News
SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket back in action after a three-year hiatus
Update: The US Space Systems Command says that SpaceX’s first direct launch to geosynchronous orbit was a “simply outstanding” success, safely deploying several satellites more than 36,000 kilometers (~22,400 mi) above the Earth’s surface.
The success of the US Space Force’s USSF-44 mission means that SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket is now one of just a handful of operational rockets in the world that has demonstrated the ability to launch satellites directly to geosynchronous orbit. More importantly, it’s one of just three US rockets with that established capability. The other two rockets – ULA’s Atlas V and Delta IV – will cease to be available for US military missions by the end of 2023, meaning that Falcon Heavy may briefly become the only rocket in the world able to launch certain US military missions until ULA’s next-generation Vulcan rocket is ready to prove itself.
SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy has continued a streak of successful dual-booster landings during its first attempted launch directly to geosynchronous orbit, a mission that was also the rocket’s first launch in more than three years.
Known as USSF-44 and initially scheduled to launch more than two years ago, the US Space Force mission finally lifted off on November 1st, 2022 after relentless payload delays. By mid-2021, the hardware required for SpaceX’s first Falcon Heavy launch since June 2019 – mainly three new first-stage boosters – had finished qualification testing and been shipped to Florida in anticipation of a late-2021 or early-2022 launch. That launch never came.
Only in November 2022 did most or all of USSF-44’s payloads finally come together, resulting in a gap of more than 40 months between Falcon Heavy launches as practically every other payload assigned to the rocket in the interim experience their own significant delays. Regardless, on November 1st, Falcon Heavy lifted off for the fourth time and performed flawlessly for the nine minutes the US Space Force allowed SpaceX’s webcast to continue.
-->Over the course of those nine minutes, Falcon Heavy’s twin side boosters – both flying for the first time – helped send the rest of the rocket on its way to space before separating from the center core, upper stage, and payload to boost back towards the Florida coast. Less than eight minutes after liftoff, they safely touched down seconds apart at SpaceX’s LZ-1 and LZ-2 landing zones. Lacking grid fins or landing legs, Falcon Heavy’s intentionally-expendable center core (middle booster) continued burning for another 90 seconds and only separated from the upper stage after reaching a speed of almost four kilometers per second (8,900 mph) – a new record for a SpaceX rocket booster.
The center core, B1066, was likely obliterated when it reentered Earth’s atmosphere traveling at approximately 50% of orbital velocity. Side boosters B1064 and B1065, however, will be rapidly refurbished for a “future US Space Force mission” that SpaceX – perhaps incorrectly – says could follow USSF-44 as early as “later this year.” Unless SpaceX has received an additional USSF launch contract in secret, the company’s next USSF mission appears to be USSF-67, which the US Space Systems Command reported could launch as early as January 2023 in their latest press release [PDF]. USSF-44 and USSF-67 are technically set to launch in the same US fiscal year but not the same calendar year.
USSF-44 is SpaceX’s first direct geosynchronous launch, meaning that Falcon Heavy is attempting to deliver the US military’s payloads to a circular geosynchronous orbit (GEO) approximately 36,000 kilometers (~22,400 mi) above Earth’s surface. “Geosynchronous” refers to the fact that a spacecraft’s orbital velocity matches Earth’s rotational velocity at that altitude, making it a popular destination for communications and Earth observation satellites that want to observe the same region of Earth all the time. Ordinarily, to simplify the rocket’s job, most GEO-bound satellites are launched into an elliptical geosynchronous or geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) and use their own propulsion to circularize that ellipse.
On a direct-to-GEO launch, the rocket does almost all of the work. After reaching a parking orbit in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), Falcon Heavy’s upper stage likely completed a second burn to geosynchronous transfer orbit. Then, while conducting a complex ballet of thermal management and tank pressure maintenance to prevent all of its cryogenic liquid oxygen (LOx) from boiling into gas and its refined kerosene (RP-1) from freezing into an unusable slush, the upper stage must coast ‘uphill’ for around five or six hours.
Over that journey from an altitude of about 300 kilometers to 36,000 kilometers, in addition to the above tasks, the upper stage must also survive passes through both of Earth’s radiation belts. At apogee, Falcon S2 must reignite its Merlin Vacuum engine for around one or two minutes to reach a circular geosynchronous orbit. Payload deployment will follow and could last anywhere from a few minutes to an hour. Finally, to be a dutiful space tenant, Falcon’s upper stage must complete at least one or two more burns to reach its final destination: a graveyard orbit a few hundred kilometers above GEO.
-->
SpaceX’s third Falcon Heavy launch, a US Air Force mission called STP-2, was a partial dry-run of direct-to-GEO launch – albeit in low Earth orbit (LEO) instead of LEO, GTO, and GEO. During STP-2, Falcon Heavy’s upper stage completed four successful burns in three and a half hours. USSF-44 is significantly more challenging by most measures but not entirely outside of SpaceX’s range of experience. In addition to STP-2, Falcon 9 upper stages have conducted a few long-duration coast tests after completing unrelated primary missions.
In statements made to Spaceflight Now, the US Space Systems Command said that USSF-44’s two main payloads are a pair of propulsive kick stages and payload platforms, one – LDPE-2 – supplied by Northrop Grumman and the other – the “Shepherd Demonstration” – a mystery. LDPE-2 will reportedly carry three hosted payloads and deploy three rideshare satellites: likely two Lockheed Martin LINUSS-A cubesats and Millenium Space Systems’ TETRA-1. All three rideshare satellites are designed to demonstrate various new technologies, ranging from propulsion systems to avionics.
Rewatch SpaceX’s USSF-44 Falcon Heavy launch here.
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
