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 officially begins sunset of Model S and Model X
In the latest move to show Tesla is planning to eliminate the Model S and Model X from production, the company’s Korean arm has officially set a firm cutoff date of March 31, 2026, for new orders of both models.
Tesla has officially started its process of sunsetting the Model S and Model X just months after the company confirmed it would stop producing the two flagship vehicles in 2026.
This step marks the end of an era for the vehicles that helped establish not only Tesla’s prowess as an automaker but also its status as a disruptor in the entire car industry. While these two cars have done a tremendous amount for Tesla, the signal that it is time to wind down their production has evidently arrived.
In the latest move to show Tesla is planning to eliminate the Model S and Model X from production, the company’s Korean arm has officially set a firm cutoff date of March 31, 2026, for new orders of both models.
This is the first time Tesla has announced a hard global deadline for the Model S and X, as after that date, only existing inventory will be available in South Korea.
The move to bring closure to the Model S and Model X aligns with CEO Elon Musk’s plans for Tesla moving forward. During the Q4 2025 Earnings Call in January, Musk said the two cars deserved an “honorable discharge” for what they have done for the company.
The long-running programs are primarily being removed so that manufacturing lines can be repurposed for high-volume manufacturing of the Optimus humanoid robot. Tesla is targeting a production rate of up to one million units each year.
The Model S and Model X being removed from Tesla’s plans is a tough choice, but it was one that was written on the wall. Sales of these premium models have declined sharply in recent years, and even with Plaid configurations that are performance-forward, the company still has had trouble getting them sold.
In 2025, the Model S and Model X together accounted for roughly 3 percent of Tesla’s global deliveries, down significantly from prior periods as competition intensified in the luxury EV segment and buyers shifted toward more affordable options like the Model 3 and Model Y.
The Model S saw sales drop over 50 percent year-over-year in some quarters, while the Model X faced similar pressures from rivals, including the Rivian R1S and BMW iX.
Despite their dwindling volume, the Model S and Model X remain technological showcases. The Plaid variants deliver blistering acceleration, advanced Full Self-Driving capability, and luxurious interiors.
The phase-out paves the way for Tesla’s strategic pivot toward autonomy, robotics, and higher-volume vehicles.
Tesla brings closure to flagship ‘sentimental’ models, Musk confirms
Fremont will continue producing the refreshed Model 3 and Model Y, ensuring the factory remains a key automotive hub while expanding into robotics. Tesla has stated that the shift is not expected to result in job losses and could increase headcount as Optimus production ramps up.
For Tesla fans, the sunset represents a bittersweet moment. The Model S, introduced in 2012, proved EVs could compete with luxury sedans, while the Falcon-wing-door Model X set new standards for family haulers. Owners can expect continued software support and service for years to come.
Many fans have pushed for the Model X to hang around due to its appeal for families.
With the two cars heading out, Tesla’s priority now becomes its future products, especially that of the Optimus robot, which is the main reason for the S/X platform’s conclusion.
News
Tesla shows off mysterious vehicle at Giga Texas
The mysterious structure, partially unboxed amid construction materials, has sparked widespread speculation among Tesla enthusiasts and analysts. Many are convinced it is the long-rumored Model Y L, the extended-wheelbase variant already popular in China, now arriving in Texas for potential U.S. production.
Tesla seemingly showed off a mysterious vehicle at Giga Texas, one that seems to be completely different than anything the company currently makes for the U.S. market.
The vehicle, which was spotted on the plant’s property, appears to be similar to the Model Y L that has not yet launched in North America, and is currently built at Gigafactory Shanghai in China.
Drone pilot Joe Tegtmeyer captured intriguing footage at Tesla’s Giga Texas on March 23, 2026, revealing what appears to be a large, blue plastic-wrapped vehicle body resting inside a wooden shipping crate outdoors.
Well this is interesting at Giga Texas today … what do YOU think this is? 🤔😎 pic.twitter.com/U9pLvqbf7L
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) March 23, 2026
The mysterious structure, partially unboxed amid construction materials, has sparked widespread speculation among Tesla enthusiasts and analysts. Many are convinced it is the long-rumored Model Y L, the extended-wheelbase variant already popular in China, now arriving in Texas for potential U.S. production.
The images show an elongated silhouette that stands out from standard Model Y bodies. Side-by-side comparisons shared in replies to Tegtmeyer’s post highlight key differences: the rear door extends farther over the wheel arch than on a regular Model Y, and the rear glass appears to run all the way to the spoiler lip without the metal trim seen on shorter versions.
