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.
-->
Tesla Full Self-Driving has warranted a huge switch-up on an essential company strategy as the automaker is hoping to increase the take rate of the ADAS suite.
Unlike other automotive companies, Tesla has long been an outlier, as it has famously ditched a traditional advertising strategy in favor of organic buzz, natural word-of-mouth through its production innovation, and utilizing CEO Elon Musk’s huge social media presence to push its products.
Tesla has taken the money that it would normally spend on advertising and utilized it for R&D purposes. For a long time, it yielded great results, and ironically, Tesla saw benefits from other EV makers running ads.
Tesla counters jab at lack of advertising with perfect response
However, in recent years, Tesla has decided to adjust this strategy, showing a need to expand beyond its core enthusiast base, which is large, but does not span over millions and millions as it would need to fend off global EV competitors, which have become more well-rounded and a better threat to the company.
In 2024 and 2025, Tesla started utilizing ads to spread knowledge about its products. This is continuing, as Full Self-Driving ads are now being spotted on social media platforms, most notably, X, which is owned by Musk:
NEWS: Tesla is running paid advertisements on X about FSD (Supervised). Here’s an ad they started running yesterday: pic.twitter.com/IHVywLMyTd
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) November 25, 2025
Interestingly, Tesla’s strategy on FSD advertising is present in Musk’s new compensation package, as the eleventh tranche describes a goal of achieving 10 million active paid FSD subscriptions.
Full Self-Driving is truly Tesla’s primary focus moving forward, although it could be argued that it also has a special type of dedication toward its Optimus robot project. However, FSD will ultimately become the basis for the Robotaxi, which will enable autonomous ride-sharing across the globe as it is permitted in more locations.
Tesla has been adjusting its advertising strategy over the past couple of years, and it seems it is focused on more ways to spread awareness about its products. It will be interesting to see if the company will expand its spending even further, as it has yet to put on a commercial during live television.
We wouldn’t put it out of the question, at least not yet.
Tesla was nice enough to hook us up with the new Model Y “Standard” trim for a few days, and while we’ll be sure to fill you in on the full experience in the coming days, there are a lot of differences we noticed right off the bat, which make the ownership experience different from the “Premium” configuration level.
I purchased a Model Y Long Range All-Wheel-Drive back in August and took delivery just two weeks later. Through the first three months of owning my car, I’ve come to love so many things about the Tesla experience.
I traded my ICE vehicle for a Tesla Model Y: here’s how it went
However, I was interested in experiencing the affordable trim and seeing whether I would miss any of the voided features of the “Premium” Model Y.
Through the first 24 hours, here are my first impressions of the Model Y Standard as a Premium trim level owner:
Overall Aesthetic
The lack of a light bar is not something that is a dealbreaker. In fact, I would argue that the Model Y Standard’s more traditional headlight design is just as pleasing from an aesthetic standpoint.
The car is great looking from top to bottom; there are not a substantial number of differences besides the lack of a lightbar on both the front and the back of the car.
Overall, it is a very sleek vehicle, but the major changes are obviously with the interior.
Interior Changes
This is where the big differences are, and some of the things I’ve gotten used to in the Premium are not included. If I didn’t have a Premium Model Y already, I’m not sure I’d miss some of the things that are not present in the Standard trim, but I believe I’d get annoyed with it.
First impressions:
✅ Interior is excellent. I definitely miss the additional storage already that is available in my Premium. I could definitely get over it though
✅ Noticeable step down in sound system. Long Time by Boston absolutely cranks in the Premium; it’s still very… https://t.co/JNWvxTd8p1
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 25, 2025
Storage
The Premium has a large storage compartment between the cupholders and the wireless charger, which is not present in the Standard trim. Instead, it is more like the Cybertruck, as there is a pass-through and floor storage.
I think that the pass-through is nice, but the additional storage is something I take advantage of, especially as someone who films Full Self-Driving videos, which requires hauling mounts, GoPros, and other accessories.
The sleekness of the Premium trim is also something I prefer; I really enjoy having the ability to close those compartments and cover the cupholders.
Obviously, this is a really trivial issue and not something that is substantially impactful from an ownership experience. If I weren’t already an owner, I am not sure I’d even have something to complain about.
