News
SpaceX confirms plan to activate South Texas launch site in late 2018
Following our report that Elon Musk’s space company was progressing on the development of a new launch site in Texas, SpaceX’s Senior Communications Manager James Gleeson has confirmed with Teslarati that the company is, in fact, working towards the activation of its South Texas launch facilities in late 2018, possibly sooner.
“We are currently targeting late 2018 for the site in South Texas to be operational but we’re reviewing our progress and will turn the site online as soon as it’s ready.”
Combined with a comment made in early January by SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell, BFS development by all appearances is going quite smoothly. Still, it’s likely that the Boca Chica site’s late 2018 “operational” status refers mainly to an ability to support something less than orbital launches, perhaps suborbital testing of BFS. According to a source knowledgeable with SpaceX’s South Texas outlook, there are currently no plans to manufacture BFR in the region, although the company has enjoyed the warm welcomes it’s received from local leaders enthusiastic about the company’s local expansion.
-
- SpaceX already operates an extensive rocket testing facility in Central Texas, tests that previously included flights of a Falcon 9 reuse demonstrator. (SpaceX)
-
- The majority of testing done at McGregor is of individual Merlin engines, each of which is fired for around dozens of seconds to verify performance and quality. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX’s current Texas facilities feature a test stand for Raptor, the engine intended to power BFR and BFS to Mars. (SpaceX)
The question of where to test the first Big F____ Spaceship (BFS) prototype also appears to be undecided at the moment, and comments made by CEO Elon Musk immediately after Falcon Heavy’s inaugural launch further confirmed that a couple of different options are under consideration, one of which involves using Boca Chica as a testing facility for the Mars rocket. True orbital launch operations are thus highly unlikely to begin at Boca Chica any earlier than mid-to-late 2019, and that aspirational timeline is of course intimately dependent upon the relatively smooth development and testing of BFS, as well as the potential value SpaceX might see in a fully-private orbital launch complex compatible with their proven Falcon family of rockets. A site wholly dedicated to Starlink launches, for example, could rapidly speed up the internet satellite constellation’s deployment, the completion of which could be a massive source of income capable of funding the company’s interplanetary ambitions.
The boom of a giant crane (possibly meant for BFS) seen in late 2017, parked at SpaceX’s Boca Chica facilities. (Reddit /u/ ticklestuff)
While SpaceX’s communications policy reasonably avoids commenting on employee movement, the South Texas site’s late 2018 operational status would undeniably require a fair amount of work, likely on the order of the refurbishment and repair of the SLC-40 pad. This indirectly lends at least a sliver of credence to a recent claim from Space Florida, a state-run economic development agency focused on aerospace, that a portion of the workers involved in the refurbishment of LC-40 and LC-39A’s Falcon Heavy upgrades have begun “working on their Brownsville [TX] site.”
Dale Ketcham, Space Florida: people who worked on LC-39A and SLC-40 here for SpaceX now working on their Brownsville site. Georgia will be offering a spaceport site just as attractive to launch customers as Brownsville.
— Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) March 1, 2018
-->Indeed, local South Texas fans of SpaceX have done an outstanding job of tracking the progress made at the Boca Chica launch facility over the last several years, and activity at the site does appear to have exploded in recent months, relative to the several years of quiet landscaping that followed its 2014 announcement.
Most recently, the addition of a solar array installation, Tesla Powerpacks, and an 800-kilowatt generator gives the construction zone the ability to generate considerably more than 1MW of grid-independent power, likely more than enough to operate both a bevy of construction equipment and SpaceX’s Crew Dragon communications complex.
Solar installation at SpaceX’s facility in Boca Chica, Texas [Credit: Nomadd via NASASpaceFlight.com Forum]
Ultimately, it’s all but guaranteed that significant increases in construction and development activity (or the lack thereof) will be immediately noted and communicated by observant locals. If SpaceX hopes to make its South Texas site operational before the end of the year, major work can be expected to begin within a handful of months at most. In the meantime, activities in Los Angeles, CA, particularly the Port of San Pedro, will offer another source of data on BFS’ development progress. Now we wait…
Get real-time updates from our Space Team and follow:
- Teslarati – Instagram (live stories) – Twitter
- Tom Cross – Twitter
- Pauline Acalin – Twitter
- Eric Ralph – Twitter
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
