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 begins factoring international designs in Full Self-Driving visualization
Tesla has begun incorporating region-specific vehicle designs into its Full Self-Driving (FSD) visualization system, marking a quiet but meaningful step toward global readiness. In software update 2026.14, released as part of the Spring Update, European Tesla owners are now seeing flat-fronted, cab-over European-style semi-trucks rendered accurately on their center displays.
Tesla has begun factoring international designs into its Full Self-Driving (Supervised) visualizations, marking a tremendous step in how the company plans to roll out its driver assistance tech in areas outside North America.
Tesla has begun incorporating region-specific vehicle designs into its Full Self-Driving (FSD) visualization system, marking a quiet but meaningful step toward global readiness. In software update 2026.14, released as part of the Spring Update, European Tesla owners are now seeing flat-fronted, cab-over European-style semi-trucks rendered accurately on their center displays.
The change, first spotted by Not a Tesla App, adds a second 3D model alongside the traditional North American long-nose semi-trucks that have been standard until now. Vehicles can detect and display both styles depending on what’s in front of them, and the feature requires no FSD subscription—every Tesla owner in Europe sees it immediately.
The European semi-truck visualization was actually added to the vehicle software back in October alongside roughly fifteen new visual assets.
Tesla held it in reserve, activating it only once fleet data confirmed the AI could recognize these trucks with high confidence. This mirrors recent rollouts for horses and golf carts, where Tesla similarly waited for reliable detection before enabling the graphics. The result is a more realistic on-screen representation tailored to local roads, where cab-over designs dominate heavy transport.
The significance of this update extends far beyond a simple graphics tweak, which is really what people need to be paying attention to. These small, incremental steps forward continue to show Tesla’s intent for global expansion.
For the first time, Tesla is explicitly factoring international vehicle designs into its visualization engine, signaling a deliberate push to make FSD feel native in international markets.
In Europe, where cab-over semis are commonplace, seeing an accurate rendering builds immediate driver trust—the critical bridge between the car’s AI perception and the human behind the wheel. Accurate visualizations reinforce that the system truly understands its surroundings, reducing range anxiety and skepticism that have slowed autonomous adoption abroad.
Regulators in the EU have repeatedly emphasized human-AI transparency; by customizing visuals to match local reality, Tesla strengthens its case for broader FSD approvals and smoother regulatory reviews.
This move also highlights Tesla’s data-driven engineering philosophy. Rather than rushing generic models worldwide, the company is leveraging its global fleet to learn regional nuances before flipping the switch.
It accelerates FSD’s international expansion while improving safety—misidentified vehicles could erode confidence or, in edge cases, affect decision-making. For a company aiming to deploy robotaxis and unsupervised FSD globally, tailoring visualizations to European, Asian, or other markets is no longer optional; it’s foundational.
Early European owners report the change feels more intuitive, making the car’s “mind” easier to read in daily traffic.
As Tesla continues enabling the remaining visual assets added last year, the pattern is clear: localization is now baked into the FSD roadmap. What began as a small graphics update in Europe could soon appear in other regions, turning the visualization display into a truly worldwide language of autonomy.
With this step, Tesla isn’t just showing trucks differently—it’s proving it’s serious about making FSD work everywhere, one culturally accurate pixel at a time.
Tesla has quietly rolled out one of its most practical software updates yet — and it could add real dollars to every used Model 3, Y, S, and X on the road.
Starting with the latest Tesla app version, owners now receive an official “Certification of Repaired HV Battery” whenever Tesla performs a major high-voltage battery repair or full replacement. The digital certificate appears directly in the vehicle’s Service History tab inside the Tesla app.
It’s permanent, verifiable, and downloadable as a PDF, so sellers can hand it over to buyers in seconds.
For years, the used EV market has suffered from one glaring problem: nobody could prove what happened to the battery.
Service invoices often vanish when a car changes hands. Third-party battery-health scans are expensive and inconsistent. Buyers, staring at a car with 80,000 miles and an 8-year warranty ticking down, would negotiate hard — or walk away entirely — because the battery is the single most expensive part of any Tesla.
That uncertainty routinely shaved thousands off resale values and slowed the entire secondhand market.
Now Tesla has eliminated the guesswork. The new certificate, which was spotted by Tesla App Updates, logs exactly what work was done, when, and by whom. It lives inside the car’s digital profile forever, exactly where any future owner will look. No more digging through old emails or hoping the previous owner kept paperwork.
