News
SpaceX installs first ‘Mechazilla’ arm on Starship launch tower
One month after SpaceX stacked Starship’s South Texas ‘launch tower’ to its full height, the company has installed the first arm on what amounts to the backbone of ‘Mechazilla.’
At the end of July, after less than four months of work, a team of SpaceX workers and contractors installed the final prefabricated section of a ~145m (~475 ft) tall tower meant to support orbital Starship launches. Above all else, SpaceX’s first custom-built ‘launch tower’ is a sort of backbone or anchor point for several massive, mechanical arms that will accomplish the actual tasks of servicing – and, perhaps, catching – Starships and Super Heavy boosters.
Work on all three of the arms expected to make up what SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has described as “Mechazilla” has been visibly underway since the last week of June as a small army of welders carefully assembled dozens of sections of heavy-duty steel pipe into house-sized frames. Almost exactly two months later, SpaceX has installed the first of those three arms on the exterior of Starship’s skyscraper-sized launch tower.
Known as the tower’s quick-disconnect or QD swing arm, the standalone structure is reportedly designed to accomplish a few different tasks. First, as its unofficial name might suggest, the QD arm will hold a quick-disconnect umbilical connector that will temporarily attach to the base of Starships to load them with fuel, oxidizer, and other consumables and link them to ground power and networking. For years, it appeared that SpaceX planned to fuel Starship upper stages through their Super Heavy boosters, which will themselves be connected to umbilical panels on a table-like launch mount that sits beside the tower.
However, once work began on Starship S20, the first potentially space-capable prototype, it was clear that SpaceX had foregone the umbilical plate normally installed at the base of Starship skirts and moved that connection to the ship’s lower back. Musk later confirmed as much in interviews and tweets, revealing that longstanding plans to dock Starships aft to aft for in-space refueling were also up in the air. As of late, aside from reiterating that the launch pad itself (“Stage Zero,” per Musk) is even more complex and difficult than Starship or Super Heavy, SpaceX’s CEO has also repeatedly stated a desire to offload as many systems as possible onto the launch pad – seemingly regardless of the complexity of the alternative.
Enter the building-sized robot informally known as Mechazilla. While the relatively simple swinging ‘QD arm’ that will fuel Starship and stabilize both stages of the rocket is a common feature of rockets and launch pads, the only experience SpaceX itself has with umbilical swing arms is the Crew Access Arm (CAA) that allows astronauts and cargo to board Dragon spacecraft after Falcon 9 goes vertical – a structure with near-zero umbilical utility. Technically, the transporter/erectors (T/Es) that cradle Falcon rockets, lift them vertical, and fuel them before launch have some similarities with swing arms but SpaceX has always used simpler and more reliable passive mechanisms whenever possible.
A step further, though, SpaceX has also seemingly foregone the installation of a basic crane on top of its Starship tower and Musk himself has developed an almost infamous aversion to the inclusion of something as seemingly simple as landing legs on Super Heavy boosters – and, eventually, perhaps even (some) Starship variants. Instead of adding rudimentary legs to Super Heavy prototypes, Musk has seemingly pushed SpaceX to turn Starship’s launch tower into a complex, vulnerable, and fragile rocket recovery system. Beyond the comparatively mundane QD arm, Musk says that SpaceX will ultimately install a pair of massive house-sized steel arms mounted on a sort of external elevator. Those arms will apparently be capable of actuating and moving up and down the tower with the speed, precision, and reliability needed to quite literally catch Super Heavy boosters – and, eventually, Starships – out of mid-air.
The team tasked with designing and building those rocket-catching arms have affectionately deemed them “chopsticks” – a nod towards the kind of nuanced actuation they’ll need to recover the world’s largest rocket boosters and upper stages without missing or destroying them. Having really only just perfected propulsive vertical landing with Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy boosters, SpaceX thus intends to throw a few extra points of failure into the mix.
