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.
Elon Musk
SpaceX turned a heralding moment for Starship into its greatest moment
Starship reached orbit despite losing an engine, deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites on Flight 14.
SpaceX’s Starship reached orbit for the first time on Monday, and for a few nail-biting minutes it looked like it wouldn’t. During ascent on Flight 14, one of Ship 41’s six Raptor engines shut down early, and SpaceX’s livestream host Dan Huot told viewers the team had decided not to commit to orbit. Minutes later, after what Huot described as a lot of conversation in the control room, the final poll came back in favor, and a roughly 19 second burn of a single Raptor pushed the ship into orbit about 170 miles up.
The reversal matters because SpaceX had written the exit ramp into the mission plan. The company said it would only fire the orbital insertion burn if flight controllers confirmed enough backup hardware remained for the deorbit burn, a condition Teslarati laid out ahead of the flight. Losing an engine was exactly the scenario that rule was built for.
Pressing forward fits Elon Musk’s history. Falcon 1 failed three straight times before its fourth launch reached orbit in 2008, with SpaceX nearly out of money, and Starship was developed by flying prototypes until they broke. What changed this year SpaceX going public, and with $SPCX sliding below its IPO price in July when Flight 13 slipped, the short interest climbed significantly, as Teslarati reported at the time. A Starship potentially lost today with revenue generating next-gen Starlink satellites aboard would have landed directly on shareholders.
Splashdown confirmed. Congratulations to the entire SpaceX team on the first orbital flight of Starship! pic.twitter.com/urjmiwnvNl
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) September 28, 2026
That pressure showed up after orbit. SpaceX cut a flight planned to last nearly 10 hours to about three, moving splashdown from west of Chile to the North Pacific near Hawaii. SpaceX gave no reason, though Musk said this month the company was being extremely cautious about debris risk. The single Raptor for deorbit worked, and Ship 41 completed its flip and landing burn before breaking apart in the water, an outcome SpaceX expected. Musk has structured SpaceX’s governance to shield long term bets from market pressure.
The payload is the bigger business story. Musk posted that all 26 Starlink V3 satellites deployed and are “operating nominally.” Each V3 is rated for about 1 Tbps of downlink and 160 Gbps of uplink, so this single launch adds roughly 26 Tbps, about 10 times what a Falcon 9 load of V2 Mini satellites adds. The V3 is too large for Falcon 9, making Starship the only vehicle that can build out the planned 100,000 satellite constellation, at up to 60 per flight once it reaches routine service. Unlike the 20 V3 units on Flight 13, which reentered on a suborbital path, these will raise their orbits and could begin serving customers within weeks and bring in hundreds of millions of additional dollars in projected Starlink revenue.
SpaceX has already begun winding down Falcon 9 Starlink launches from Florida in favor of Starship. Reported targets put Flight 15 as early as October 19, leaving about three weeks to diagnose Monday’s engine shutdown before the next orbital attempt.
Starship’s 14th flight is set to launch on Monday, Sept 28. The 75-minute launch window opens at 7:15 a.m. CT. Live coverage of the mission starts ~35 minutes before launch → https://t.co/uQKQvgaTmJ
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) September 27, 2026
Tesla quietly doubled the size of its Cybercab fleet within the Robotaxi program in Austin, Texas, over the weekend to well over 100 units.
The move not only establishes more of the steering-wheel-less and pedal-less vehicles within the ride-sharing fleet Tesla has been operating for a year, but it also solidifies a more robust Robotaxi fleet as a whole.
Riders started receiving notifications from the Robotaxi app that stated: “Cybercab fleet has doubled: more rides available.”
I got this notification on the robotaxi app. They are saying the Cybercab fleet has doubled. Glad that they are advertising this pic.twitter.com/FFrnw4FRCF
— Abhimanyu Yadav (@WorldlyReviewer) September 26, 2026
Tesla first launched rides in the Cybercab in early September, although the Robotaxi fleet has been active for over a year, as rides began last Summer. Cybercab is truly Tesla’s most crucial vehicle release yet, as it is the first car any company has built that is geared toward full-fledged and end-to-end autonomy, never needing human intervention for anything.
Only available in Austin at the current time, Cybercab has two seats and has been spotted testing around various U.S. states and regions; Tesla plans to deploy the Cybercab in various U.S. cities in the coming months as a best-case scenario.
Tesla Cybercab gets initial tie-in to localized, in-house cathode plant
The availability of the Cybercab has doubled from just 58 units last Monday to 125 the following Friday. Marking a substantial increase in Cybercab availability, the additional ride-sharing units are more than welcome, as wait times for Cybercabs, especially, were quite high.
The dramatic increase is a sign that demand for Robotaxi is growing and Tesla is feeling more confident that its driverless ride-hailing suite, especially its Full Self-Driving software, is able to handle any traffic situation without explicit direction or supervision from a human being.
Tesla is advancing a fully automated pipeline for the 4680 battery cells used in its all-electric Semi, spanning production from Giga Texas through shipment and direct consumption on the line at the new dedicated Semi Factory in Sparks, Nevada.
The approach was outlined by Tesla at its September 24 Semi Handover event, which launched high-volume production at its new 1.8-million-square-foot plant in Nevada, which sits adjacent to Gigafactory Nevada and is designed for an annual production rate of 50,000 trucks per year.
After years of pilot builds and what was a four-year-long redesign of the truck, Tesla moved the Semi from 2170 batteries to its in-house 4680 cells, which are made in Austin. The change cuts battery mass and total energy while holding range, a key step in making volume production a realistic possibility.
Cells will leave Giga Texas in trailers, and at the Nevada Semi plant, Tesla intends for a dedicated line to unload those trailers automatically, station the cells, and feed them straight into pack and vehicle assembly.
🚨 Tesla plans to use a completely automated unloading process for cells coming from Giga Texas arriving at the Semi factory in Nevada
A line will “consume” cells from the trailer
The goal is to have zero human touch point throughout the entire process. Insane! pic.twitter.com/wdBFM8LC3F
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) September 25, 2026
Both Lars Moravy, Tesla’s VP of Vehicle Engineering, and Dan Priestley, the Head of Tesla’s Semi program, described the goal as a “zero human touch point” from the moment the trailer arrives in Texas until a finished Semi drives off the production line in Nevada.
The unloading system that Moravy and Priestley described is just one piece of a much broader automation push. The plant uses what Tesla calls the highest-capacity electric monorail conveyance in vehicle manufacturing, carrying frames-in-white simultaneously. Powder-coating replaces conventional paint, and many processes that would normally require operators have been designed out.
Tesla has repeatedly said that “the best part is no part,” and the cell-handling plan extends that philosophy from the cell factory floor in Texas all the way to final assembly in Nevada.
If executed as described, the closed-loop flow would reduce labor, handling damage, and inventory buffers while tightening quality control on a component that represents a large share of the truck’s cost and weight. It also shortens the physical and organizational distance between two factories separated by more than 1,200 miles. The Semi itself now shares a bar-wound stator and other components with the Cybertruck, further linking Tesla’s passenger and commercial production systems.
High-volume output is expected to ramp gradually after the first trucks left the new line in April 2026. Early customers include PepsiCo, DHL, and U.S. Foods. Whether the automated trailer-to-line process reaches the promised zero-touch standard will be visible in the coming months as production scales. For Tesla, the Semi factory is another test of how far it can push “the machine that builds the machine” across sites.
SpaceX turned a heralding moment for Starship into its greatest moment
Tesla Cybercab fleet doubles to well over 100 units
