Connect with us

News

SpaceX drone ship fleet aces two Falcon 9 booster recoveries in 48 hours

Two boosters, two drone ships, two days. (Richard Angle)

Published

on

SpaceX’s two-vessel drone ship fleet has successfully returned two boosters from sea to port in the space of just ~40 hours, an impressive feat that simultaneously shed light on a new kind of bottleneck for Falcon launches.

Completed on January 20th and 24th and originally planned as few as 25 hours apart, SpaceX’s back-to-back Starlink-16 and Transporter-1 launches made it clear that drone ship availability could quickly become a constraint as the company eyes increasingly ambitious launch cadence targets. CEO Elon Musk has stated that SpaceX is targeting up to 48 launches in 2021, translating to an average of one launch every 7.5 days.

As it turns out, measured from port departure to port arrival, that target is practically the same as the average amount of time it takes one of SpaceX’s two drone ship landing platforms to complete a booster recovery. Both existing drone ships must be slowly towed to and from the booster landing area, generally involving a minimum round trip of 800 miles (~1300 km) and some five days in transit.

Falcon 9 B1051 returns to port after its eighth successful launch, becoming SpaceX’s newest fleet leader. (Richard Angle)

In other words, even given a perfectly optimized schedule in which SpaceX launches missions requiring at-sea recovery every ~180 hours throughout 2021, each mission would have just a handful of days worth of margin before one launch delay would inherently delay another launch. Fundamentally, with a fleet of two drone ships requiring an average of five days of transit time per recovery, SpaceX could theoretically support as many as ~70 booster recoveries annually assuming zero downtime, no launch delays, and mere hours spent at the landing zone before turning around and heading back to port.

To be clear, recovery ship availability is an excellent problem to have, as it implies that SpaceX is fast approaching a rate of launch (and routine rocket landings) unprecedented in the history of commercial spaceflight. Thankfully, SpaceX also has an exceptional track-record of solving hard problems and there remains a great deal of ‘slack’ to be optimized out of its fleet of recovery ships.

~48 hours later, Falcon 9 booster B1058 sailed into port aboard drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY). (Richard Angle)

That is all to say that removing the fundamental bottlenecks posed by SpaceX’s existing fleet will absolutely require at least one or two new drone ships on top of at least two major oil rig conversion projects in work for Starship. Whether in the form of one or more new converted barges or some kind of faster, self-propelled vessel, it’s safe to say that new ships are virtually guaranteed and likely close at hand unless SpaceX has decided to accept a semi-arbitrary ceiling on annual East Coast launches.

Just one month into 2021, SpaceX’s two drone ships are already being stretched to their operational limits to the point of launch delays. Delayed from January 17th to January 20th, Starlink-16 held up drone ship Just Read The Instruction for several days, resulting in the vessel returning to port on the 24th, just ~60 hours prior to Starlink-17’s original January 27th launch target. With drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) already indisposed at sea to support SpaceX’s January 24th Transporter-1 launch, SpaceX had to move Starlink-17 to January 30th.

Advertisement
-->

After a few days in port for booster processing and maintenance, drone ship JRTI ultimately departed Port Canaveral for Starlink-17 on the evening of the 27th, most likely delaying the launch to Sunday, January 31st. For now, though, Falcon 9 booster B1049 is scheduled to launch for eighth time no earlier than (NET) 7:24 am EST (12:24 UTC), January 30th. Simultaneously, drone ship Of Course I Still Love You will likely need to depart Port Canaveral later this weekend to support Starlink-18, scheduled to launch as soon as 1:19 am EST, February 4th.

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.

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:

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.

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