To SpaceX and Musk’s credit, whether the company’s second attempt at catching rockets goes as well as the first, some version of the massive ‘chopstick’ arms SpaceX is working on was likely going to be necessary just to rapidly turn around boosters and Starships – and do so regardless (within reason) of weather conditions. By replacing a tower crane with giant arms, SpaceX will hopefully be able to stack Starship on Super Heavy (and Super Heavy on the launch mount) even in the high winds that are almost always present on the South Texas Gulf Coast. If SpaceX can also reliably catch boosters with those arms, it could be a significant upgrade for the operations side of Starship reusability. For now, though, only time will tell.
Tesla executive Sendil Palani confirmed in a post on social media platform X that Full Self-Driving, despite being the most robust driver assistance program in the United States, still isn’t garnering any interest from lagging competitors.
Tesla has said on several occasions in the past that it has had discussions with a competing carmaker to license its Full Self-Driving suite. While it never confirmed which company it was, many pointed toward Ford as the one Tesla was holding dialogue with.
At the time, Ford CEO Jim Farley and Tesla CEO Elon Musk had a very cordial relationship.
Despite Tesla’s confirmation, which occurred during both the Q2 2023 and Q1 2024 Earnings Calls, no deal was ever reached. Whichever “major OEM” Tesla had talked to did not see the benefit. Even now, Tesla has not found that dance partner, despite leading every company in the U.S. in self-driving efforts by a considerable margin.
Elon Musk says Tesla Robotaxi launch will force companies to license Full Self-Driving
Palani seemed to confirm that Tesla still has not found any company that is remotely interested in licensing FSD, as he said on X that “despite our best efforts to share the technology,” the company has found that it “has not been proven to be easy.”
Licensing FSD has not proven to be easy, despite our best efforts to share the technology. https://t.co/VGYBU7Aduw
— Sendil Palani (@sendilpalani) February 3, 2026
The question came just after one Tesla fan on X asked whether Tesla would continue manufacturing vehicles.
Because Tesla continues to expand its lineup of Model Y, it has plans to build the Cybercab, and there is still an immediate need for passenger vehicles, there is no question that the company plans to continue scaling its production.
However, Palani’s response is interesting, especially considering that it was in response to the question of whether Tesla would keep building cars.
Perhaps if Tesla could license Full Self-Driving to enough companies for the right price, it could simply sell the suite to car companies that are building vehicles, eliminating the need for Tesla to build its own.
While it seems like a reach because of Tesla’s considerable fan base, which is one of the most loyal in the automotive industry, the company could eventually bail on manufacturing and gain an incredible valuation by simply unlocking self-driving for other manufacturers.
The big question regarding why Tesla can’t find another company to license FSD is simply, “Why?”
Do they think they can solve it themselves? Do they not find FSD as valuable or effective? Many of these same companies didn’t bat an eye when Tesla started developing EVs, only to find themselves years behind. This could be a continuing trend.
Tesla executive Lars Moravy appeared today in front of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee to highlight the importance of modernizing autonomy standards by establishing a federal framework that would reward innovation and keep the country on pace with foreign rivals.
Moravy, who is Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, strongly advocated for Congress to enact a national framework for autonomous vehicle development and deployment, replacing the current patchwork of state-by-state rules.
These rules have slowed progress and kept companies fighting tooth-and-nail with local legislators to operate self-driving projects in controlled areas.
Tesla already has a complete Robotaxi model, and it doesn’t depend on passenger count
Moravy said the new federal framework was essential for the U.S. to “maintain its position in global technological development and grow its advanced manufacturing capabilities.
He also said in a warning to the committee that outdated regulations and approval processes would “inhibit the industry’s ability to innovate,” which could potentially lead to falling behind China.
Being part of the company leading the charge in terms of autonomous vehicle development in the U.S., Moravy highlighted Tesla’s prowess through the development of the Full Self-Driving platform. Tesla vehicles with FSD engaged average 5.1 million miles before a major collision, which outpaces that of the human driver average of roughly 699,000 miles.
Moravy also highlighted the widely cited NHTSA statistic that states that roughly 94 percent of crashes stem from human error, positioning autonomous vehicles as a path to dramatically reduce fatalities and injuries.
🚨 Tesla VP of Vehicle Engineering, Lars Moravy, appeared today before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee to discuss the importance of outlining an efficient framework for autonomous vehicles:
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 4, 2026
Skeptics sometimes point to cybersecurity concerns within self-driving vehicles, which was something that was highlighted during the Senate Commerce Committee hearing, but Moravy said, “No one has ever been able to take over control of our vehicles.”
