News
SpaceX wins FCC approval to launch first polar Starlink satellites amidst rideshare chaos
In a sign of the regulatory agency’s growing confidence in SpaceX, the FCC has rapidly approved a request to add ten Starlink satellites to an imminent Falcon 9 rideshare launch.
Known as Transporter-1 and originally scheduled to launch as early as December 2020 or January 14th, SpaceX delayed its first dedicated Smallsat Program mission to January 21st for unknown reasons last week. While there is no confirmed cause, any one of several recent events could have easily contributed to or fully caused the delay. In a rare ground processing failure, DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) revealed that two “risk reduction” technology demonstrator satellites were damaged on January 4th when their deployment mechanism was accidentally triggered during processing.
In other words, the two spacecraft may have been shot out of their dispensers by their spring-loaded deployment mechanisms, falling onto a processing bench or even off of the much taller payload stack. Meanwhile, on the very same day, space tug startup Momentus Space announced that it was removing its first Vigoride tug from Transporter-1 “for additional time…to secure FAA approval of…payloads.” Finally, once more on January 4th, SpaceX filed a request with the FCC to manifest and launch its first polar Starlink satellites to better take advantage of Transporter-1’s full capacity.
If launched, the ten spacecraft would be the first of several hundred planned polar Starlink satellites necessary for SpaceX’s massive internet constellation to serve some of the most remote communities on Earth. Referring to an orbit centered more around Earth’s north and south poles than its equator, the polar Starlink launch opportunity is available because SpaceX’s Transporter-1 mission – set to carry several dozen small satellites – is headed for a nearly polar “sun-synchronous orbit” (SSO).
For Starlink, sun-synchronous and polar orbit satellites will allow the constellation to serve customers and communities in high northern latitudes – possibly up to and including the Arctic and Antarctic once fully deployed.
-->
SpaceX supported the US East Coast’s first polar launch in more than half a century in August 2020, effectively opening the same polar corridor that’s now allowing the company to launch Transporter-1 – and polar Starlink satellites – from the same pads it launches almost every other mission. It remains to be seen if SpaceX will one day perform dedicated polar Starlink launches from its West Coast launch pad – reactivated in November 2020 after spending almost a year and a half mothballed.
Perhaps the most impressive aspect of Starlink’s imminent polar launch debut is just how quickly both SpaceX and the FCC acted to make it happen. When SpaceX requested permission on January 4th, then just 10 days from the launch date, the historical odds of the FCC responding at all – let alone approving the request – in time were practically zero. Instead, the agency got back to SpaceX with a lengthy conditional approval (PDF) four days later. Although the FCC has yet to approve a request to move almost all of SpaceX’s 4,408 Phase 1 Starlink satellites to much lower orbits, the agency was apparently chomping at the bit to allow a limited trial at those lower orbits.
Dropped from an orbital altitude of ~1200 km (~750 mi) to 560 km (~350 mi), the ten Starlink satellites SpaceX now has permission to launch on Transporter-1 likely represent less than 20% of one polar ‘plane’ of Starlink satellites. In simpler terms, those ten satellites will only be capable of supporting a very limited test of polar Starlink internet, likely resulting in intermittent, unreliable coverage that won’t be viable for civil use until the FCC permits SpaceX to launch one or several full planes. Still, receiving approval to launch any number of satellites mere days after filing a request suggests that full FCC approval is a now question of “when,” not “if.”
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
