News
SpaceX board member says Starlink prototype satellites “are working wonderfully”
Speaking in a Satellite Innovation 2018 keynote, long-time SpaceX investor and board member Steve Jurvetson made a quiet but significant comment about the company’s Starlink satellite constellation efforts, stating that the first two prototype spacecraft – currently in orbit – “are working wonderfully.”
Standing in contrast to recent speculation that SpaceX’s Starlink project had experienced major failures with on-orbit hardware, Jurvetson may be a biased source but still has a major vested interest in SpaceX’s long-term success – supporting billions dumped into a satellite constellation with no real returns in sight would serve to seriously harm his significant investments in the company.
He would say that? Maybe, but @dfjsteve Jurvetson, early @SpaceX & @planet investor, told Satellite Innovation conference Oct 10, regarding SpaceX's two Starlink test sats launched in February: pic.twitter.com/WHzJlPUEPA
— Peter B. de Selding (@pbdes) October 12, 2018
Perhaps the most trustworthy source of SpaceX information outside of the company itself, Jurvetson expressed considerable confidence in SpaceX’s Starlink achievements thus far.
-->“I personally think SpaceX is in the lead [with Ku- and Ka-band phased arrays that could make (global LEO satellite broadband) possible] … Tintin 1 and 2 [are working wonderfully].” – Steve Jurvetson, Satellite Innovation 2018
Previously discussed on Teslarati, SpaceX’s growing experience with phased array antennas is undoubtedly a boon for the company’s proposed Starlink internet constellation, just one of several companies actively pursuing the increasingly competitive low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite broadband market. Fundamentally, phased array antennas will eventually take over nearly all multipurpose orbital communications thanks to the sheer simplicity and potential technical superiority of the technology.
Phased array antennas get their name from the fact that they have no moving parts – rather than moving a physical dish or angling dedicated ‘beams’, phased arrays actively use signal interference to very precisely shape, direct, and regulate line-of-sight communications beams. Currently quite immature, the draw of the technology is the sheer simplicity and reliability of antennas that require no moving parts, eliminating a major mode of failure and the inherent physical limitations of current antenna tech. Without something like phased arrays, LEO communications satellites would struggle to accurately and reliably track ground stations and gateways while traveling multiple kilometers per second.
-
- Traditional geostationary commsats like Telstar 19V feature dish-style antennas. The weird lumps and bumps on each dish are there by design, enabling the oddly specific coverage footprints seen to the right. (Telstar)
-
- Telstar 19V’s coverage map. Each coverage blob is there by design and is accomplished by physically shaping the antenna dish.
-
- LEO communications satellites like Iridium’s NEXT constellation feature totally flat panels of phased array antennas, capable of forming beams digitally. (Harris)
Large communications satellites in geostationary orbit do not face this problem. Thanks to their inherently fixed positions over ground targets (hence “geostationary“), designers and manufacturers have learned to quite literally mold each satellite’s on-orbit antennas to explicitly prioritize certain areas on the ground. This process tends to involve a prior determination of markets where demand for satellite communications is or will be highest, while also avoiding wasted coverage over areas with no need for it. However, once the antenna is launched, its beams are almost completely permanent. If markets change, the satellite simply cannot adapt.
-->Phased arrays, on the other hand, can almost entirely change where their many beams are directed, how much bandwidth is dedicated to certain locations, and all while accurately tracking moving targets with very few limitations. As a result, satellites with phased array antennas are sort of the communications jacks of all trades, capable of offering high-bandwidth connectivity to stationary user terminals, large ground stations, and moving vehicles simultaneously from with the same antenna array.
-
- SpaceX’s first two Starlink prototype satellites are pictured here before their inaugural launch, showing off a thoroughly utilitarian bus and several advanced components. (SpaceX)
-
- Patent diagrams like this show various subcomponents of a sandwiched phased array antenna, comprised of multiple printed circuit boards. (SpaceX)
-
- The technical term for this is “science rectangle.” In all seriousness, this is actually an extraordinary glimpse at custom silicon developed in-house at SpaceX, in this case a semiconductor die. (SpaceX)
-
- One of the first two prototype Starlink satellites separates from Falcon 9’s upper stage in February 2018. (SpaceX)
If SpaceX can perfect this, they will be the only company in the world to have done so on-orbit, while other satellite operators like Iridium have managed to build and launch low-bandwidth phased arrays but have yet to attempt to do so with the bands optimal for broadband internet or at a scale that might work for constellations of hundreds or even thousands of satellites. If Jurvetson is to be believed, SpaceX’s first foray into dedicated communications satellites and specialized hardware design and manufacturing has been a major success.
Even if the orbits of Tintin A and B do suggest that some difficulties were had with at least one satellite’s electric propulsion thrusters, it’s obvious that the experience and data derived from testing the vast majority of each satellite’s non-propulsion-related systems were invaluable and well worth the effort. Another group of prototypes will likely be launched according to Elon Musk, but that’s simply how SpaceX develops complex systems – build, launch, learn, and repeat.
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
