News
SpaceX reusability may soon be in good company as Rocket Lab catches rocket with a helicopter
Rocket Lab, the world’s most prominent dedicated small satellite launcher, has made significant headway on plans to recover and reuse the booster stage of its Electron rocket, meaning that SpaceX’s reusable Falcon rockets could finally have company.
Recovering a booster is perhaps where all similarities end, however. While the SpaceX Falcon 9 gracefully guides itself back for a controlled landing on an ocean-going drone ship or land-based landing zone, Rocket Lab’s Electron booster will be snagged straight out of the air by a helicopter with a grappling hook.
Recently, Rocket Lab completed what the company called “a major step forward” in plans to achieve full booster recoverability with the successful completion of a “mid-air recovery” test. The test occurred over the open ocean near New Zealand and featured what was identified as an “Electron first stage test article.” One helicopter released the test article at a low altitude – around 2.5km (8,000ft) – and a nearby second helicopter, outfitted with a specially designed grappling hook, swooped in and snatched it out of the sky as it plummeted toward the ocean.
Rocket Lab’s recovery efforts did not simply begin with dropping a rocket-shaped test article from a helicopter. Long before ever attempting to catch a test article falling through the sky, the company had to ensure that the first stage of the Electron booster could even survive the return trip. Rocket Lab CEO and founder, Peter Beck, referred to it as punching through the wall which best summarizes the conditions that the first stage encounters upon re-entry through on the Earth’s dense atmosphere.
The company’s tenth successful launch dubbed “Running Out of Fingers” in December of 2019 was not only successful because it delivered and deployed the payload, but it was also the first time that Electron’s first stage first made it safely through the wall intact. Unlike SpaceX’s Falcon 9 that slows during descent with a series of engine burns, Rocket Lab’s Electron orients itself for the right “angle of attack” to slow down during re-entry.
The first stage of Electron has undergone a number of block upgrades to enable re-entry in one piece. The tenth mission featured the use of the upgraded Electron booster equipped with guidance and navigation hardware, as well as, a reaction control system (RCS) to gently control and reorient the first-stage during re-entry. The RCS was able to keep the booster adequately oriented and slowed it to under 900 kilometers per hour (560mph) for a controlled sea-level impact. The following eleventh mission dubbed “Birds of a Feather” in February 2020, also featured a successful controlled descent of the upgraded Electron first stage.
The final step in slowing the Electron down enough to be recovered by a grappling hook suspended by a helicopter was to develop and test a parachute system. Beck posted a teaser of the prototype parachute on Twitter in early February promising low altitude drop tests to follow soon after. Rocket Lab stated that the successful “mid-air recovery” test occurred weeks prior to the now mandated “Safer at Home” orders given in New Zealand amid the global COVID-19 pandemic.
-->As reported by Michael Sheetz of CNBC, Rocket Lab will continue to test recovery efforts on an undisclosed mission scheduled for later this year. That test will exercise Electron’s RCS block upgrades and parachute system to a greater extent to slow the booster to a point of survivability upon impact with the water – a speed of about 8kilometers per hour (5mph).
Like SpaceX, Rocket Lab targets a reduction of launch costs and an increase in launch capabilities with full first-stage reusability. The dedicated launcher of small satellites also strives to further open access to space for the rapidly expanding small satellite market.
Currently, Rocket Lab has two operational launch pads, one on New Zealand’s Mahia Penninsula and another at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia. Later this year a second location on New Zealand’s Mahia Penninsula will come online drastically increasing Rocket Lab’s launching capabilities.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes.
-->
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
