News
First living tissue 3D printed in space aboard International Space Station
Using the “Organaut”, a 3D bioprinter designed for microgravity, Russia has become the first country to print living tissue in space. After a December 3rd cargo delivery to the International Space Station (ISS), cosmonaut Oleg Kononenko completed an experiment with the machine in the Russian sector of the station, successfully producing human cartilage tissue and a rodent thyroid gland. The Organaut was designed via a collaboration with the printer’s maker, 3D Bioprinting Solutions, and Russia’s national space agency, Roscosmos. The United States also has its own bioprinting mission scheduled for the first half of 2019, joining in the march to develop biological solutions for problems that space is well suited to solve.
A 3D bioprinter operates by creating one layer at a time of specified tissue or stem cell material arranged as needed to grow and form as biologically programmed to do. As summarized by Aryeh Batt, the CEO of Precise Bio, a company dedicated to 3D printed bioproducts for human eyes, “Essentially, the biology does the work, but you have to put them in the correct environment to make it happen.” In the case of Organaut, an internal robotic mechanism drips living cell fabric layers from an automatic syringe. When living tissue is bioprinted under Earth’s gravity, the artificial cells grow in a flatter structure than their natural state in the human body. In microgravity, however, they form a shape closer to their normal dimensions.
Along with demonstrating the growth advantages of microgravity, Organaut’s tissue samples will provide the ability to study the effect of radiation on the body. “We will look at how the constructs came together, and how they behaved,” confirmed Usef Hesuani, head of laboratory projects and a managing partner of 3D Bioprinting Solutions in a recent press conference. The original Organaut printer was aboard the Soyuz MS-10 spacecraft which experienced an launch failure on October 11, 2018, forcing the U.S. and Russian crew to make an emergency landing. A second one was quickly put together for the subsequent mission.
The parent company of 3D Bioprinting Solutions is INVITRO, the largest private medical company in Russia. Founded in 1995 by Aleksandr Ostrovsky, it has 8 laboratories and over 1000 medical offices in eastern Europe, but is primarily based in Skolkovo, a high technology business area in Moscow. Bioprinting Solutions made headlines in 2015 when it printed and transplanted a functioning mouse thyroid gland. The experiment performed aboard the ISS with Organaut was a modified version of their prior work.
Unlike NASA, Roscosmos does not generally partner with private companies for its research endeavors. In an effort to inspire Russian students to enter STEM fields within their country, the agency sought to spotlight the developing bioprinting industry by using the Organaut. The successful partnership with 3D Bioprinting Solutions has now motivated the agency to continue partnering with private companies in the future. The company itself also sees advantages to collaborations of its own with other Skolkova-area manufacturers. “We have companies that are making satellite platforms…it is possible to conduct a similar experiment amid microgravity on small spacecraft [like satellites]…smaller and cheaper,” noted Ivan Kosenkov, 3D Bioprinting Solutions’ project manager.
Organaut’s printed tissues were returned to Earth with the Soyuz MS-09 spacecraft on December 20th, and the results of the experiment are expected to be published at the end of January 2019. In February, NASA plans to send a bioprinter capable of producing beating heart tissue to the ISS. Named the 3D BioFabrication Facility (BFF), the machine was developed through a partnership with two companies well-established in 3D printing and on-orbit hardware, nScrypt and Techshot. Since the thickness of heart tissue is difficult to build under gravity without structural assistance that could impede functionality, the companies developed the BFF with the hypothesis that microgravity would overcome this limitation. Thus far, the concept has been proven during parabolic flight tests, i.e., aboard the “Vomit Comet” airplane that performs multiple parabolic maneuvers in an airliner to create 20-30 seconds of weightlessness each.
-->
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
