FSD Supervised already exceeds humans with its all-around vision. “Tesla FSD Supervised sees more than I do. It doesn’t get distracted and never gets tired. I like to think I’m a good driver, but I can’t match this system’s all-around vision. It’s at its best when both work together: my experience and the Tesla’s constant attention,” the journalist wrote.
Tesla FSD in Europe
FSD Supervised is still a driver-assistance system rather than autonomous driving. Still, Auto Bild noted that Tesla’s 360-degree camera suite, constant monitoring, and high computing power mark a sizable leap from earlier iterations. Already active in the U.S., China, and several other regions, the system is currently navigating Europe’s approval pipeline. Tesla has applied for an exemption in the Netherlands, aiming to launch the feature through a free software update as early as February 2026.
What Tesla demonstrated in Berlin mirrors capabilities already common in China and the U.S., where rival automakers have rolled out hands-free or city-navigation systems. Europe, however, remains behind due to a stricter certification environment, though Tesla is currently hard at work pushing for FSD Supervised’s approval in several countries in the region.
Man credits Grok AI with saving his life after ER missed near-ruptured appendix
Tesla expands Model 3 lineup in Europe with most affordable variant yet
