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
How Tesla’s Roadster fan system and thrusters are built to dominate the corners
Tesla’s Roadster uses fans, active wings and cold gas thrusters to create grip at any speed.
Tesla’s new Roadster is best known for flipping through the air in Texas, but the technology that matters most for a race track is the stuff that keeps it on the ground. Tesla’s Roadster page describes a multi-mode fan and ground sealing system that acts as a downforce generator, pulling air out from beneath the car. Tesla says it provides enough suction to hold the vehicle upside down, even when stationary.
That is the key difference from the wings and diffusers on a normal supercar. Conventional aero only makes downforce when the car is moving, and it grows with speed, so a car has the least grip in the slow corners and under hard braking. A fan system makes downforce at any speed. Tesla’s patent, which we covered last year, describes fans and deployable skirts that create sealed or partially sealed regions under the car, with the fans extracting air to lower the pressure and increase grip and stability.
Still processing this … the most unreal thing I’ve seen. https://t.co/HtEuvnkZjY
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 16, 2026
Tesla pairs that with active wings, a next generation steer by wire system and a Track Mode that lowers the car and changes the suspension, with high downforce and low drag settings for the circuit. To keep weight down, Tesla points to magnesium, titanium and carbon fiber, manual controls and a fixed seat position, which it says lets the car respond to driver inputs almost instantly.
Tesla Roadster: Three configs, one can fly, 0-60 in 0.8 seconds
The cold gas thrusters are the other half. On the Thrust version they sit at the rear and Tesla says they take the car from 0 to 60 mph in under 0.9 seconds, while the Rocket version adds perimeter thrusters for forward, upward and lateral rotational movement. Tesla says the all electric actuators make micro adjustments within a fraction of a second.
Roadster transforms in Track Mode
These aero features aren’t just for looks: they provide the best passive downforce package of any road car (approaching F1 levels!) with wing actuation driven by the @Tesla_Optimus actuator system https://t.co/AqrC4qUga9
— Tesla (@Tesla) October 16, 2026
Musk has been talking about records for years. In June 2019 he said, “We’re going to do things with the new Roadster that are kind of unfair to other cars.” That September, when a follower asked whether the Roadster would beat the Nürburgring production car record, he replied with one word, “Absolutely,” as we reported at the time. In February 2024 he said Tesla had “radically increased the design goals” for the car and that its sub one second 0 to 60 time would be “the least interesting part.”
There are caveats. Tesla has not published a lap time or a verified cornering figure, so the record talk is still a promise rather than a result. Tesla also says the car is not approved for public road use, and the thruster features are limited to the Rocket trim, which is invite only. Fan cars have also been banned or withdrawn before, and getting a sealed underbody to work on a rough public road is a harder problem than on a smooth track. The first real test will be an official lap at a circuit.
Featured
Tesla Roadster: Three configs, one can fly, 0-60 in 0.8 seconds
Tesla’s Roadster comes in Performance, Thrust and Rocket versions, with a claimed 0-60 under 0.59 seconds.
Tesla finally showed the next generation Roadster on Thursday night, and the demo had more in common with a SpaceX test than a track lap. At an event outside Waco, Texas, near SpaceX’s McGregor site, the car used a mix of fans and cold gas thrusters to drive up a curved ramp until it was upside down, then flew off, flipped and landed on the pavement. “Well, it worked,” Elon Musk said. “Flying cars are real.”
The Roadster also hovered itself over a Cybercab, Cybertruck, Tesla Semi, Model Y and Model 3 while moving, and that Tesla showed it going 0 to 60 mph in one second. Musk said “this will be the actual car that’s on the roads” and that it “literally is just going to puff itself up” to perform the maneuvers whenever an owner wants. He called the result a collaboration between Tesla and SpaceX engineers that is “better than any James Bond car,” with Franz von Holzhausen and Lars Moravy on site.
Tesla published new mind-blowing stats for the car that replace the previous targets. The Performance version is road ready and seats two, with active aerodynamics and a multi-mode suction system, and Tesla lists 0 to 60 mph in under 1.6 seconds. The Thrust version is race ready, also seats two, and adds rear-mounted cold gas thrusters for a 0 to 60 time of under 0.9 seconds. The Rocket version is described as air ready, seats one, and uses perimeter-mounted thrusters for forward and upward acceleration plus lateral rotational movement.
| Configuration | Seats | 0 to 60 mph |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | 2 | under 1.6 s |
| Thrust | 2 | under 0.9 s |
| Rocket | 1 | under 0.59 s |
Tesla’s own description: “So…yes, it can fly.” It lists a 0 to 60 time of under 0.59 seconds for Rocket, a top speed of up to more than 230 mph, and range of more than 300 miles. Tesla has not yet given pricing in the information we have seen, but has reopened $50,000 reservations in the newly updated Tesla Roadster configurator. Production is planned for Giga Texas in 2027 or 2028, and Musk has said it would follow the demo by 12 to 18 months.
Every car on the road today is limited by one thing: tire grip
Roadster’s thruster system generates 4–5x the force the tires can.