One overlay analysis noted that the visible proportions align precisely with the Chinese-market Model Y L, which measures approximately 4.98 meters long with a 3.04-meter wheelbase, which is about seven inches longer overall than the standard Model Y sold in the U.S.
Model Y L, with a support structure on top, likely for shipping. pic.twitter.com/ET3w46DjpJ
— Owen Sparks (@OwenSparks) March 23, 2026
The vehicle is a bare “body-in-white” shell, typical of prototypes sent abroad for tooling validation and local manufacturing ramp-up. Tesla has already launched the six- and seven-seat Model Y L in China and other markets, where it offers roughly 10% more cargo space and greater family-friendly versatility.
This sighting fits Tesla’s broader strategy. Industry observers expect the company to localize Model Y L production at Giga Texas by mid-2026 to serve American families seeking extra room without stepping up to the larger Cybertruck or a future full-size SUV.
Bringing the design stateside could add tens of thousands of annual deliveries while leveraging existing Model Y lines. People have been adamant that they want the Model Y L in the U.S., especially as Tesla plans to fade the Model X, the company’s most ideal vehicle for large families, out of production in the near future.
Tesla Model Y lineup expansion signals an uncomfortable reality for consumers
While Tesla has made no official comment, the timing, amid Giga Texas expansion and steady Model Y output, suggests the mysterious crate is more than a random prototype.
If confirmed as the Model Y L, it marks another step in Tesla’s effort to refresh its bestselling SUV for global demand. The vehicle would perform exceptionally well in the U.S., and despite the company’s rather mute stance on bringing it to America, this might be the biggest hint to date that it could be on the way.
Cybertruck
Tesla Cybertruck just won a rare and elusive crash safety honor
Only the most outstanding of performances in crash tests can warrant an IIHS Top Safety Pick+ award, as vehicles listed with that ranking must achieve “Good” ratings in the small overlap front, updated side, and updated moderate overlap front tests, along with “Acceptable” or “Good” headlights standard on all trims.
Tesla Cybertruck landed a rare and elusive safety honor from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). It was the only pickup truck in the U.S. market to do so.
The IIHS rewarded the Cybertruck with the Top Safety Pick+ honors, the highest marks a vehicle can receive from the agency.
Only the most outstanding of performances in crash tests can warrant an IIHS Top Safety Pick+ award, as vehicles listed with that ranking must achieve “Good” ratings in the small overlap front, updated side, and updated moderate overlap front tests, along with “Acceptable” or “Good” headlights standard on all trims.
🚨 Absolutely insane.
Tesla Cybertruck was the ONLY pickup on the market to be awarded a Top Safety Pick+ rating by the IIHS
The safest rating out there belongs to Cybertruck 📐 pic.twitter.com/Y8gLOqaL0d
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 24, 2026
Cybertruck was the only truck to also win an NHTSA Five-Star Safety rating, making it the only pickup available on the market to be recognized with top marks from both agencies.
There are a multitude of options for pickups in the U.S. market, as it is one of the most popular vehicle types for consumers in the country. Pickups are great vehicles for anyone who does any sort of hauling or is just looking for extra space for any variety of reasons.
Pickups are also inherently safer than other body types on the road, mostly because they are larger and heavier, making them more favorable against other vehicle types in the event of a collision. However, Tesla has a significant advantage in safety with its vehicles because it engineers them to not only be safer in collisions, but also easier to repair.
The Cybertruck managed to achieve “Good” ratings, the highest marks available by the IIHS, in all three Crashworthiness categories, as well as “Good” ratings in both Crash Avoidance and Mitigation assessments.
It also received “Good” ratings across all driver and pedestrian crash-test performance metrics, except for one, where it earned an “Acceptable” rating for rear passengers in the Chest category.
The Cybertruck’s outstanding crash test performance has won it this incredible mark as the pickup still tends to be one of the more polarizing vehicle designs on the market.
It is no secret that Tesla has struggled with demand of the Cybertruck due to pricing, but the recent rollout of a trim that was temporarily priced at just $59,990 showed plenty of people want the all-electric pickup.
Tesla officially begins sunset of Model S and Model X
Tesla shows off mysterious vehicle at Giga Texas
Tesla Cybertruck just won a rare and elusive crash safety honor
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
