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 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.
News
Tesla Semi’s latest adoptee will likely encourage more of the same
Public visibility matters. When shoppers see a trusted name like Ralph’s running clean, high-tech trucks on public roads, skepticism fades. Competitors such as Albertsons, which pre-ordered Semis years ago, and other chains chasing ESG targets now have proof that electric autonomy works in real-world grocery fleets.
The latest adoptee of the Tesla Semi will likely encourage more businesses in the same realm to adopt the all-electric Class 8 truck, as a new company utilizing the Semi has been spotted in Southern California.
A sleek, futuristic Tesla Semi truck branded for Ralph’s Supermarkets was spotted cruising a Los Angeles highway in a viral 13-second dashcam video posted March 2, by X user ChargePozitive.
Tesla Semi Truck in the wild pic.twitter.com/SnQY8ShMMJ
— ChargePozitive ⚡️➕ (@ChargePozitive) March 2, 2026
This sighting confirms Kroger’s March 2025 partnership with Tesla to deploy up to 500 autonomous electric Semis.
While the initial announcement targeted Midwest supply chains, the California appearance under the Ralph’s banner shows the program expanding to Kroger’s West Coast operations. Ralph’s, a staple for millions of Southern California shoppers, is now hauling groceries with the Semi, which has zero tailpipe emissions and claims up to 500 miles of range per charge.
Tesla Semi pricing revealed after company uncovers trim levels
The timing could not be better for sustainable logistics. Traditional trucking accounts for a massive share of retail emissions, but Tesla’s Semi slashes fuel and maintenance costs while leveraging full autonomy to ease driver shortages and improve safety.
Tesla’s expanding Megacharger network, including new sites along major freight corridors and partnerships like the recently-announced one with Pilot Travel Centers, is removing range anxiety and making nationwide scaling realistic. There’s still a long way to go, but things are moving in the right direction.
Public visibility matters. When shoppers see a trusted name like Ralph’s running clean, high-tech trucks on public roads, skepticism fades. Competitors such as Albertsons, which pre-ordered Semis years ago, and other chains chasing ESG targets now have proof that electric autonomy works in real-world grocery fleets.
PepsiCo’s successful pilots already demonstrated viability, and Ralph’s sighting adds retail credibility.
As Tesla ramps high-volume Semi production through 2026, this isn’t an isolated curiosity. Instead, it’s a catalyst. More grocers adopting the platform will accelerate industry-wide decarbonization, cut operating expenses, and deliver tangible environmental wins.
The future of sustainable supply chains is already on the highway, and Ralph’s just made it impossible to ignore.
Moving forward, Tesla hopes to expand the Semi program into other regions, including Europe, which CEO Elon Musk recently said is a total possibility next year.
Elon Musk
Tesla ramps Cybercab test manufacturing ahead of mass production
Tesla still has plans for volume production, which remains between four and eight weeks away, aligning with Musk’s statements that early ramps would be deliberately measured given the Cybercab’s novel architecture and full reliance on Tesla’s vision-based Full Self-Driving technology.
Tesla is seemingly ramping Cybercab test manufacturing ahead of mass production, which is scheduled to begin next month, the company said.
At Tesla’s Gigafactory Texas, production of the Cybercab, the company’s groundbreaking purpose-built Robotaxi vehicle, is accelerating markedly. Drone footage from Joe Tegtmeyer captured striking aerial footage today, revealing what appears to be the largest public sighting of Cyebrcabs to date.
A total of 25 units were observed by Tegtmeyer across the Gigafactory Texas property, marking a clear step-up in testing and validation activities as Tesla prepares for a broader output.
Tesla Cybercab production begins: The end of car ownership as we know it?
In the footage, 14 metallic gold Cybercabs were parked in a tight formation outside the factory exit, showcasing their sleek, autonomous-only design with no steering wheels, pedals, or traditional controls. Another 9 units sat at the crash testing facility, likely undergoing structural and safety validations, while two more appeared at the west end-of-line area for final checks.
Big day for Cybercab at Giga Texas today! Actually, yesterday to kick off March, the production line went into a higher volume & today we see 25 at three main locations, and there were several others I observed driving around too!
I think this may be the largest single grouping… pic.twitter.com/HZDMNv57lJ
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) March 3, 2026
Tegtmeyer noted additional Cybercabs driving around the complex, hinting at active movement and real-world testing beyond static parking.
This surge follows the first production Cybercab rolling off the line in mid-February 2026, several weeks ahead of the originally anticipated April start.
That milestone, celebrated by Tesla employees and confirmed by CEO Elon Musk, kicked off low-volume builds on the dedicated “unboxed” manufacturing line, a modular process designed to slash costs, reduce factory footprint, and enable faster assembly compared to conventional methods.
Industry observers interpret the jump to dozens of visible units in early March as evidence that Tesla has transitioned into higher-volume test manufacturing.
Tesla still has plans for volume production, which remains between four and eight weeks away, aligning with Musk’s statements that early ramps would be deliberately measured given the Cybercab’s novel architecture and full reliance on Tesla’s vision-based Full Self-Driving technology.
The Cybercab, envisioned as a sub-$30,000 autonomous two-seater for robotaxi fleets, represents Tesla’s bold pivot toward scalable autonomy and robotics.
Tesla fans and enthusiasts on X praised the imagery, with many expressing excitement over the visible progress toward deployment. While challenges remain, including software maturity, regulatory hurdles, and supply chain scaling, the increased factory activity underscores Tesla’s momentum in turning the Cybercab vision into reality.
As Giga Texas continues expanding and refining the manufacturing process of the Cybercab, the coming months will prove to be a pivotal time in determining how quickly this revolutionary vehicle reaches roads in the U.S. and internationally.
Tesla influencers argue company’s polarizing Full Self-Driving transfer decision
Tesla Semi’s latest adoptee will likely encourage more of the same
