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 is pushing back against the unfair reporting of accidents involving its vehicles. Many media outlets were quick to jump to conclusions about a fatal accident involving a Tesla in Katy, Texas, that happened recently.
The driver of the vehicle, which slammed into a brick house and killed a woman inside, stated the car was operating on Autopilot. Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy both challenged that claim, with Elluswamy revealing last night that the system was overridden by the driver, who pressed the accelerator pedal “all the way to 100%.”
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The car reached a speed of 73 MPH during the crash, Elluswamy detailed, and stated that the accelerator pedal was even pressed after the crash.
The story has been spread throughout the media with either incomplete or incorrect reporting, with some stories still not updated nearly 24 hours after Musk and Elluswamy posted answers about the crash on X.
The reporting has been a thorn in the side of Tesla for several years. Vehicle accidents involving Teslas are usually reported with the manufacturer’s name in the headline, while other companies are free of criticism when their cars are involved in accidents.
Here’s an example of that:
So you don’t report the vehicle’s make when it isn’t a Tesla, but you do report it when it is a Tesla?
The vehicle in your post above is a Hyundai Ioniq 5 EV. pic.twitter.com/4WT3sZ2DHm— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) February 17, 2026
Many media outlets stated the car was in “self-driving mode” or “Autopilot mode” when the car crashed. The truth is, now that Tesla has chimed in, that the driver had manually overriden the system by pressing the accelerator. Elluswamy commented on the unfair reporting:
“This blatantly irresponsible reporting does more harm to people than they realize.
Using Tesla self-driving is far safer than manual driving, and this was measured over 10B miles.
Planting such FUD in the minds of general public, who might not know the all the facts, might prevent them from using this technology that makes them safer.”
This blatantly irresponsible reporting does more harm to people than they realize.
Using Tesla self-driving is far safer than manual driving, and this was measured over 10B miles.
Planting such FUD in the minds of general public, who might not know the all the facts, might…
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
The damage these headlines do to Tesla and the self-driving car movement is unexplainable. Most people do not realize the safeguards that are in place with Tesla’s self-driving functions; many people who have used it know the car would never travel at that speed in a residential area, not even on the most aggressive “Mad Max” setting.
It is important to remember that Tesla Full Self-Driving is not autonomous, and the company never claimed it was. Drivers are still responsible for paying attention and remaining vigilant. They must be able to take over at all times.
Tesla Supercharging is getting yet another layer of gamification, as the company is rolling out a new competition that could win Free Supercharging miles.
Tesla is ramping up its efforts to make vehicle ownership more engaging through gamification. In June 2026, the company announced the 2026 Free Supercharging Competition, building on the Charging Passport feature introduced the previous year. This initiative turns Supercharging into a competitive, collectible adventure while offering substantial real-world incentives.
🚨 Tesla is taking its gamification of Supercharging a step further with the launch of the 2026 Free Supercharging Contest:
“In January 2027, Tesla will celebrate nine outstanding Supercharger users from 2026 by awarding them free Supercharging for their Tesla vehicle for as… pic.twitter.com/CPPYJLJwFD
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 23, 2026
The Charging Passport, rolled out late last year, functions like a digital travel log or a year-in-review for Tesla owners. These types of things are used by many platforms, including Spotify and Apple Music, which show listeners what type of taste they had for the year.
Accessed in the Tesla App under the ‘Charging’ section, it displays a map of visited Superchargers, key stats, such as total energy charged (kWh), number of unique sites, total charging sessions, top charging day, and miles added. Owners earn collectible Charging Badges in categories, which include:
- Charging Milestones – for total energy, consecutive weeks of Supercharging, or unique sites visited
- Iconic Chargers – for Flagship Locations or stations near famous landmarks
- Special Events – limited-time badges for specific experiences. These badges appear within 24 hours of qualifying activity and provide a fun, shareable recap of an owner’s Supercharging journeys. Milestone progress resets annually, allowing fresh challenges each year
The 2026 contest elevates this gamification by rewarding top performers with lifetime free Supercharging. All Supercharging sessions from January 1 to December 31, 2026, count toward the competition. To participate, owners must enable “Share Charging Data with Tesla App” in vehicle settings and open the 2026 Charging Passport in the app at least once before January 1, 2027.