More force on the same mass means significantly better acceleration – physics does the rest https://t.co/zdPRT2aKwZ
— Tesla (@Tesla) October 16, 2026
Tesla’s Roadster page adds more on how the car works. A multi-mode fan and ground sealing system pulls air from under the car, producing enough suction to hold it upside down even when stationary. Active wings, steer-by-wire with a yoke, and a Track Mode that lowers the car round out the driving setup. The cold gas thrusters use all-electric actuators for micro adjustments to stabilize the car in flight. Tesla says it cut weight with magnesium, titanium and carbon fiber, manual controls and a fixed seat position, and the exterior has hidden headlights, a full-length taillight and Ano White paint inspired by aerospace coatings. Inside are an Ultrawhite interior with gray microsuede, a center touchscreen and two smaller forward displays, and gold tinted glass modeled on spacesuit visors. Availability is tiered: Performance is by reservation, Thrust is a limited release, and Rocket is invite only. Tesla notes the car is not approved for public road use, and that Rocket is not available in all regions.
Tesla Roadster Highlights
- Aero and suction: a multi-mode fan and ground sealing system pulls air from under the car and can hold it upside down even when stationary. There are also active wings and a Track Mode that lowers the car.
- Controls and thrusters: steer-by-wire with a yoke. The cold gas thrusters use all-electric actuators for micro adjustments that stabilize the car in flight.
- Weight: magnesium, titanium and carbon fiber, manual controls and a fixed seat position.
- Design: hidden headlights, a full-length taillight, Ano White paint inspired by aerospace coatings, and gold tinted glass modeled on spacesuit visors.
- Interior: an Ultrawhite interior with gray microsuede, a center touchscreen and two smaller forward displays.
- Availability: Performance is by reservation, Thrust is a limited release, and Rocket is invite only.
- Road use: Tesla notes the car is not approved for public road use, and that Rocket isn’t available in all regions.
Musk has described the Roadster as “the best of the last of the human-driven cars,” and he has been open that it is a halo product. He said he is “not sure it moves the needle massively from a revenue standpoint,” and has warned that anyone whose top priority is safety should not buy it. Tesla reports third quarter earnings on October 21.
Roadster is a true pilot’s car: active aerodynamics, a multi-mode suction system & cold-gas thrusters
Exterior
– Concealed headlights, full-length taillight & flush-mounted surfaces for a minimalist, highly technical form– Super light wheels w/ thin spokes that reinforce structural strength when earthbound
– Ano White paint brings an aerospace-derived finish w/ UV & cryogenic protection, electrostatic dissipation & corrosion resistance
– Gold Glazed tinted glass mimicking the copper coating of spacesuit visors, w/ subtle titanium accents
— Tesla (@Tesla) October 16, 2026
Elon Musk
Amazon shuts out Elon Musk’s Grok Bot so he may just build his own rival store
Musk promises SpaceX will cover Grok Bot purchase errors, tells users to shop beyond Amazon.
Elon Musk said SpaceX will reimburse users if Grok Bot botches a purchase or leaks their card details. A few hours later he was telling users to take their shopping elsewhere after Amazon shut the agent out.
The first post was a reply to an X user who said Grok Bot booked him a flight after he sent a photo of his credit card. “This works well,” Musk wrote. “If Grok @Bot makes a mistake with a purchase or leaks your card (never happened yet), SpaceX will make you whole,” said Musk.
The second came after another user posted the error his Grok Bot hit on Amazon: “Continued access by an unauthorized AI agent violates Amazon’s Conditions of Use, to which our customers have agreed.” The user said his bots can no longer order from the site. Musk answered, “Just ask Grok @Bot to buy what you want someplace else and get a better deal. There are far more purchasing websites than just Amazon!” He later added, “Maybe we should start a competitor to Amazon,” a possible hint at an X shopping service.
Just ask Grok @Bot to buy what you want someplace else and get a better deal.
There are far more purchasing websites than just Amazon!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 15, 2026
The Amazon block did not start Thursday. A reply to Musk on October 10 said Amazon was blocking the bot, and Musk responded that Grok would find another way, then showed an order it placed on Lego’s website.
The latest reimbursement promise builds on late August when Musk told a Tesla investor weighing whether to give Grok Bot access to his bank accounts, “If Grok Bot messes up, we will make you whole,” as Teslarati covered when SpaceXAI added its Finance integration. That promise goes further than the company’s consumer terms, which make users responsible for what their agents do and generally cap liability at the greater of fees paid or $100. Neither Thursday post says those terms have changed, so for now it remains a statement on X rather than a published policy.
The two posts matter to Tesla owners because Grok Bot is no longer limited to a phone. Tesla brought it into its vehicles on September 22, and it is now enabled across every Cybercab and the rest of the Model Y Robotaxi fleet, as noted when Teslarati looked at why Grok Bot may be the Cybercab’s real advantage. A rider who asks for groceries or a coffee order is relying on retailers that let the agent in. Amazon has now said it will not, and Musk’s answer is to route around it.
Amazon has not commented publicly on the block in the posts Teslarati reviewed, and it is unclear whether Musk will follow through on a rival store.
So, how many of you do the vast majority of shopping on Amazon and hate that you do? Comment and let us know your thoughts!
How Tesla’s Roadster fan system and thrusters are built to dominate the corners
Tesla Roadster: Three configs, one can fly, 0-60 in 0.8 seconds
Amazon shuts out Elon Musk’s Grok Bot so he may just build his own rival store
The Pentagon taps Elon Musk to design the battlefield of the future
SpaceX reveals how its 1 Million AI satellite network will work and prevent space collisions
