News
SpaceX's Elon Musk works through holidays on Starship's "most difficult part"
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says he has been working through the holidays at the company’s Boca Chica facilities to get Starship’s “most difficult part” ready for the next-generation spacecraft’s next prototype and flight tests.
Known as tank domes or bulkheads, Musk says that the hardware is the most difficult part of building and assembly Starship’s primary structure, referring to the steel engine section, tanks, and pointed nose that comprise most of the spaceship’s body. Starship’s primary structure must stand up to the rigors of all aspects of flight, including highly-pressurized propellant tanks, extreme G-forces during launches, orbital reentry, and more.
It was never officially determined whether the failure was intentional or not but during the first Starship prototype’s (Mk1) last test campaign, the vehicle experience an overpressure event while being filled with liquid oxygen or nitrogen. Localized to the weld connecting the upper tank dome to Starship’s cylindrical tank section, the dome essentially sheared off at the weld and launched hundreds of feet into the air, sending a shockwave through the vehicle that crumpled many of its steel structures as if they were aluminum foil.
It’s likely that Starship Mk1’s failure was an intentional overpressure event, meaning that SpaceX may have purposely pressed the vehicle’s tanks beyond their design limits to determine how structurally sound they were. What is less clear is whether the rocket burst before or after reaching its theoretical design limit.
For reference, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket operates with its fuel and oxygen tanks pressurized to about 50 psi (3.5 atm) with localized pressures likely doubling or tripling near the bottom of both tanks during the first minute or two of launch. Some amateur back-of-the-envelope calculations from videos of Starship Mk1’s burst event suggest that it was pressurized to at least 60-75 psi (4-5 atm) at its upper tank dome, meaning that the pressure on its two lower domes and tank walls would have been even higher. If correct, those unofficial figures mean that Mk1 actually performed quite well considering the ramshackle facilities and unprecedentedly spartan methods used to fabricate and assemble it.
-->As such, Musk likely considers Starship’s tank domes the “most difficult part of [its] primary structure” in large part because of how difficult it is to make giant propellant tank domes simultaneously light and strong. Musk has previously implied that Starship Mk1 was more 200 tons (450,000 lb) empty while the ultimate goal for the spacecraft’s empty weight is closer to 120 tons, and a large portion of that weight savings will likely have to come from making its tank domes as light as possible.
In line with that educated speculation, the last month or so of SpaceX’s Starship work in Boca Chica, Texas has been marked by a distinct focus on building tank domes. In fact, Musk himself tweeted that he had worked all night with SpaceX engineers in Boca Chica in a bid to get dome production ready for Starship’s Mk3 prototype, the first Super Heavy hardware, and many more rockets to come.
Prior to Musk’s tweet, a Starship tank dome was actually shipped all the way from Florida to Texas and arrived earlier this month. Meanwhile, technicians have been briskly building up an additional dome using what appears to be a different method of integration involving new parts. SpaceX is currently attempting to weld Starship’s tank domes together from several dozen pre-formed sheets of stainless steel.
The sheets of steel assembled into the dome Musk showed on December 27th likely arrived in Boca Chica on December 13th, implying that SpaceX has managed to complete the majority of the first dome prototype – using a new process – in barely two weeks.
After SpaceX lifted the partially-completed dome off one of its custom assembly jigs, workers almost instantly began staging new sections of steel, beginning the process of integrating yet another tank dome – now likely the fourth on-site in Boca Chica. Meanwhile, at a nearby section of SpaceX’s Boca Chica production facilities, yet another dome was visible on the 28th. In short, SpaceX should soon have more than enough tank domes to complete the next Starship prototype – said to be a significantly improved and refined design compared to Mk1.
Known as Starship Mk3 (or Starship SN01), Musk says that the rocket – currently just a miscellaneous collection of separate parts – could (“hopefully”) be ready for its first flight as soon as February or March 2020.
-->Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
