Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Heavy manifest grows lopsided as launches align for Q4

Published

on

For a variety of reasons both clear or otherwise, a significant number of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches initially scheduled near the beginning or middle of the second half of 2018 are all slipping right into October, November, and December.

While communications satellite Telstar 18V’s two-week slip to NET September 8 and SAOCOM-1A’s own several-week tumble to October 7th appear to have their own respective and discernible reasons, namely some sort of range or payload issue (Telstar) and difficulties with the Falcon 9 rocket (SAOCOM), it’s much harder to know why multiple other payloads have slipped into late 2018.

Although the multiple slips and slides of several payloads and much of SpaceX’s H2 2018 launch manifest may be hard to parse alongside the year’s milestone first half, at least two reliable launch manifest sources (SpaceflightNow and one other) more or less independently corroborate the apparent realignment. Explanations, however, are far harder to find – to be expected in the business of space launch. Still, multiple launch delays can be traced to either payload or rocket issues.

Payload-side delays aplenty but rocket-slips, too

Iridium CEO Matt Desch, for example, noted that his company’s Iridium NEXT-8 launch of the constellation’s final 10 satellites is slipping from its original launch date target because of delays preparing the satellites for launch, rather than any issue with SpaceX rocket availability. While not official, the Falcon 9 launch of communications satellite Es’hail-2 has also rapidly jumped from the end of August or early September into Q4 2018 (likely NET October or November), hinting heavily at payload processing delays or technical issues with the complex satellite, as multi-month rocket-side delays would likely preclude interim September and October launches.

Meanwhile, at least two of those prospective Q4 2018 SpaceX launches happen to be rideshare-dedicated, meaning that the payload consists of dozens of smaller satellites manifested and organized by a middleman company or agency. These two launches are Spaceflight’s SSO-A launch (~70 satellites) – currently NET November 2018 – and the US Air Force-led STP-2 mission, designed primarily to help SpaceX certify Falcon Heavy for Air Force launches while also placing roughly two dozen smaller satellites into orbit. STP-2 was delayed for multiple years as SpaceX gradually paced towards Falcon Heavy’s first real launch debut (February 2018), but launch delays (currently NET November 30 2018, probably 2019) will likely be caused by some combination of rocket, payload, and pad delays as SpaceX readies for what is essentially the second debut of much different Falcon Heavy.

While likely less a payload-side delay than a mountain-of-tedious-paperwork-and-bureaucracy delay, SpaceX’s NET November 2018 inaugural (uncrewed) demonstration launch of Crew Dragon, NASA scheduling documents published alongside an August 27 Advisory Council presentation suggest that the spacecraft will be ready for launch as early as September, whereas independent sources and visual observations have confirmed that the new Falcon 9 Block 5 booster (B1051) is either near the end or fully done with its McGregor, Texas acceptance testing. One certainly cannot blame SpaceX or NASA for caution at this stage, but the consequently uncertain launch debut of Crew Dragon almost certainly precludes any Falcon Heavy launches from Pad 39A in the interim, including STP-2’s theoretical NET November 30 launch date, which is literally inside Crew Dragon’s “November 2018” launch target.

 

On the other hand, several recent delays of SpaceX’s imminent (-ish) launch of Argentinian Earth observation satellite SAOCOM-1A have been suggested by several employees of the country’s CONAE space agency to be rocket-related, as they understand that the satellite itself is effectively ready to head to orbit at any time. It has yet to be officially confirmed, but it’s understood that Falcon 9 B1048 – previously flown on the launch of Iridium-7 – is being refurbished for SAOCOM-1A, potentially contributing to launch delays as SpaceX cautiously works through the inaugural reuses of some of its very first serial Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters.

Advertisement
-->

Time will soon tell, as launching the roughly 8 to 10 launches tentatively remaining on SpaceX’s 2018 manifest will require extensive reuse of Block 5 boosters if multiple slips into 2019 are to be prevented. Regardless, best of luck to SpaceX’s technicians and engineers as they beat back rocket demons, grapple with uncooperative satellite payloads, and navigate the winding paths of Department of Defense and NASA rocket launch certifications.


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!

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla tinkering with Speed Profiles on FSD v14.2.1 has gone too far

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

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.

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.

Advertisement
-->

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:

Advertisement
-->

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.

Advertisement
-->
Continue Reading

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.

Published

on

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.

Advertisement
-->

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Published

on

Credit: Grok Imagine

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.

Advertisement
-->

“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.

Continue Reading