News
Amazon chooses everyone but SpaceX to launch its Starlink competitor
Amazon has announced a series of record-breaking launch contracts that will place a “majority” of its 3,236-satellite Project Kuiper constellation in orbit in the hope of blanketing the Earth with high-quality internet alongside OneWeb, Starlink, Telesat, and others.
Of 68 firm launch contracts and a total of 83 contracts including unexercised options, SpaceX – the world’s most cost-effective, available launch provider – is fully absent. Instead, Amazon, has awarded three batch contracts to United Launch Alliance (ULA), Arianespace, and Blue Origin. Prior to this announcement, Amazon had already purchased two launches of prototype satellites on startup ABL Space’s RS1 rockets and nine operational launches on ULA Atlas V rockets, rounding out what is undoubtedly the most expensive set of commercial launch purchases in spaceflight history.
More likely than not, Amazon is paying a bare minimum of $100 million per launch, though $150-200 million is probably closer to reality. All three of the rockets now scheduled to launch most Kuiper satellites have yet to fly. Arianespace’s Ariane 6 and ULA’s Vulcan Centaur could debut in late 2022, though 2023 is more likely. Blue Origin’s partially reusable New Glenn is unlikely to fly before 2024 or even 2025.
Amazon has now purchased:
- 9 Atlas V launches, each likely costing $150-200 million.
- 12 New Glenn launches, with options for 15 more. Blue Origin says New Glenn will be able to carry 61 satellites per launch. The company has yet to reveal pricing but $100 million per launch is a probable floor.
- 18 Ariane 6 launches carrying 35-40 satellites apiece. As of 2014, the rocket’s most capable variant was expected to cost at least €115 million (~$125 million) per launch.
- 38 Vulcan Centaur launches carrying 45 satellites apiece. ULA wants the cheapest Vulcan variant to cost ~$100 million. Project Kuiper, which likely needs the most expensive Vulcan variant, will probably pay closer to $125-150 million per launch.
All told, assuming Atlas V can launch at least 15-20 satellites apiece, Amazon’s latest contract likely means that the company has secured enough launch capacity to fully launch the first phase of its Project Kuiper constellation without exercising options. Those 77 operational launches will likely cost the company a minimum of $9.5-10 billion before accounting for the cost of Kuiper satellites or payload adapters.
According to NASA’s ELVPerf calculator, which uses official data provided by each company, Vulcan’s heaviest VC6 variant can launch ~27 tons (~60,000 lb) and New Glenn can launch ~35 tons (~77,000 lb) to a low 300-kilometer (~190 mile) insertion orbit. Ariane 6’s most capable ’64’ variant will likely be able to launch about 20 tons (~44,000 lb) to the same orbit, though official info is only available for a circular 500-kilometer orbit. Assuming Project Kuiper launches are not volume constrained, meaning that most of each rocket’s available performance is being taken advantage of, each Kuiper satellite likely weighs no more than 500-600 kilograms (1100-1300 lb).
-->Falcon 9 recently broke an internal payload record with the successful launch of 16.25 tons of Starlink satellites to a similarly low insertion orbit. Including the mass of a payload adapter and deployment mechanism, Falcon 9’s true performance was likely closer to 17-18 tons. Combined with Falcon 9’s cheapest public commercial launch contract (~$50 million), it’s possible that SpaceX’s partially reusable Falcon 9 rockets could have launched 25-30 Kuiper satellites apiece for an average cost of ~$1.7 to $2 million per satellite – around 50-80% cheaper than Kuiper’s likely average.
Those significant savings don’t consider SpaceX’s next-generation Starship launch vehicle, which will likely reach orbit and begin commercial launches at least a year before New Glenn. Starship could feasibly carry 100-150 Kuiper satellites per launch and, if full reusability is achieved, might cost less than Falcon 9 despite offering at least five times the performance.
