News
SpaceX has finally begun filling Starship’s orbital launch site fuel tanks
Almost five months after SpaceX began the process of filling and testing the first custom-built propellant storage system for Starship, the largest rocket ever built, the company has finally begun to fill the fuel half of the ‘tank farm’.
SpaceX began delivering truckloads of liquid nitrogen (LN2) to the LN2 and liquid oxygen (LOx) sections of the tank farm in mid-September 2021, well before the farm was anywhere close to completion. In about a month, SpaceX accepted ~60 LN2 deliveries – enough to partially fill one of the farm’s seven cryogenic tanks. Instead of some operational purpose, that LN2 was likely used to clean and partially proof the farm’s three LOx tanks. Just two weeks later, the orbital tank farm received its first LOx deliveries.
At the time, mere days after the basic structure of the main tank farm storage system was effectively completed, most figured that it would take SpaceX about as long to clean, proof, and begin filling the farm’s two liquid methane tanks. That would not be the case.
SpaceX installed the second of the farm’s two vertical SpaceX-built cryogenic liquid methane (LCH4) tanks in mid-October 2021. All seven cryogenic tanks had ‘sleeves’ – designed to be filled with foam insulation – installed by the end of the month, effectively completing the farm’s basic structure half a year after assembly began. However, around the same time, SpaceX also installed two horizontal tanks that were also identified as LCH4 storage – giving the overall tank farm far more fuel storage than its oxidizer (LOx) tanks could match. Starship’s Raptor engines burn about 3.55 kilograms of LOx for every 1 kilogram of LCH4.
As work on the vertical LCH4 tanks appeared to slow to a crawl, it took until December 2021 for SpaceX to begin cleaning and proofing the farm’s horizontal LCH4 tanks with liquid nitrogen. By that time, a rough unofficial narrative had been constructed to explain the lack of progress on the farm’s fuel half. Namely, in an excellent Twitter thread, CSI Starbase made a strong case that SpaceX appeared to have designed the first orbital-class Starship tank farm – a compact and pleasingly symmetric set of eight vertical storage tanks – without taking into consideration rudimentary Texas regulations for the storage of liquid natural gas and methane. By all appearances, that conclusion was correct, as the farm was visibly violating several rules – namely the requirements that all LCH4 storage be surrounded by six-foot-tall retaining walls and that all associated plumbing not be situated under power cabling.
As it exists, the LCH4 side of the vertical tank farm violates both of those rules and it’s not obvious that there is actually enough space between the two vertical methane tanks to build a retaining wall with two feet of horizontal clearance. It’s possible that the situation is more complex and that SpaceX intentionally broke those rules or was pursuing an exception to them but the end result was that those vertical LCH4 tanks have yet to be finished, let alone cleaned or proof tested. Instead, SpaceX appears to have fully refocused on horizontal tanks and most recently tore down a dirt berm beside them and began preparing foundations for at least two or three more.
Those horizontal tanks appear to store about 1000 cubic meters (~35,000 ft^3) of LCH4, while the vertical tanks would have stored about 1800 m^3. To fully replace them, SpaceX will need approximately four horizontal tanks – two more in addition to the two already installed. Thankfully, SpaceX has finally begun filling the already installed tanks while it works to expand the methane farm, beginning with three truckloads on the very first day – February 13th, 2022.
To fill the two existing tanks, which may store enough methane to fuel a stacked Starship and Super Heavy about 4/5ths of the way, SpaceX will need around 40-50 more tanker deliveries. Since last November, SpaceX has completed more than 320 liquid nitrogen and 200 liquid oxygen deliveries – equivalent to about 6700 tons (~14.8M lb) of LN2 and 4200 tons (~9.3M lb) of LOx. If SpaceX maintains that average and focuses entirely on LCH4, the two horizontal tanks could be filled to the brim before the end of February.
Having a substantial amount of LCH4 stored at the orbital tank farm will finally allow SpaceX to attempt the first major wet dress rehearsals (WDRs) and, more importantly, the first full static fires with flightworthy Super Heavy booster prototypes. Of course, a tank farm with full supplies of LOx, LCH4, LN2, and their gaseous equivalents is also a necessity for the first orbital Starship launch attempt, which has most recently slipped from a target of mid-2021 to no earlier than (NET) Q2 2022, pending regulatory approval.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