Material Differences
The Premium trim seats are completely Vegan Leather, which I really do like, even as someone who doesn’t really love leather seats due to their temperature dependency.
The Standard trim features a Textile and Vegan hybrid, which has half of the seat a different material than the other.
The material is very similar to what I had in my previous car, a Bronco Sport. It was very durable, easy to clean, dried quickly, and hid a lot of things that leather does not, like oils from your skin, which constantly require attention to keep your interior looking fresh.
The wireless charger is also a different material, as the Premium features an Alcantara material on that. The Standard has a rubberized and textured backing, which looks good, too. They’re both more than suitable.
Other Missing Features
The Standard lacks a few minor things, most noticeably is the ambient lighting. The biggest change, however, and something I really miss, is the glass roof.
A lot of people told me that when I got my Model Y, I wouldn’t even notice the glass roof after a few weeks. That could not be further from the truth. I look out of it all the time, and it’s one of my family’s favorite parts of the car.
My Fiancè and I really love parking and watching Netflix when we pick food up, especially when it’s raining, because the glass roof gives such a great view.
We also loved it as Fall arrived, because it was great to look at the foliage.
Buy the Tesla.
Enjoy the glass roof. pic.twitter.com/r2GDyOEEWu
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2025
Bigger Differences
There are also a handful of very noticeable differences from the overall cabin experience, especially with the sound system.
Much Weaker Sound System
The Model Y Standard has just 7 speakers and 1 amp, with no subwoofer. This is a significant step down from the 13-15 speakers in the Premium Long Range AWD Model Y, the 2 amps it comes with, and 1 subwoofer in the trunk.
I usually like to listen to Long Time by Boston to test out a sound system, and it was noticeably weaker in the Standard. It was missing a big portion of the umph that is provided by the Premium’s sound system.
Cabin Noise
It feels like the Cabin Noise is definitely more noticeable in the Standard, which is something I really love about my Model Y. It is able to dampen so much road noise from louder cars, and I don’t feel as if it is very quiet in the Standard.
This is perhaps the biggest make-or-break for me with this car. I truly have been spoiled by how quiet the cabin is in the Premium, and it’s due to the lack of acoustic-lined glass in the Standard.
I will be doing a more in-depth review of the Model Y Standard, especially with ride quality, later this week.
News
Tesla takes a step towards removal of Robotaxi service’s safety drivers
Tesla watchers are speculating that the implementation of in-camera data sharing could be a step towards the removal of the Robotaxi service’s safety drivers.
Tesla appears to be preparing for the eventual removal of its Robotaxi service’s safety drivers.
This was hinted at in a recent de-compile of the Robotaxi App’s version 25.11.5, which was shared on social media platform X.
In-cabin analytics
As per Tesla software tracker @Tesla_App_iOS, the latest update to the Robotaxi app featured several improvements. These include Live Screen Sharing, as well as a feature that would allow Tesla to access video and audio inside the vehicle.
According to the software tracker, a new prompt has been added to the Robotaxi App that requests user consent for enhanced in-cabin data sharing, which comprise Cabin Camera Analytics and Sound Detection Analytics. Once accepted, Tesla would be able to retrieve video and audio data from the Robotaxi’s cabin.
Video and audio sharing
A screenshot posted by the software tracker on X showed that Cabin Camera Analytics is used to improve the intelligence of features like request support. Tesla has not explained exactly how the feature will be implemented, though this might mean that the in-cabin camera may be used to view and analyze the status of passengers when remote agents are contacted.
-->Sound Detection Analytics is expected to be used to improve the intelligence of features like siren recognition. This suggests that Robotaxis will always be actively listening for emergency vehicle sirens to improve how the system responds to them. Tesla, however, also maintained that data collected by Robotaxis will be anonymous. In-cabin data will not be linked to users unless they are needed for a safety event or a support request.
Tesla watchers are speculating that the implementation of in-camera data sharing could be a step towards the removal of the Robotaxi service’s safety drivers. With Tesla able to access video and audio feeds from Robotaxis, after all, users can get assistance even if they are alone in the driverless vehicle.
Tesla Full Self-Driving warrants huge switch-up on essential company strategy
Tesla Model Y Standard: first impressions from a Premium owner
