Connect with us

News

SpaceX rocket catch simulation raises more questions about concept

Published

4 years ago

on

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement
Related Topics:

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

SpaceX opens up free Starlink service for those impacted by Hurricane Melissa

Published

1 hour ago

on

October 28, 2025

By

(Credit: Starlink | X)

SpaceX is opening up its internet service, Starlink, to those impacted by Hurricane Melissa, as it made landfall in Jamaica and the Bahamas as a Category 5 storm.

Hurricane Melissa is expected to reach wind speeds of over 165 MPH over the next few days as it extends out into the Atlantic Ocean by Thursday and Friday.

Citizens in Jamaica and the Bahamas have been preparing for the storm for the past week, getting necessary goods together and preparing for the massive storm to arrive. It finally did yesterday, and the first images and video of the storm are showing that it could destroy many parts of both countries.

Starlink is now being opened up for free until the end of November for those impacted by the storm in Jamaica and the Bahamas, SpaceX announced today:

It is a move similar to the one the company made last year as Hurricane Helene made its way through the United States, destroying homes and property across the East Coast. SpaceX offered free service for those impacted by the destruction caused by the storm.

The free Starlink service was available until the end of 2024.

Elon Musk’s companies have also made similar moves to help out those who are impacted by natural disasters. Tesla has offered Free Supercharging in the past, most notably during the California wildfires.

Tesla and SpaceX’s LA fire relief efforts: Cybertrucks, free Starlink and more

One major advantage of Starlink is that it is available for use in situations like this one, where power might be required to operate things like a modem and router.

Internet access is a crucial part of survival in these situations, especially as it can be the last leg some stand on to get in touch with emergency services or loved ones.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla board chair reiterates widely unmentioned point of Musk comp plan

Published

2 hours ago

on

October 28, 2025

By

Credit: Tesla

Tesla Board Chair Robyn Denholm appeared on Bloomberg TV this morning to discuss the current status of CEO Elon Musk’s compensation plan, and used the opportunity to reiterate a widely unmentioned key point of the entire package.

Critics of the proposed pay package, which would pay Musk $1 trillion if he completes every tranche, routinely cite the sheer size of the payday.

Of course, many skeptics leave out the fact that he would only get that money if he were able to generate eight times the value the company currently has.

Tesla gains massive vote of confidence on compensation plan for Elon Musk

For Musk, it might have a little bit to do with money, but that is likely a very small percentage point of why the compensation package is being offered to him. He has reiterated that it is more about voting control and overall influence, especially as Tesla dives into robotics.

He said during the Q3 Earnings Call:

“My fundamental concern with regard to how much voting control I have at Tesla is if I go ahead and build this enormous robot army, can I just be ousted at some point in the future? That’s my biggest concern. That is really the only thing I’m trying to address with this. It’s called compensation, but it’s not like I’m going to go spend the money. It’s just, if we build this robot army, do I have at least a strong influence over that robot army, not current control, but a strong influence? That’s what it comes down to in a nutshell. I don’t feel comfortable wielding that robot army if I don’t have at least a strong influence.”

Tesla shares the idea that Musk is a crucial part of the company, and without him being awarded the voting control he feels he deserves, he could leave the company altogether.

The company is very obviously feeling the importance of the upcoming vote, as it has advertised and pushed heavily for the comp plan to be approved, mostly to retain Musk.

Tesla Board Chair Robyn Denholm said today to Bloomberg TV that it is crucial shareholders understand it is not about Musk’s potential wealth, but more about his influence on company decisions:

“So firstly, it is a performance package, so he gets nothing if he doesn’t perform against the pretty audacious milestones that are part of the performance criteria that’s been outlined by the board in the performance package. So, I think rather than compensation, it’s actually about the performance and the goals that we have for the company as we move forward. And so, for me, it really is about making sure that investors understand that they actually get paid if he hits the milestones before he will…Elon’s been very public, including on last week’s earnings call, about the fact that it’s around the voting influence that he could have in future shareholder meetings as opposed to the economic interests.”

