News
SpaceX’s Mr. Steven returns with Falcon fairing half in net after drop test practice
Captured in a series of photos taken by Teslarati photographers Pauline Acalin and Tom Cross over several days, SpaceX Falcon fairing recovery vessel Mr. Steven and recovery technicians and engineers have been preparing and practicing for a campaign of controlled fairing drop tests.
By using a helicopter to lift and drop a fairing into Mr. Steven’s net, SpaceX will be able to gather an unprecedented amount of data and control far more variables that might impact the success of recoveries. If the fairing is not destroyed in the process, this test series could be as long-lived as SpaceX’s Grasshopper program, used to work the largest up-front kinks out of Falcon 9 booster recovery.
Mr Steven looks ready. Should be leaving port at some point today ahead of SAOCOM-1A launch scheduled for Sunday, Oct 7, 7:21pm PT #mrsteven #SpaceX pic.twitter.com/Hk7HLmMDra
— Pauline Acalin (@w00ki33) October 6, 2018
Although SpaceX technicians managed to reassemble and install Mr. Steven’s net and arm fairing recovery mechanisms in just a handful of days, finishing less than 48 hours before the West Coast launch of SAOCOM 1A, the ship remained in port for the mission, passing up its fifth opportunity to attempt recovery of one of Falcon 9’s two fairings halves. Why exactly Mr. Steven never left port is unclear and unconfirmed, although SpaceX did mention that recovery would not be attempted this time around during its official launch webcast.
-->The most likely explanation is mundane – sea states with average swells as large as 4m (13ft) were forecasted (and later recorded) at and around the optimal fairing recovery zone. As a Fast Supply Vessel (FSV) explicitly designed to rapidly and reliably resupply oil rigs and other maritime work areas almost regardless of weather conditions, 4m waves would normally be a tiny pittance for ships as large and heavy as Mr. Steven and would be a nonsensical reason to halt deep-sea operations.
-
- Thanks to their relatively high angle of attack, Mr. Steven’s newest arms should not seriously impact his stability, but there is a chance that they limit his operational envelope in high sea-states. (Chuck Bennett)
-
- Mr. Steven seen listing roughly 5 degrees to port during arm installation, July 10th. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- A few-degree list seen during fairing recovery practice, August 13th. (Pauline Acalin)
On the other hand, Mr. Steven is without a doubt the most unusual FSV in existence thanks to his massive arms and net, stretching at least 60m by 60m. Based on photos of the arm installation process, significant lists of 5+ degrees are not uncommon when arms are unbalanced during normal staggered (one-at-a-time) installations, and SpaceX quite clearly installs the first two arms on opposite sides and orientations in order to minimize installation-related listing. This indicates that his newest arms have significant mass and thus leverage over the boat’s roll characteristics, perhaps explaining why Mr. Steven has performed anywhere from 5-10 high-speed trials at sea both with and without arms installed.
Most recently, however, Mr. Steven spent a solid six weeks armless at Berth 240 while some sort of maintenance, analysis, or upgrade was undertaken with those four arms and their eight shock-absorbing booms. It’s hard to know for sure, but there are no obvious visual changes between the arms installed in July and August and those now present on his deck, and the net also looks almost identical.
Fairing drop tests?
What’s less familiar these days is an oddly arranged Falcon 9 payload fairing half that has been floating around SpaceX’s Port of Los Angeles berths for the last two or so weeks. Up until October 4th, the purpose of that single half was almost entirely unclear. On October 4th, Teslarati’s entire space team (Tom, Pauline, and I) coincidentally arrived at the same time as 5-10 SpaceX technicians were working on the fairing, attaching a series of guylines and harnesses and inspecting a number of actuating mechanisms on the half.
-->
Just minutes after we arrived, a worker called out a short countdown and a wholly unexpected crashing noise sounded, followed immediately by several loud clangs as the harness connection mechanisms swung back and connected with metallic parts of the fairing. After the adrenaline wore off, the initial crashing noise was almost certainly the sound of the same mechanical jettison mechanism used to separate fairing halves ~3 minutes after the rocket lifts off.
Once photos of the event could be examined more carefully, that was exactly what we found – the six harness connections were attached to the fairing by way of the same mechanical interface that allows two halves to safely attach to each other. What we had witnessed was a harness separation test, using pressurized gas stored in COPVs (the gold striped cylinders) to rapidly actuate a latch, allowing the metal harness connectors to fall away. This is further evidenced by the presence of neon orange zip-ties connecting the ends of those harnesses to any sturdy fairing structure near the connection port, an easy and (presumably) affordable way to prevent those heavy connectors from swinging down and damaging sensitive piping and components.
-
- An overview of the weird fairing test article just before the harnesses were jettisoned. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Note the taut, yellow ropes connected to the fairing at its original serparation connector ports. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Zip-ties prevented the harness connectors from smashing (too hard) into the fairing’s innards. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- A Falcon 9 fairing during encapsulation, when a launch payload is sealed inside the fairing’s two halves. This small satellite is NASA’s TESS, launched in April 2018. (NASA)
According to someone familiar with these activities, the purpose of that testing is to prepare for true fairing drop tests from a helicopter. The jettisonable harness would be a necessity for easy drop testing, allowing the helicopter to carry a basic cargo hook and line while technicians inside communicate with the fairing to engage its built-in separation mechanism, all while ensuring that it immediately begins a stable glide or free-fall after dropping.
Observed on October 4th, it was at least moderately disappointing to see Mr. Steven remain in port during the spectacular Falcon 9 launch of SAOCOM 1A, October 7th. Reasons aside, roughly 12 hours after launch, Mr. Steven left on a 10+ hour cruise ~100 miles off the coast, where he repeatedly met up with tugboat Tommy and circled Santa Catalina Island once before heading back to port. Just 24 hours before launch (Oct. 6), the test fairing seen above was placed in Mr. Steven’s net for communications and harness testing – 24 hours after launch, Mr. Steven returned to Port of San Pedro after his 10-hour cruise with the same fairing half resting in his net.
-
- Mr. Steven returned to Port of San Pedro around 7pm on October 8th after a day spent at sea, apparently with a Falcon fairing half in tow. This is the second known time that a fairing has been in Mr. Steven’s net. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- An overlay of the paths of travel of a test-related helicopter and Mr. Steven, both on Oct. 8. The yellow plane is the heli at the beginning of a hover, while the gap between blue triangles in the lower left is where Mr. Steven was during that hover. (MarineTraffic + Flightradar24)
-->How and why it got there is unknown, as is the purpose of half a day spent boating around with the half in his net. However, a helicopter known to be involved in fairing drop tests was seen hovering and flying around Mr. Steven at the same time. Perhaps the two were practicing for real drop attempts, or perhaps the helicopter actually dropped a Falcon fairing (from > 2000 feet) and Mr. Steven successful caught it.
What is clear is that SpaceX is just getting started with efforts to perfect fairing recovery and eventually make the practice as (relatively) routine as Falcon 9 booster recovery and reuse is today. The latter was hardwon and the former will clearly be no easier.
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!
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
