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
Tesla FSD mocks BMW human driver: Saves pedestrian from near miss
Tesla FSD anticipated a BMW driver’s lane drift before the human behind the wheel could react.
A video posted to r/TeslaFSD this week put a sharp spotlight on Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) software being able to react to pedestrian intent than an actual human driver behind the wheel. In the Reddit clip, a BMW driver can be seen rolling through a neighborhood street completely unaware of a pedestrian stepping in to cross. At the same time, a Tesla driving on FSD had already begun slowing down before the pedestrian even began their attempt to cross the street The BMW kept moving, prompting the pedestrian to hop back, while the Tesla came to a stop and provide right-of-way for the human to safely cross.
That gap between what the BMW driver saw and what FSD had already processed is the story. Tesla FSD wasn’t reacting to a person in the street, rather it was reading the signals that a person was about to enter it based on the pedestrian’s movement, trajectory, and their trajectory to telegraph intent.
Tesla’s FSD is now built on an end-to-end neural network trained on billions of real-world miles, learning to interpret subtle human behavioral cues the same way an experienced human driver does instinctively. The difference is consistency. A human driver distracted for two seconds misses what FSD does not.
Tesla sues California DMV over Autopilot and FSD advertising ruling
Reddit commenters in the thread were blunt about the BMW driver’s failure, with several pointing out that the pedestrian was visible well before the crossing. One response put it plainly that the car on FSD saw the situation developing before the human in the other car had registered there was a situation at all.
Tesla has published data showing FSD (Supervised) is 54% safer than a human driver, accumulated across billions of miles driven on the system. Elon Musk has said FSD v14 will outperform human drivers by a factor of two to three, and that v15 has “a shot” at a 10x improvement. Pedestrian safety is where the stakes are highest, and where intent prediction closes the gap fastest. At 30 mph, a car covers roughly 44 feet per second. An extra second of awareness from reading a person’s body language rather than waiting for them to step out is often the difference between a near miss and a fatality.
Video and community discussion: r/TeslaFSD on Reddit
FSD saves man from becoming a pancake. BMW driver nearly flattens him.
by
u/Qwertygolol in
TeslaFSD
News
Tesla Robotaxi gets a small but significant change
In the world of Tesla, where billion-dollar battery breakthroughs and autonomy milestones dominate headlines, a quiet design update can still pack a punch.
In the world of Tesla, where billion-dollar battery breakthroughs and autonomy milestones dominate headlines, a quiet design update can still pack a punch.
Last week in downtown Austin, sharp-eyed observers spotted a subtle but telling evolution on the Cybercab: a new “ROBOTAXI” logo graphic now graces the vehicle’s doors at Tesla’s Autonomy Popup.
What looks at first glance like a minor stylistic choice is, in fact, a deliberate rebranding move that hints at how the company envisions its robotaxi fleet fitting into everyday life.
The updated lettering is bold, graffiti-inspired, and unapologetically street-smart. Rendered in black with dripping white accents and a glowing yellow outline, the font evokes urban energy and playful irreverence.
Live From Downtown Austin:
Tesla Cybercab with new logo Graphic at their Autonomy Popup pic.twitter.com/MTTb9KDr3b
— David Moss (@DavidMoss) March 13, 2026
Gone is the sleek, minimalist typography that defined earlier Cybercab prototypes. In its place is something more human, almost rebellious.
The new logo pops against the Cybercab’s smooth, metallic body, turning the autonomous pod into a rolling piece of public art rather than just another futuristic taxi.
Designers know that fonts are silent brand ambassadors. They shape perception before a single ride is taken. Tesla’s classic sans-serif aesthetic screams precision engineering and Silicon Valley cool.
The new Robotaxi script leans into accessibility and fun, suggesting the vehicle is approachable, not intimidating. For a product meant to ferry strangers through city streets 24/7, that matters. It signals that the robotaxi isn’t reserved for tech elites; it’s for everyone.
Tesla Cybercab spotted next to Model Y shows size comparison
The timing is no accident. With regulatory approvals for unsupervised autonomy advancing and Tesla preparing to scale Cybercab production, the company is shifting from prototype showcase to fleet deployment.
A fresh logo helps differentiate the vehicles visually in dense urban environments—crucial for rider recognition and brand recall. It also aligns with Elon Musk’s long-standing ethos: make the future feel exciting, not sterile.
Small changes like this often foreshadow a larger strategy. Tesla has always obsessed over details—door handles, screen interfaces, even the curvature of a steering wheel.
Updating the Robotaxi font reflects the same meticulous care now applied to consumer-facing autonomy. It’s not just paint on metal; it’s a statement that the ride of the future should feel personal, memorable, and undeniably cool.
In an industry racing toward self-driving fleets, Tesla’s willingness to evolve even the smallest visual cues shows confidence. A font won’t launch the robotaxi network, but it might just help millions climb aboard with a smile.
News
Tesla makes latest announcement on Model S and Model X
The announcement follows Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s statement on the Q4 2025 earnings call in late January. Musk described the decision as an “honorable discharge” for the two vehicles, noting that production would wind down in Q2 2026.
Tesla has officially begun winding down production of its flagship Model S and Model X in the United States, notifying owners via email that the long-running models will soon reach the end of the line.
The email, sent to U.S. customers on March 27, opens with gratitude. “Model S and Model X marked the beginning of the world’s transition to electric transportation,” it reads. “These vehicles also made it possible for Tesla to develop the technology that would move our world toward autonomy.”
It then delivers the news directly: “As we make way for this autonomous future, Model S and Model X production will be ending. If you’d like to bring home a new Model S or Model X, order yours soon from our limited inventory.”
Tesla just sent out a new email thanking Model S/X owners.
“These vehicles made it possible for Tesla to develop the technology that would move our world toward autonomy. As we make way for this autonomous future, Model S and Model X production will be ending. If you’d like to… pic.twitter.com/IeUhZ3iDnX
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) March 27, 2026
The message closes with a simple thank-you: “Thank you for being part of our journey.”
The announcement follows Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s statement on the Q4 2025 earnings call in late January. Musk described the decision as an “honorable discharge” for the two vehicles, noting that production would wind down in Q2 2026.
The move frees factory floor space at Fremont, California, for next-generation manufacturing, including Optimus humanoid robots and the upcoming Robotaxi platform.
Introduced in 2012 and 2015, respectively, the Model S and Model X were Tesla’s original halo cars. They proved EVs could outperform gasoline luxury vehicles in acceleration, range, and tech features while pioneering over-the-air updates and early autonomy hardware.
Although they never matched the volume of the Model 3 and Model Y, their engineering breakthroughs laid the foundation for the company’s current lineup and full self-driving development.
Early adopters highlighted how the cars convinced them to invest in Tesla stock and the EV movement. Some U.S. owners who had not yet received the note voiced mild frustration, and international customers confirmed the outreach remains U.S.-only for now.
Tesla has not detailed an exact final production date beyond the Q2 2026 target or confirmed immediate replacements. Speculation continues about a possible Cybertruck-derived SUV, but the company’s public focus has shifted squarely to autonomy and robotics.
For buyers still interested in the S or X, the window is closing. Inventory is described as limited, and Tesla’s Korean division has already set a March 31 cutoff for new orders in that market. The email serves as both a farewell and final sales push, an elegant close to a chapter that helped define modern electric driving.
Tesla FSD mocks BMW human driver: Saves pedestrian from near miss
Tesla Robotaxi gets a small but significant change
Tesla makes latest announcement on Model S and Model X
Elon Musk says Tesla is developing a new vehicle: ‘Way cooler than a minivan’
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
