News
SpaceX’s second Super Heavy booster might land in Mechazilla’s arms
CEO Elon Musk says that SpaceX could attempt to catch a Super Heavy booster out of mid-air with a tower-sized ‘Mechazilla’ robot as early as Starship’s second orbital launch attempt.
Speaking on Twitter just hours after SpaceX installed said Starship launch tower’s first arms, Musk has thankfully answered a question on the minds of many: how many prototype boosters must be expended? In a move that can be only described as unexpected, SpaceX revealed plans to fully expend its first orbital-class Starship and Super Heavy booster pair in May 2021 FCC filings, confirming (or strongly implying) that no true recovery attempts would be made.
Instead, in what could be described as a quasi-orbital debut, SpaceX intends to launch the first two-stage Starship to an altitude of around 200-300 km (TBD). Like many Falcon boosters, Super Heavy will separate a few minutes after liftoff, flip around, and boost back towards the South Texas coast, where it will attempt a soft landing 20 miles offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. Reading between the lines of Musk’s latest info, depending on the results of that ocean landing attempt, SpaceX might attempt to catch the second flightworthy Super Heavy booster on the very next launch.
Heading towards a similar fate, Starship will continue onwards and upwards like a Falcon upper stage. Based on its FCC application, SpaceX seems to have implied that Starship will stop just short of true orbit – traveling slow enough to passively reenter Earth’s atmosphere before completing a full trip around the planet. Of course, it’s possible that SpaceX simply left out plans for an intentional deorbit burn, but it does make sense that the company might try to lock in safeguards for such an ambitious inaugural test flight.
In other words, if Starship were to fail during the ~80 minutes it would spend coasting in space, its launch trajectory design would more or less passively prevent a Russian roulette scenario reminiscent of China’s recent spate of uncontrolled reentries. The feats facing Super Heavy are thankfully a fair bit simpler, though Starship booster recovery does pose its own hurdles.
-->In an apparent effort to reduce risk, SpaceX intends to fully expend the first flightworthy Super Heavy (potentially Booster 4) and all 29 of its Raptor engines. There will be no attempt at all to land the booster or its one-of-a-kind engines at land or on a sea-based platform – partly because Elon Musk appears to have endeavored to entirely prevent the installation – and, perhaps, the design and assembly – of legs. Instead, in one of the eccentric executive’s less intuitive gambles as of late, SpaceX will entirely dispense of more than half a decade of experience landing 90+ Falcon boosters on legs to attempt to catch Super Heavy boosters out of the air with house-sized arms tacked onto a 145m (~475 ft) tall tower.
No different than a hypothetical landing with legs, Super Heavy will still have to boost back to land, coast, and fire up several Raptor engines for a final landing burn – only on tiny handle-like hardpoints and giant moving arms instead of legs and a concrete pad. If catching boosters eventually proves reliable enough to be a worthwhile reinvention of the wheel, the only apparent benefit of the approach will be a slight reduction in Super Heavy’s dry mass.
According to Musk, though, SpaceX might not have to wait long to find out just how viable a recovery method ‘Mechazilla’ really is and will “hopefully” attempt to catch Super Heavy Booster 5 (B5) after Starship’s second orbital launch attempt. Presumably, that attempt is contingent upon FAA approval and on Booster 4 successfully simulating a smooth, accurate landing in the Gulf, as even a minor issue during a catch attempt could catastrophically damage pad hardware that would take months to repair or replace.
For now, it’s almost impossible to say when Starship S20 and Super Heavy B4 will be ready for their orbital launch debut, as that now lies almost solely in the hands of the FAA. In theory, the FAA could complete environmental reviews and grant SpaceX a launch license as few as two or so months from now. In practice, SpaceX could be forced to sit and wait for at least 6-12 more months. Regardless, SpaceX has already begun assembling and staging sections of Ship 21 and Booster 5, so the company could be ready for an extremely rapid turnaround (and Mechazilla’s first catch attempt) after Starship’s orbital launch debut – whenever that may come.
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
