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.
TESLARATI Premium Membership
$19.99 USD
Tesla has said goodbye to one customization option for its vehicles: the wrap service it launched several years ago.
After launching an in-house wrap service in August 2020 for the first time in China. In the U.S., it launched in October 2023. Tesla continued to expand the program and adjust it with better pricing and fewer options for the Cybertruck.
By December 2023, it was giving owners of the Model 3, Model Y, and the Cybertruck the opportunity to give their vehicle a fresh look with a vinyl wrap.
Tesla revamps in-house vinyl wrap service with better pricing
It was only available in five locations: Costa Mesa, Oceanside, Santa Clara, West Covina, all in California, and Seattle, Washington.
However, Tesla made some big adjustments to its shop, and the wrap service is officially gone:
Tesla has made a LOT of changes to its online shop recently — price increases, price cuts, new options, and several products being removed entirely.
Some of the biggest increases are wheel covers. 👀
📈 PRICE INCREASES
• 2017-2023 | Model 3 Aero Wheel Cover — Style: Refresh…— Phoenix Self-Driving 🐦🔥 (@PhoenixFSD) August 25, 2026
Wraps are very popular across the Tesla lineup, especially since the company offers relatively few colors. Many choose to wrap their Teslas with interesting colors, patterns, or even finishes, turning their cars from glossy to satin or matte.
However, Tesla’s wrap service was so limited geographically that it never really had a chance to get off the ground or compete with local shops. Every area in the United States is now overflowing with detailing shops, mobile detailers, and other automotive specialists, many of whom perform wrap services.
Tesla’s service was confined to the Pacific time zone and only spanned across two states. It was never going to be something Tesla was a major competitor in, nor was it going to disrupt the wrapping industry. Now that the program has ended, it seems pretty ideal to believe it was always going to be a short-term thing.
Along with the wrap service, Tesla removed several other products, but nothing too crazy. The Model 3 Door Pocket and Cupholder Liners, the Model S 19″ Magnetite Wheel and Winter Tire Package, Model X/Y Ski/Snowboard Carrier for Hitch Rack, Tesla’s Electric Summer Party Tee, and the Electric Summer Tee were the other items the company totally eliminated from its online shop.
News
Tesla Robotaxi fleet gets a brain upgrade ahead of Cybercab launch event
Tesla’s Robotaxi service now runs longer hours nationwide as its unsupervised fleet quietly grows larger.
Tesla’s Robotaxi service just got easier to catch, with the company’s official Robotaxi account noting that rides are now available from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., seven days a week, across its operating footprint. The account also said its unsupervised fleet is “a lot bigger” than before, though without specifics. The bigger change is what Tesla says upgraded intelligence in vehicle distribution and routing is what’s actually cutting wait times, not a new Full Self-Driving version.
While Tesla did not name the team behind the upgrade, the language points to its AI and fleet software group rather than the driving stack itself. Vehicle distribution and routing in Robotaxi has functioned mostly as a dispatch problem with the software deciding which idle car goes to which rider, and how far it has to travel to get there. “Upgraded intelligence” suggests a smarter version of that dispatch logic, likely using demand forecasting to position idle cars near where riders are about to request them rather than reacting once a request comes in. Tesla’s AI division has built similar prediction systems for other parts of the business, including the neural networks that power FSD itself, so applying that same approach to fleet logistics would be a natural extension rather than a new discipline for the team.
Robotaxi now runs 6am to 10pm, 7 days/week
Unsupervised fleet is a lot bigger
Also, upgraded intelligence in vehicle distribution & routing means you wait less pic.twitter.com/UFZ4bqg2dZ
— Tesla Robotaxi (@robotaxi) August 26, 2026
Tesla is also about a week away from a separate robotaxi milestone. The company plans to launch Cybercab, its purpose built two seat robotaxi with no steering wheel or pedals, in Austin on September 3. Cybercab has been giving employees rides on public and private roads for weeks, and the September event is expected to fold those vehicles into the existing Robotaxi fleet within days of the launch.
Thank you so much @Tesla for inviting us to the Cybercab launch in Austin! 🤠 pic.twitter.com/F1rAR8zd5O
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 22, 2026
Austin previously ran Robotaxi from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m. as of last September, a schedule set before the service expanded into Dallas, Houston, Miami, Tampa, Orlando and the Bay Area. Wednesday’s post did not specify whether that extended overnight window still applies in Austin specifically or whether 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. is now the standard across every market. Tesla’s post, visible on its official Robotaxi account, framed the change simply as fewer riders waiting around for a car.
