News
SpaceX to attempt back-to-back Falcon Heavy launches with booster reuse in 2019
SpaceNews reports that SpaceX is planning an impressive duo of Falcon Heavy launches in the first half of 2019, the heavy lift rocket’s second and third missions. According to Nicky Fox, NASA’s heliophysics division director, SpaceX intends to recover and reuse all three Falcon Heavy first stage boosters for both launches and apparently believes that it can recover and prepare them for a second launch in as few as 60 days.
Following a highly successful February 2018 launch debut, SpaceX has targeted the launches of commercial satellite Arabsat 6A and the USAF’s Space Test Program 2 (STP-2) in the second half of 2018, a schedule that rapidly realigned to H1 2019. If the unofficial plan described above turns out to be true, the USAF will apparently become the first commercial customer to launch on a flight-proven Falcon Heavy.
NASA looking to launch delayed space science missions in early 2019 https://t.co/Q3wojAStr5 pic.twitter.com/YBp4lhF1bo
— SpaceNews (@SpaceNews_Inc) December 19, 2018
A Reddit user was lucky enough to spot one of SpaceX’s next-gen Falcon Heavy side boosters – coincidentally just one day after Dr. Fox’s comments – on its way East through rainy Louisiana, undeniable evidence that the heavy lift rocket’s second (and third) launches have a real chance of happening in early 2019. According to Dr. Fox, SpaceX is seriously targeting a very rapid turnaround of Falcon Heavy’s next three first stage boosters, stating (admittedly without official confirmation) that SpaceX would be reusing the boosters from Arabsat 6A’s March 2019 launch on the planned April 2019 launch of STP-2.
-->“[Falcon Heavy] will launch [STP-2 in April] after the successful launch of Arabsat, which is currently manifested for March. [SpaceX] will recover and reuse the boosters, so we’re kind of watching what happens with that first launch.” – Dr. Nicky Fox via SpaceNews
Whether or not this officially unconfirmed information is correct, it certainly sounds like just the thing that CEO Elon Musk might challenge SpaceX to pull off, not to mention the fact that this would place the US Air Force in a situation requiring it to become the first commercial customer to launch on a flight-proven Falcon Heavy. This would be a truly dramatic change in attitude compared to comments made in just the last week, brought up in the context of SpaceX’s planned December 18 (now Dec 22) launch of the USAF’s first next-gen GPS satellite, GPS III SV01. In official comments provided to the media, the Air Force was extremely “uncertain” about allowing SpaceX to even attempt to recover its Falcon 9 booster, let alone allowing the company to fly Air Force payloads on flight-proven rockets.
-
- The second Falcon Heavy booster in four weeks was spotted Eastbound in Arizona by SpaceX Facebook group member Eric Schmidt on Dec. 3. (Eric Schmidt – Facebook)
-
- Falcon Heavy’s two side boosters landed side-by-side after a successful launch debut. (SpaceX)
-
- LZ-1 and LZ-2, circa February 2018. (SpaceX)
-
- Falcon Heavy ahead of its inaugural launch. (SpaceX)
Admittedly, the intentions behind STP-2 differ drastically from GPS III SV01. As the name suggests, the missions falls under a program explicitly designed to test and prove out new launch vehicles in the context of fast-tracking their certification for higher-value Air Force spacecraft. Falcon 9 could almost certainly launch STP-2 in a reusable configuration, but the USAF chose Falcon Heavy – and included literal dead weight – because the military branch is very interested in the rocket’s potential utility for more serious National Security Space missions.
SpaceX’s first Falcon Heavy launch famously featured flight-proven side boosters that performed jaw-dropping simultaneous landings at LZ-1 and LZ-2. Chances are good that Falcon Heavy Flight 2 and 3 will both feature additional attempts at simultaneous LZ booster landings. If SpaceX can find a way to launch Falcon Heavy twice in barely two months while still reusing all three first stage boosters, it’s hard to imagine a better way to demonstrate the economic and technological viability of both Falcon Heavy and Block 5’s reusability upgrades.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
-->
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
