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.
Tesla has scaled back driver monitoring to be less naggy with the latest version of the Full Self-Driving (Supervised) suite, which is version 14.3.3.
The latest version is already earning praise from owners, who are reporting that the suite is far less invasive when it comes to keeping drivers from taking their eyes off the road. The first to mention it was notable Tesla community member on X known as Zack, or BLKMDL3.
14.3.3 nags less too https://t.co/IuiWzuYO6O
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 18, 2026
Musk confirmed that v14.3.3 was made to nag drivers significantly less, something that Tesla has worked toward in the past and has said with previous versions that it is less likely to push drivers to look ahead, at least after looking away for a few seconds.
This refinement aligns with Tesla’s ongoing push toward unsupervised FSD. The update also brings faster Actual Smart Summon (now up to 8 mph), reliable “Hey Grok” voice commands, richer visualizations, smoother Mad Max acceleration, and an intervention streak counter that rewards consistent use. Reviewers describe the drive as more human-like and confident, with fewer twitches or unnecessary maneuvers.
Musk has repeatedly signaled this direction. In late 2025, he stated that FSD would allow phone use “depending on context of surrounding traffic,” noting safety data would justify relaxing rules so drivers could text in low-risk scenarios like stop-and-go traffic.
We tested this, and even still, the cell phone monitoring really seems to be less active in terms of alerting drivers:
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.1 texting and driving: we tested it
Earlier, ahead of v14, Musk promised the system would “nag the driver much less” once safety metrics improved.
In 2023, he confirmed the steering wheel torque nag would be “gradually reduced, proportionate to improved safety,” shifting reliance to the cabin camera. Subsequent updates like v13.2.9 and v12.4 further loosened monitoring, cracking down on workarounds while easing legitimate distractions.
These steps reflect Tesla’s data-driven approach: FSD’s safety record—reportedly averaging millions of miles per crash—now outpaces human drivers in many scenarios, giving the company confidence to dial back interventions. Reduced nags improve usability and trust, encouraging more drivers to rely on the system rather than disengaging out of frustration.
However, there are certainly still some concerns. In many states, it is illegal to handle a cell phone in any way, requiring the use of hands-free devices. In Pennsylvania, it is illegal to use your cell phone at stop lights, which is definitely a step further than using it while the car is actively in motion.
v14.3.3 represents tangible progress. Making FSD less adversarial and more seamless is definitely a step forward, but drivers need to be aware of the dangers of distracted driving. FSD is extremely capable, but it is in no way fully autonomous, nor does its performance warrant owners to take their attention off the road.
Tesla has officially expanded its Full Self-Driving (FSD) suite in Europe once again, as it will now be offered to customer vehicles in Lithuania, marking a significant milestone as the second European Union country to offer the system.
Tesla confirmed FSD’s rollout in Lithuania this morning:
FSD Supervised now rolling out to Teslas in Lithuania 🇱🇹!
Making European roads safer, one by one pic.twitter.com/Uuj0bNG7pP
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) May 20, 2026
Tesla showed several clips of Full Self-Driving navigation in Lithuania to mark the announcement, while Lithuanian Transport Minister Juras Taminskas highlighted the system’s potential to assist with lane-keeping, speed adjustment, and traffic tasks on longer drives, while emphasizing that drivers must stay alert and ready to intervene.
Just a few weeks ago, Tesla officially entered Europe with Full Self-Driving in the Netherlands. The expansion of FSD on the continent is now officially underway.
Full Self-Driving’s European Journey
Europe has long posed one of the toughest regulatory challenges for Tesla’s autonomy ambitions due to stringent safety standards under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) framework, particularly UN Regulation 171 for Driver Control Assistance Systems.
The Netherlands’ RDW authority granted the pioneering approval after over 18 months of rigorous testing, including 1.6 million kilometers on European roads and extensive data submissions.
This approval enables mutual recognition across the EU, allowing other member states to adopt it nationally without full re-testing. Lithuania quickly leveraged this mechanism, becoming the second adopter. Tesla positions FSD Supervised as a tool to incrementally improve road safety, with the company claiming it reduces incidents when used properly.
Bottlenecks slowing broader European deployment include fragmented national regulations, varying levels of regulatory skepticism, and requirements for robust driver monitoring. Some EU officials have raised concerns about performance in adverse conditions like icy roads or speeding scenarios, alongside frustrations over Tesla’s public advocacy approach.
Additional hurdles involve data privacy, liability frameworks, and the need for EU-wide harmonization. While countries like Belgium appear to be fast-tracking adoption, larger markets such as Germany, France, and Italy are expected to follow in the coming months, with potential EU-wide progress targeted for later in 2026.
Tesla Full Self-Driving Across the World
As of May, Full Self-Driving (Supervised) is available in approximately ten countries.
In North America, it has been live for years in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Puerto Rico. Asia-Pacific additions include Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea, while China utilizes what Tesla calls “City Autopilot.” In Europe, the Netherlands and now Lithuania join the list, with more countries mulling the possibility of also approving FSD.
Tesla offers FSD via monthly subscriptions (around €99 in Europe) or one-time purchases (with deadlines approaching in many markets), shifting toward recurring revenue models. Today is the final day Europeans will be able to purchase the suite outright.
This expansion underscores Tesla’s push for global autonomy, starting with supervised and building toward greater capabilities. With Lithuania now online, momentum is building across Europe, though regulatory caution will continue shaping the pace. Owners in approved regions report smoother highway and urban driving, but the system remains Level 2, which requires human oversight.
Elon Musk
Tesla ditches India after years of broken promises
Tesla has ditched its plans to build a factory in India after years of failed negotiations.
Tesla’s long-running effort to establish a manufacturing presence in India is officially over. India’s Minister of Heavy Industries H.D. Kumaraswamy confirmed on May 19, 2026 that Tesla has informed authorities it will not proceed with a manufacturing facility in the country.
Tesla first signaled serious interest in India around 2021, when it began hiring local staff and lobbying the Indian government for lower import tariffs. The ask was straightforward: reduce duties enough for Tesla to test the market with imported vehicles before committing capital to a local factory. India’s position was equally firm, with an ask of Tesla to commit to manufacturing first, then receive tariff relief. Neither side moved, and the talks quietly collapsed.
Tesla to open first India experience center in Mumbai on July 15
India had offered a policy that would reduce import duties from 110% down to 15% on EVs priced above $35,000, provided companies committed at least $500 million toward local manufacturing investment within three years. Tesla declined to participate. The tariff standoff was only part of the problem. Analysts pointed to significant gaps in India’s local supply chain, inadequate industrial infrastructure, and a mismatch between Tesla’s premium pricing and the purchasing power of India’s automotive market as additional factors that made the investment difficult to justify.
First signs of an unraveling relationship came in April 2024, when Musk abruptly cancelled a planned trip to India where he was set to meet Prime Minister Modi and announce Tesla’s market entry. By July 2024, Fortune reported that Tesla executives had stopped contacting Indian government officials entirely. The government at that point understood Tesla had capital constraints and no plans to invest.
The more fundamental issue is that Tesla’s existing factories are currently operating at approximately 60% capacity, making a commitment to building new manufacturing capacity in a new market difficult to defend to investors. Tesla will continue selling imported Model Y vehicles through its existing showrooms in Mumbai, Delhi, Gurugram, and Bengaluru, but local production is no longer part of the plan.
Tesla scales back driver monitoring with latest Full Self-Driving release
Tesla Full Self-Driving expands in Europe, entering its second country