Nine winners will be selected — three per region (Americas, Asia-Pacific, and EMEA, with some countries excluded for regulatory reasons) — one in each of three categories:
- Longest Trip: Longest continuous streak of unique Supercharger locations where each new site is visited within 24 hours of the previous session’s start time
- Most Unique Supercharger Sites Visited: Highest number of distinct locations
- Most Energy Supercharged: Highest total in kWh charged at Superchargers
A unique site is defined as shown in the Tesla app or vehicle navigation. Repeat visits during a streak are allowed but do not extend the count. Ties are broken by total energy charged. Ineligible participants include vehicles already receiving free Supercharging, commercial-use vehicles (taxi, rideshare, delivery), Tesla employees and their immediate families, and residents of certain excluded countries.
Winners receive free Supercharging on the winning vehicle for as long as they own or lease it.
This contest is part of Tesla’s broader gamification strategy. The Safety Score has long rewarded safe driving habits with a numerical rating that can influence insurance rates or feature access. The referral program incentivizes owners with credits or free Supercharging months for successful referrals.
In-app statistics, streaks, and community features further encourage engagement. Older third-party apps even awarded “mayor” titles for frequenting specific Superchargers.
By combining digital badges, competitive leaderboards, and high-value rewards, Tesla boosts network utilization, gathers usage data, and fosters deeper owner loyalty. The 2026 Free Supercharging Competition invites enthusiasts to plan epic road trips while turning everyday charging into a rewarding pursuit. With the Passport already proving popular, expect heightened activity across the Supercharger network throughout the year.
Tesla is atop the American-Made Index from Cars.com for the sixth-straight year, as the Model 3 and Model Y took the top two spots, respectively.
Last year, the Model 3, Model Y, Model S, and Model X took the top four spots, respectively. The company has routinely performed well in the Index. However, Tesla discontinued its flagship Model S and Model X earlier this year, which took the two cars out of the ranking.
Cybertruck is not considered due to its curb weight being above the 8,500-pound threshold, which eliminates it from being required to have more detailed assembly information.
Cars.com uses five main categories to develop its rankings:
- Location(s) of final assembly
- Percentage of U.S. and Canadian parts
- Countries of origin for all available engines
- Countries of origin for all available transmissions
- U.S. manufacturing workforce
These five major factors are then put into a 100-point scale. The vehicles with the highest scores sit atop the list. The Model 3 edged out the Model Y.
🇺🇸 The Tesla Model 3 and Tesla Model Y have been put atop the American-Made Index from https://t.co/PXZ0g1pPb6, meaning they are the most American vehicles you can possibly buy.
This is the SIXTH-STRAIGHT year a Tesla has been listed as the most American-made vehicle: pic.twitter.com/HyraOmaxSL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 23, 2026
Tesla uses a strong domestic strategy to build its cars and parts domestically. It relies on intense vertical integration that reduces its dependence on global suppliers, keeping more value and jobs in the United States.
This strategy has helped Tesla gain a strong reputation for domestically produced vehicles and parts. However, it helps it with more than just awards like this one. Keeping a supply chain local has also helped insulate Tesla more than others from tariffs and supply chain disruptions.
This year’s American-Made Index from Cars.com studied nearly 400 vehicles from the 2026 model year. Tesla was the only manufacturer to have an EV inside the Top 10. The Kia EV9 was the next EV to make the list, scoring the 17th position.
The Hyundai IONIQ 5 was 21st, and the final EV to make the list was the Cadillac LYRIQ in 77th.
Tesla pushes back against unfair reporting of accidents
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