Per Amazon’s Project Kuiper FCC constellation license, the company will need to launch half of its constellation – 1618 satellites – by July 2026. It’s not actually clear if Arianespace, ULA, and Blue Origin will be able to collectively complete the roughly 36 launches that will require over the next four years. In the last four years, Arianespace’s Ariane 5 and ULA’s Atlas and Delta rockets have collectively launched 38 times. The first Kuiper satellite prototype is scheduled to launch no earlier than late 2022, meaning that operational launches are unlikely to begin before mid-2023.
Tesla recently released Full Self-Driving (FSD) v14.2.1, its latest version, but the tinkering with Speed Profiles has perhaps gone too far.
We try to keep it as real as possible with Full Self-Driving operation, and we are well aware that with the new versions, some things get better, but others get worse. It is all part of the process with FSD, and refinements are usually available within a week or so.
However, the latest v14.2.1 update has brought out some major complaints with Speed Profiles, at least on my end. It seems the adjustments have gone a tad too far, and there is a sizeable gap between Profiles that are next to one another.
Tesla FSD v14.2.1 first impressions:
✅ Smooth, stress-free highway operation
✅ Speed Profiles are refined — Hurry seems to be limited to 10 MPH over on highways. Switching from Mad Max to Hurry results in an abrupt braking pattern. Nothing of concern but do feel as if Speed…— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 29, 2025
The gap is so large that changing between them presents a bit of an unwelcome and drastic reduction in speed, which is perhaps a tad too fast for my liking. Additionally, Speed Profiles seem to have a set Speed Limit offset, which makes it less functional in live traffic situations.
Before I go any further, I’d like to remind everyone reading this that what I am about to write is purely my opinion; it is not right or wrong, or how everyone might feel. I am well aware that driving behaviors are widely subjective; what is acceptable to one might be unacceptable to another.
Speed Profiles are ‘Set’ to a Speed
From what I’ve experienced on v14.2.1, Tesla has chosen to go with somewhat of a preset max speed for each Speed Profile. With ‘Hurry,’ it appears to be 10 MPH over the speed limit, and it will not go even a single MPH faster than that. In a 55 MPH zone, it will only travel 65 MPH. Meanwhile, ‘Standard’ seems to be fixed at between 4-5 MPH over.
This is sort of a tough thing to have fixed, in my opinion. The speed at which the car travels should not be fixed; it should be more dependent on how traffic around it is traveling.
It almost seems as if the Speed Profile chosen should be more of a Behavior Profile. Standard should perform passes only to traffic that is slower than the traffic. If traffic is traveling at 75 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, the car should travel at 75 MPH. It should pass traffic that travels slower than this.
Hurry should be more willing to overtake cars, travel more than 10 MPH over the limit, and act as if someone is in a hurry to get somewhere, hence the name. Setting strict limits on how fast it will travel seems to be a real damper on its capabilities. It did much better in previous versions.
Some Speed Profiles are Too Distant from Others
This is specifically about Hurry and Mad Max, which are neighbors in the Speed Profiles menu. Hurry will only go 10 MPH over the limit, but Mad Max will travel similarly to traffic around it. I’ve seen some people say Mad Max is too slow, but I have not had that opinion when using it.
In a 55 MPH zone during Black Friday and Small Business Saturday, it is not unusual for traffic around me to travel in the low to mid-80s. Mad Max was very suitable for some traffic situations yesterday, especially as cars were traveling very fast. However, sometimes it required me to “gear down” into Hurry, especially as, at times, it would try to pass slower traffic in the right lane, a move I’m not super fond of.
We had some readers also mention this to us:
The abrupt speed reduction when switching to a slower speed profile is definitely an issue that should be improved upon.
— David Klem (@daklem) November 29, 2025
After switching from Mad Max to Hurry, there is a very abrupt drop in speed. It is not violent by any means, but it does shift your body forward, and it seems as if it is a tad drastic and could be refined further.
News
Tesla’s most affordable car is coming to the Netherlands
The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.