— Tesla App Updates (iOS) (@Tesla_App_iOS) May 5, 2026
The outlet describes why the update is so important:
-
Official Digital Certificates: The string “Certification of Repaired HV Battery” confirms that if your vehicle undergoes a major battery repair or replacement, Tesla will now issue an official, verifiable digital certificate documenting the work.
-
Service History Integration: Strings such as viewRepairedBatteryCert and repairedBatteryCertId indicate that this document won’t be lost in an old email thread. It will be permanently anchored to your vehicle’s profile inside the app’s Service History tab.
-
Easy Exporting: The service_history_repaired_battery_cert_download_fail error state indicates you will be able to download this certificate directly to your phone as a file (likely a PDF) to share with others.
Sellers who have already replaced packs under warranty are especially excited; they can now prove the vehicle received a fresh Tesla battery without any gray-area questions.
The timing couldn’t be better. As more Teslas roll off 8-year/100,000- or 120,000-mile battery warranties, the used market is exploding. Lenders, insurers, and even auction houses have quietly asked for better battery documentation for years. Tesla’s certificate hands it to them on a silver platter.
For current owners, the feature adds peace of mind and protects long-term value. For buyers, it removes the single biggest risk in any used EV purchase. And for Tesla itself, it quietly strengthens the entire ownership ecosystem — making vehicles more liquid, more desirable, and more valuable over time.
In an industry obsessed with range numbers and 0-60 times, Tesla just proved that sometimes the biggest innovation is a simple line in the Service History tab. One small certificate, one giant step for used-EV confidence.
In the global race toward electrification, Norway stands unchallenged as the world’s most mature EV market.
In the first quarter of this year, EVs captured a staggering 97.9 percent market share, with plugin EVs reaching 98.6 percent. Out of 27,175 new vehicles registered, non-BEV powertrains have been reduced to statistical noise—petrol and hybrids combined accounted for fewer than 80 units.
At the heart of this transformation is Tesla.
The Model Y dominated overall vehicle sales with 5,406 units, outselling the next five best-selling non-Tesla models combined. The refreshed Model 3 followed in second place with 2,010 units, giving Tesla a commanding one-two finish. Toyota’s bZ4X placed third with 1,400 units, while Volvo’s EX40 and others trailed further back.
The @Tesla Model Y was the #1 best-selling vehicle overall in Norway in Q1 2026 by a wide margin, with BEVs in general taking a 97.9% market share. Model 3 ranked #2.
Model Y (5,406 units) sold more units than the next five best-selling non-Tesla vehicles on the list. pic.twitter.com/LE2SD5UQjs
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 5, 2026
This dominance is no fluke. Norway has spent decades building the infrastructure and policy framework that makes EVs the rational choice. Generous tax incentives, exemption from VAT, reduced tolls, free ferries for EVs, and a dense charging network have turned the country into a living laboratory for mass adoption. High fuel prices—often exceeding $8 per gallon—further tilt the economics decisively toward electricity.
The result is a market where choosing anything but an EV feels increasingly anachronistic. Diesel and petrol cars have all but vanished from new registrations. Even plug-in hybrids, once a transitional favorite, have collapsed to 0.7 percent share.
Chinese brands like XPeng, BYD, and Zeekr are making inroads, while legacy European and Japanese automakers scramble to field competitive BEVs. Yet Tesla’s combination of range, performance, software, Supercharger network, and brand cachet continues to set the benchmark.
Norway’s Q1 figures come after a volatile start to 2026 caused by VAT changes that pulled forward sales into late 2025. The market rebounded strongly in March, underscoring underlying demand. Tesla’s Q1 performance in the country also jumped significantly year-over-year, reinforcing its position even as competition intensifies.
What happens in Norway rarely stays there. The country has long served as a bellwether for EV trends across Europe and beyond.
Its near-total transition demonstrates that when incentives align with infrastructure and consumer economics, adoption accelerates dramatically. For automakers, Norway signals a future where success hinges not on legacy powertrains but on delivering compelling electric vehicles at scale.
As other nations ramp up their own EV ambitions, Tesla’s continued reign in the world’s heaviest EV market sends a clear message: in a fully mature electric future, the company that started the revolution remains the one to beat. With the Model Y still the best-selling vehicle overall—quarter after quarter—Norway’s roads are a rolling testament to Tesla’s enduring leadership.
Tesla begins factoring international designs in Full Self-Driving visualization
Tesla adds new in-app feature to solve the used EV market’s biggest headache
