News
SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch contracts reach double digits after latest NASA win
For the third time in seven months, NASA has contracted SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket to launch a high-value scientific spacecraft, raising the number of active contracts for the world’s most powerful rocket into the double digits.
In a twist that has become increasingly unsurprising, a spokesperson from SpaceX competitor United Launch Alliance (ULA) says that the company – the only other competitor for the contract – withdrew its bid because it had no more Atlas V rockets available. ULA announced earlier this year that it had officially stopped selling Atlas V launches, leaving a total of 29 more launches – all already reserved for specific customers – before the rocket is fully retired. Unfortunately for ULA, the Vulcan Centaur rocket it’s been developing to replace Atlas V and Delta IV since 2013 or 2014 is years behind schedule.
Somewhat inexplicably, even though ULA bid Vulcan to launch a high-value NASA payload in Q4 2024 as recently as this year, the company apparently didn’t feel that its next-gen rocket would be ready to launch a different payload in Q2 2024. In response, NASA’s only option to launch the GOES-U geostationary weather satellite was SpaceX’s offering, guaranteeing it the contract when ULA backed out of the competition.
Part of an 18-satellite fleet dating back to the 1970s, GOES-U will be the fourth and (as of now) final satellite in a modern extension of the GOES (Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite) program contracted by NASA for NOAA in 2008. In 2013, GOES-T and GOES-U were added to the original GOES-R and GOES-S, nominally resulting in four satellites built by Lockheed Martin for an average of ~$350M each.
ULA or ULA-heritage rockets have launched all 18 GOES satellites to date and there was little reason to believe that wouldn’t continue until the end of the GOES-R series. However, as a result of ULA’s major Vulcan development delays, it appears that the company now finds itself temporarily incapable of competing for launch contracts. That makes it hard to judge whether SpaceX would have won GOES-U without ULA’s withdrawal, though it’s difficult to imagine ULA could have beat Falcon Heavy’s $153M contract price.
-->In one of the most unequivocal signs of SpaceX’s immense impact on even the launch contracts it lost, ULA’s first two GOES-R-series Atlas V launch contracts were each valued at $261M in 2021 dollars when they were awarded in 2013. In 2019, NASA again awarded ULA a contract to launch GOES-T on an identical Atlas V 541 rocket – but this time for just $177M (2021).
It’s unclear what kind of configuration Falcon Heavy will be in for its April 2024 GOES-U launch. For ULA’s GOES-R and GOES-S launches, Atlas V has delivered each ~5200 kg (~11,500 lb) weather satellite to an “optimized geosynchronous transfer orbit [GTO].” A bit like a middle ground between an elliptical GTO launch and a direct-to-geostationary-orbit (GEO) launch, both missions required Atlas V’s Centaur upper stage to perform three separate burn – and one after a three-hour coast. In theory, Falcon Heavy should be able to easily launch GOES-U to a similar orbit while allowing SpaceX to recover all three boosters, though it’s possible that safety margins will mean the center core is expended.
Regardless, Falcon Heavy continues to more than prove that SpaceX made the right choice by investing significantly more than $500M of its own money to develop the rocket. In 2021 alone, the rocket has secured three NASA launch contracts worth around $660M. In 2020, SpaceX won another ~$120M Falcon Heavy launch contract from NASA. All told, the rocket has now earned the company ten active launch contracts, including four or five in 2022 alone: ViaSat-3, USSF-52, NASA’ Psyche, USSF-67, and perhaps an Inmarsat commsat. In 2023, Falcon Heavy could launch Astrobotic’s first Griffin Moon lander with NASA’s VIPER rover, followed by GOES-U, Europa Clipper, and (though delays are very likely) two parts of NASA’s Gateway lunar space station.
Including USSF-44 (scheduled to launch next month) and assuming Inmarsat’s I-6 F2 commsat ends up on Falcon Heavy, the rocket now has ten launch contracts after winning GOES-U. Additionally, while the program appears to be in limbo, NASA did technically announce plans for SpaceX to launch at least two Dragon XL spacecraft on Falcon Heavy to resupply the lunar Gateway station – a total of 12 missions if those plans turn into tangible contracts.
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