Musk is not an incredibly flashy person. He does not have crazy cars or a massive house to go back to. He spends a lot of his time working and sometimes even sleeps at his office inside the factory.

He recently said he “only has what is needed” because “material possessions were making him weak.”

Continue Reading

News

The truth about Tesla ‘Mad Max’ mode from an actual user

Some people might see “Mad Max” as an extension of their daily driving.

For me, I did not see it that way. I saw it as a useful tool for certain situations, but it was certainly not something I could compare to my personal driving style.

But that does not mean that it’s wrong.

Published

3 hours ago

on

October 28, 2025

By

Credit: Teslarati

There have been many headlines about Tesla’s new “Mad Max” mode, but many of those writing about the “dangerous” and “controversial” mode have probably never used it.

As a writer, I write about topics I do not have firsthand experience with, but the job requires me to take a fair stance and report what is known. The problem is the nature of driving and driving modes, specifically, is subjective.

Some people might see “Mad Max” as an extension of their daily driving.

For me, I did not see it that way. I saw it as a useful tool for certain situations, but it was certainly not something I could compare to my personal driving style.

But that does not mean that it’s wrong.

NHTSA Probes Tesla Over “Mad Max”

Last week, the NHTSA launched a bit of a probe into Mad Max mode, requesting additional information on the Speed Profile and reiterating that the driver of the car is still required to be in ultimate control.

Tesla ‘Mad Max’ gets its first bit of regulatory attention

It’s important to keep the latter portion of that sentence in mind for the true thesis of this piece.

Now, it is no surprise to me that Mad Max garnered attention from regulatory agencies, as it is definitely a more spirited driving profile than the others.

Is Mad Max That Big of a Deal?

Regulatory agencies are responsible for keeping people safe, and it is important to note that their control is somewhat necessary. However, this type of drive mode is optional, requires the driver’s attention, and should be used responsibly for safe travel.

Playing Devil’s Advocate, how is Mad Max any different than the performance modes that some sports cars have? Because they require the driver to operate fully, and they are not semi-autonomous like Tesla can offer with Mad Max in Full Self-Driving (Supervised), are they safer?

The argument here really comes down to whether FSD is being used responsibly and correctly; any accelerated drive mode becomes more of a risk if the vehicle operator is not paying attention. This applies to any car company or drive mode they choose to use on their cars.

My Personal Experience with Mad Max

I have used Mad Max probably ten times since it rolled out to Early Access Program (EAP) members a few weeks ago.

I’ll admit: it did a lot of things I would never do driving a car manually. It passed people on the right. It was the fastest vehicle on the interstate, at least until I crossed into Maryland. Then, it seemed to be just another car on the road.

It drove quickly, and not so fast that I felt concerned for my safety, which I never feared for, but fast enough that, at certain points, I was concerned that a cop would pull me over. I never encountered that scenario, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it resulted in some tickets.

With that being said, I don’t particularly think I’d use Mad Max in more than a handful of applications: driving the Baltimore Beltway would be one instance, navigating traffic in Baltimore, Philadelphia, or Pittsburgh during heavy traffic, or cruising on I-95, where cars routinely are going 100 MPH, much faster than Mad Max would ever travel.

Is it too quick for me in residential settings? For me, yes. Is it faster than every human driving on those roads? Absolutely not. In my experience, it is quicker than some, slower than others, just like any other Speed Mode Tesla offers, even Sloth, which refuses to go over the posted speed limit.

I think it’s wrong to sit here and act as if Mad Max is some incredibly dangerous and life-threatening hazard. If a driver is uncomfortable with the maneuvers or speed, they do not have to use it. However, it is no different from how many other cars travel on the road; it is far from an anomaly.

Tesla FSD’s new Mad Max mode is getting rave reviews from users

With that being said, it will be interesting to see if the NHTSA does anything about Mad Max, whether it will require Tesla to “nerf” the Speed Profile, or remove it altogether. It’s also important to note that this is my personal experience with Mad Max, and what I’ve experienced might differ from others’.

I would love to hear your thoughts on how Mad Max has driven for you, or your impressions of it.

Continue Reading

Trending