News
SpaceX skips Falcon 9 landing leg retraction on record-breaking booster
Four days after it returned to port, SpaceX quickly brought its latest recovered Falcon 9 booster horizontal, the last step before it can be transported back to one of SpaceX’s launch pad-adjacent processing facilities.
For unknown reasons, SpaceX skipped retracting its landing legs, but thanks to its recent reusability record, this particular Falcon 9 booster is now more important than ever.
On November 11th, Falcon 9 B1048 launched the 60-satellite Starlink-1 mission and became the first orbital-class SpaceX booster to fly on four separate missions. Preceded by Iridium-7 (July 2018), SAOCOM 1A (Oct 2018), and PSN-6/Nusantara Satu (Feb 2019), Starlink-1 was B1048’s (and SpaceX’s) heaviest payload ever, likely weighing around 17-18 metric tons (~39,000 lb).
Eight and a half days after Falcon 9 helped deliver all 60 satellites to an exceptionally low ~280 km (175 mi) parking orbit, all satellites have successfully deployed their solar arrays and powered on their electric thrusters, including the lone spacecraft SpaceX had concerns about prior to launch. That straggler came alive roughly 60 hours after its siblings but has since raised its orbit ~20 km, while the other 59 satellites have booster themselves by an average of 40 km (25 mi) or so.
At their current collective pace of ~5 km per day, all 60 satellites should reach their operational ~550 km (340 mi) orbits around the beginning of 2020.
Falcon 9 Block 5’s newest pathfinder
A bit less than nine minutes after its inaugural fourth launch, B1048 also became the first Falcon 9 booster to successfully land four times, coming to a halt near the center of drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY). With its Port Canaveral processing nearly complete, B1048 now finds itself in a rare position.
-->As the first Falcon 9 Block 5 booster to fly four times, B1048 has first and foremost proven that the Block 5 design can be practically reused at least three times. However, the Block 5 upgrade is designed to support not just four – but at least ten – launches per booster, and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has estimated that 100 or more launches may be achievable with more substantial routine maintenance. All this is to say that with B1048.4 safe and sound back on land, SpaceX technicians and engineers will likely pore over the booster to determine how exactly it has fared after four orbital-class launches, atmospheric reentries, and landings.
Stated a different way, B1048 is now the Block 5 upgrade’s pathfinder vehicle, meaning that it will in large part determine how SpaceX proceeds with its Falcon 9 reusability program. SpaceX has done this several times in the past – as long as the envelope is being pushed, and even if it’s not, there will always be ‘firsts’ to achieve, be it the first launch of a new rocket or the first launch of a thrice-flown booster. Prior to B1048, B1046 – also the first Falcon 9 Block 5 booster – was the pathfinder for reusability, becoming the first Block 5 booster to be reused for the first time and the second time (launch #3).
However, at the same time, Falcon 9 B1048.4 is arguably less important than it might seem. Perhaps the most useful data to be gained from the new pathfinder will involve comparing it to the likely extensively engineering data SpaceX has gathered from thrice-flown Falcon 9 boosters, including B1048 itself. Although still a fundamentally minuscule sample size in the scope of statistical significance, SpaceX has flown four (soon to be five) separate Falcon 9 boosters three times apiece.
By comparing B1048.4 to B1046.3, B1047.3, B1048.3, and B1049.3, SpaceX should be able to determine just how big the hurdle from a third launch to a fourth launch is compared to going from two launches to three launches. If the changes between those different reusability milestones are similar, it will be increasingly easy for SpaceX to rationally conclude that Falcon 9 Block 5 is fully capable of achieving its 10-flight design goal. If booster wear and tear appears to speed up from Launch 3 to 4 relative to Launch 2 to 3, design tweaks or additional refurbishment may be needed.
Most importantly, however, gathering new, high-fidelity data from flight experience like B1048’s fourth launch ultimately allows SpaceX to systematize post-flight inspections, helping technicians and engineers know where to look and what to watch out for when processing and refurbishing flight-proven boosters. The more boosters, launches, and landings there are, the more confident SpaceX can be that those systems and processes are sound.
For unknown reasons, SpaceX briefly attempted to retract Falcon 9 B1048.4’s landing legs on November 18th but abandoned retraction after a few attempts. On November 19th, technicians processed B1048 exceptionally quickly, removing its legs, breaking the booster over (rotating it to a horizontal position), and securing it on SpaceX’s transporter in barely half a day.
-->
With recovery operations nearly complete, SpaceX can transport B1048 from Port Canaveral to Cape Canaveral, moving the booster to one of many processing and integration hangars for a thorough inspection and any necessary refurbishment. With any luck, B1048 will be ready for its fifth launch sooner than later, maybe allowing it to support SpaceX’s next dedicated Starlink launch.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