Whether the wider hours hold once Cybercab enters the fleet next week is the next thing worth watching. Tesla has tended to expand Robotaxi in increments, first geofence, then hours, then fleet size, and each step so far has arrived without much advance notice.
Tesla Cybertruck’s three configurations are all the same on the outside from an appearance perspective, but they differ slightly in price, range, performance, and other features. After yesterday’s price adjustment, Tesla’s Base All-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck is now priced at $74,990, a far cry from the $59,990 it started at several months ago.
At $60,000, the Cybertruck All-Wheel-Drive is a steal: no pickup, electric or gas-powered, comes close in terms of overall driving capability thanks to Steer-by-Wire; no truck is more fun to drive at that price, and add in Full Self-Driving for $99 per month, and you truly have the best possible pickup on the market, at least if you’re planning to use it for driving.
I unfortunately didn’t have the equipment to test towing and payload and how it impacts the truck.
But at $75,000, is it still worth it? Obviously, the question gets to be more difficult because of the $15,000 difference. But there’s still an argument.
I spent the last week with this awesome truck, and when I took it back, I was sad because it truly is the best Tesla in the lineup. I formerly said the Model S was my favorite Tesla, but after a week with Cybertruck, I can easily say it would be my choice over the now-defunct all-electric sedan.
What makes it so great? Well, a lot of things, and there are some things that I’d like to see change. However, this is a truck that truly has a serious argument for those who are thinking of trying something completely different.
Exterior and Interior
This build comes with 18″ Molten Wheels as the standard offering, but 20″ Core Wheels with 35″ tires are also available. The standard wheel option on this affordable model is not my favorite, but it can be easily swapped for something more attractive.
Overall, this particular build did have some panel gap issues that were especially noticeable between the hood and both front quarter panels. This is obviously not an “across the board” issue, as the Cyberbeast I took home for comparative reasons was significantly better overall.
It’s 📐 week. Cybertruck AWD!!! pic.twitter.com/0hkmTQDQYk
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 19, 2026
The interior is different, with its textile material instead of the vegan leather. Personally, I missed the leather due to the ventilated seats, but I prefer the textile as I personally felt like they were more comfortable. This is something I’d definitely consider if I were between the three trim levels and money was not really an issue.
After 610 miles on Monday in this thing, I did not feel any different than I did when I left my house that morning. It feels like a living room on wheels; after a long drive, you truly do not feel as if you’ve been in a car all day long.
My biggest interior complaints were that I’d like at least two USB-C ports in the front; you are confined to just one, and it’s hidden in the center console. The rear row has two ports. Additionally, the windshield is super difficult to clean, so if you end up buying one of these, save your back and get something that extends.
Driving Performance and Comfort
One of the most surprising things about Cybertruck is the fact that it is perhaps the smoothest ride of any Tesla available. Most believe it might be rough, stiff, and rugged like most trucks, maybe not as forgiving on the back and bottom as you sit in it for an extended period of time.
I’m here to tell you, you won’t regret sitting in a Cybertruck for a long drive.
I put as many people who dislike EVs, don’t like Cybertrucks, or use trucks for work, and judge the Cybertruck in this thing in the past week. Every single person who got in this truck loved it: they loved the speed, the handling, FSD, the space, the capability, and the feel.
As previously noted, even after hundreds of miles and 14 hours spent driving around Pennsylvania, I didn’t feel tired, exhausted, or in any hurry to come home. I would have driven another 300 miles without question.
Final Thoughts
If I had my choice of the three Cybertruck trims, I think I’d take the All-Wheel-Drive for a few reasons. Initially, the price is more attractive, it is not that stripped of features, and it has everything I need.
Is it worth it at $75,000? I believe it is. I’ve driven trucks that are at a higher price point and consider this to be a better product from a driving and experience perspective. However, other pickups on the market have more towing capacity, payload capacity, and range. They do not have FSD or steer-by-wire, the two things that truly make the Cybertruck in a league of its own.
I can’t think of a time in recent memory that I’ve been this excited to drive a vehicle each day, and I literally look for excuses to drive my Model Y on a daily basis. This Cybertruck just blows the Model Y out of the water in every possible way, at least in my opinion. With the size, performance, and driving experience, there is no better Tesla out there.
You can check out the full video review below. If you have any questions about the Cybertruck AWD, be sure to reach out and let me know:
🚨FULL REVIEW of the unbelievable Tesla Cybertruck AWD 📐 pic.twitter.com/S0wHALl87K
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 26, 2026
Tesla ends in-house wrap service that always seemed like a short-term program
Tesla Robotaxi fleet gets a brain upgrade ahead of Cybercab launch event
