News
SpaceX readies Falcon 9 Block 5s for bi-coastal launches and landings
After several months of preparation behind the scenes, SpaceX’s second and third serial Falcon 9 Block 5 rockets are ready for the first launches of the upgraded vehicle from Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA (VAFB) and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL (CCAFS).
On the calendar for 1:50 am EDT/5:50 UTC July 22 and 4:39 am PDT/11:39 UTC July 25, SpaceX launches of Telstar 19V and Iridium NEXT-7 are set to mark the beginning of a new era for the company, where all future missions will fly with Block 5 hardware upgraded for reusability and reliability and attempt recovery almost without fail.
Three Falcon 9 boosters captured in various states of transport and testing over the last six weeks, two of which are B1047 and B1048. (Teslarati/Tesla Motors Club/Reddit/Facebook)
Bursting out of the expendable rocket cocoon
While it may be the case that an odd launch or two require a booster be expended to prevent schedule delays or carry an exceptionally heavy satellite to an exceptionally high orbit, it’s safe to say that such a mission with Block 5 boosters will be an anomaly. Somewhat iffy comments posted on Reddit recently claimed that Falcon Block 5 boosters would be able to easily (and rapidly) hop between roles as side and center boosters for both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. While wild, those claims, in retrospect, make a lot of sense, even if the reality of Block 5 booster interchangeability was a tad exaggerated.
If SpaceX truly wants to end the practice of expending rocket boosters, – and eventually fairings and upper stages, with any luck – the company will truly need to embrace a strategy that’s long been floated by executives like CEO Elon Musk and COO/President Gwynne Shotwell. That strategy dictates that SpaceX routinely use both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy as an almost interchangeable and rocket team capable of launching nearly every orbital payload conceivable today, all while remaining in fully or mostly reusable modes of operation.
-
- B1046 returned to Port Canaveral shortly after its May 4 debut, and is now being carefully analyzed as pathfinder hardware. (Tom Cross)
-
- OCISLY as seen by Tom Cross on March 5, readying for a busy future of rocket recoveries. (Tom Cross)
-
- At the request of a friend, artist David Romax put together a truly jaw-dropping collection of concept art featuring SpaceX’s BFR rocket and its Cargo and Crew spaceships. (Gravitation Innovation/David Romax)
At the moment, educated estimates of Falcon Heavy’s true performance margins with dual booster landings at SpaceX’s Florida landing zones and center core recovery aboard Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) suggest that the Block 5 version of Falcon Heavy should be capable of launching every commercial satellite planned or penciled in for launch over the next five years, at a minimum. Finally, while the Falcon family’s fuel choice of high-grade kerosene (RP-1) and liquid oxygen make the rocket far more compact and energy-dense than alternatives, one downside of that choice is a loss of efficiency, although brute-force strength makes FH a competitive beast for all missions beyond Earth orbit (Mars, Venus, Saturn, asteroids, comets, etc).
-->However, a fully-expendable Block 5 Falcon Heavy seems to be at least 3X as unlikely as an expendable Block 5 Falcon 9. Nevertheless, CEO Elon Musk made it clear that a nominal Falcon Heavy launch where both side boosters were recovered at sea and the center booster expended could accomplish a full ~85-90% of an entirely expendable mission, and for roughly $95m. As such, a combination of reusable Falcon 9s, reusable Falcon Heavys, and ~30%-expendable Falcon Heavys could successfully complete every plausible commercial and non-commercial launch in the world and do so at the lowest cost for the better part of the next five years, at which point the company’s next-gen Big F____ Rocket (BFR) ought to be operational.
Side boosters landing on droneships & center expended is only ~10% performance penalty vs fully expended. Cost is only slightly higher than an expended F9, so around $95M.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 12, 2018
Telstar 19V and Iridium-7
With any luck, SpaceX’s next two launches will be the first huge step in the direction of that one-stop-shop for competitive transportation to orbit. Teslarati photographer Tom Cross will be setting up remote cameras for the Telstar 19V’s Florida liftoff later this evening, while our West Coast fellow and famed Mr Steven-stalker Pauline Acalin will be setting up her own set of remote cameras for VAFB’s Falcon 9 Block 5 debut on Tuesday.
Static fire test of Falcon 9 complete— targeting July 25 launch of Iridium-7 from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) July 21, 2018
On the East Coast, drone ship OCISLY has already departed Port Canaveral with a duo of support vessels and a dedicated tugboat, while the West Coast’s Just Read The Instructions (JRTI) will likely take leave of the Port of Los Angeles within 24 hours. Those dual, successful (?) rocket landings will hopefully mark the first of many dozens of missions for F9 boosters B1047 and B1048.
The first Block 5 Falcon 9 lifts off on May 4, 2018. Several more are soon to come. (Tom Cross)
Follow us for live updates, peeks behind the scenes, and photos from Teslarati’s East and West Coast photographers.
Teslarati – Instagram – 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