This level of security is thanks to a core-embedded central layer, which is inaccessible from external connections. Additionally, Tesla utilizes a dual cryptographic signature from two separate individuals, keeping security high.
Moravy also dove into Tesla’s commitment to inclusive mobility by stating, “We are committed with our future products and Robotaxis to provide accessible transportation to everyone.” This has been a major point of optimism for AVs because it could help the disabled, physically incapable, the elderly, and the blind have consistent transportation.
Overall, Moravy’s testimony blended urgency about geopolitical competition, especially China, with concrete safety statistics and a vision of the advantages autonomy could bring for everyone, not only in the U.S., but around the world, as well.
Tesla launched a new configuration of the Model Y this week, bringing more complexity to its lineup of the vehicle and adding a new, lower entry point for those who require an All-Wheel-Drive car.
However, the broadening of the Model Y lineup in the United States could signal a somewhat uncomfortable reality for Tesla fans and car buyers, who have been vocal about their desire for a larger, full-size SUV.
Tesla has essentially moved in the opposite direction through its closure of the Model X and its continuing expansion of a vehicle that fits the bill for many, but not all.
Tesla brings closure to Model Y moniker with launch of new trim level
While CEO Elon Musk has said that there is the potential for the Model Y L, a longer wheelbase configuration of the vehicle, to enter the U.S. market late this year, it is not a guarantee.
Instead, Tesla has prioritized the need to develop vehicles and trim levels that cater to the future rollout of the Robotaxi ride-hailing service and a fully autonomous future.
But the company could be missing out on a massive opportunity, as SUVs are a widely popular body style in the U.S., especially for families, as the tighter confines of compact SUVs do not support the needs of a large family.
Although there are other companies out there that manufacture this body style, many are interested in sticking with Tesla because of the excellent self-driving platform, expansive charging infrastructure, and software performance the vehicles offer.
Additionally, the lack of variety from an aesthetic and feature standpoint has caused a bit of monotony throughout the Model Y lineup. Although Premium options are available, those three configurations only differ in terms of range and performance, at least for the most part, and the differences are not substantial.
Minor Expansions of the Model Y Fail to Address Family Needs for Space
Offering similar trim levels with slight differences to cater to each consumer’s needs is important. However, these vehicles keep a constant: cargo space and seating capacity.
Larger families need something that would compete with vehicles like the Chevrolet Tahoe, Ford Expedition, or Cadillac Escalade, and while the Model X was its largest offering, that is going away.
Tesla could fix this issue partially with the rollout of the Model Y L in the U.S., but only if it plans to continue offering various Model Y vehicles and expanding on its offerings with that car specifically. There have been hints toward a Cyber-inspired SUV in the past, but those hints do not seem to be a drastic focus of the company, given its autonomy mission.
Model Y Expansion Doesn’t Boost Performance, Value, or Space
You can throw all the different badges, powertrains, and range ratings on the same vehicle, it does not mean it’s going to sell better. The Model Y was already the best-selling vehicle in the world on several occasions. Adding more configurations seems to be milking it.
The true need of people, especially now that the Model X is going away, is going to be space. What vehicle fits the bill of a growing family, or one that has already outgrown the Model Y?
Not Expanding the Lineup with a New Vehicle Could Be a Missed Opportunity
The U.S. is the world’s largest market for three-row SUVs, yet Tesla’s focus on tweaking the existing Model Y ignores this. This could potentially result in the Osborne Effect, as sales of current models without capturing new customers who need more seating and versatility.
Expansions of the current Model Y offerings risk adding production complexity without addressing core demands, and given that the Model Y L is already being produced in China, it seems like it would be a reasonable decision to build a similar line in Texas.
Listening to consumers means introducing either the Model Y L here, or bringing a new, modern design to the lineup in the form of a full-size SUV.
Tesla confirms Full Self-Driving still isn’t garnering interest from lagging competitors
Tesla exec pleads for federal framework of autonomy to U.S. Senate Committee