Tesla is preparing to introduce the Model 3 Standard to the Netherlands this December, as per information obtained by AutoWeek. The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.
While Tesla has not formally confirmed the vehicle’s arrival, pricing reportedly comes from a reliable source, the publication noted.
Model 3 Standard lands in NL
The U.S. version of the Model 3 Standard provides a clear preview of what Dutch buyers can expect, such as a no-frills configuration that maintains the recognizable Model 3 look without stripping the car down to a bare interior. The panoramic glass roof is still there, the exterior design is unchanged, and Tesla’s central touchscreen-driven cabin layout stays intact.
Cost reductions come from targeted equipment cuts. The American variant uses fewer speakers, lacks ventilated front seats and heated rear seats, and swaps premium materials for cloth and textile-heavy surfaces. Performance is modest compared with the Premium models, with a 0–100 km/h sprint of about six seconds and an estimated WLTP range near 550 kilometers.
Despite the smaller battery and simpler suspension, the Standard maintains the long-distance capability drivers have come to expect in a Tesla.
-->Pricing strategy aligns with Dutch EV demand and taxation shifts
At €36,990, the Model 3 Standard fits neatly into Tesla’s ongoing lineup reshuffle. The current Model 3 RWD has crept toward €42,000, creating space for a more competitive entry-level option, and positioning the new Model 3 Standard comfortably below the €39,990 Model Y Standard.
The timing aligns with rising Dutch demand for affordable EVs as subsidies like SEPP fade and tax advantages for electric cars continue to wind down, EVUpdate noted. Buyers seeking a no-frills EV with solid range are then likely to see the new trim as a compelling alternative.
With the U.S. variant long established and the Model Y Standard already available in the Netherlands, the appearance of an entry-level Model 3 in the Dutch configurator seems like a logical next step.
News
Tesla Model Y is still China’s best-selling premium EV through October
The premium-priced SUV outpaced rivals despite a competitive field, while the Model 3 also secured an impressive position.
The Tesla Model Y led China’s top-selling pure electric vehicles in the 200,000–300,000 RMB segment through October 2025, as per Yiche data compiled from China Passenger Car Association (CPCA) figures.
The premium-priced SUV outpaced rivals despite a competitive field, while the Model 3 also secured an impressive position.
The Model Y is still unrivaled
The Model Y’s dominance shines in Yiche’s October report, topping the chart for vehicles priced between 200,000 and 300,000 RMB. With 312,331 units retailed from January through October, the all-electric crossover was China’s best-selling EV in the 200,000–300,000 RMB segment.
The Xiaomi SU7 is a strong challenger at No. 2 with 234,521 units, followed by the Tesla Model 3, which achieved 146,379 retail sales through October. The Model Y’s potentially biggest rival, the Xiaomi YU7, is currently at No. 4 with 80,855 retail units sold.
Efficiency kings
The Model 3 and Model Y recently claimed the top two spots in Autohome’s latest real-world energy-consumption test, outperforming a broad field of Chinese-market EVs under identical 120 km/h cruising conditions with 375 kg payload and fixed 24 °C cabin temperature. The Model 3 achieved 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y recorded 21.8 kWh/100 km, reaffirming Tesla’s efficiency lead.
The results drew immediate attention from Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun, who publicly recognized Tesla’s advantage while pledging continued refinement for his brand’s lineup.
-->“The Xiaomi SU7’s energy consumption performance is also very good; you can take a closer look. The fact that its test results are weaker than Tesla’s is partly due to objective reasons: the Xiaomi SU7 is a C-segment car, larger and with higher specifications, making it heavier and naturally increasing energy consumption. Of course, we will continue to learn from Tesla and further optimize its energy consumption performance!” Lei Jun wrote in a post on Weibo.
Tesla tinkering with Speed Profiles on FSD v14.2.1 has gone too far
Tesla’s most affordable car is coming to the Netherlands
