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.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner in Los Angeles dominated the company’s global usage rankings after just one year, proving the concept is more than just a one-off novelty location that will fade away.
The performance could incite the company to build more locations, something that CEO Elon Musk has hinted at for some time.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner delivered 21.2 GWh of energy in its first year of operation, the company’s head of Charging, Max de Zegher, revealed on X. Of the top 10 most utilized Supercharger locations in Tesla’s global infrastructure, the Diner in Los Angeles was the most used by drivers, and it wasn’t particularly close:
Tesla Diner opened exactly 1 year ago. Inspiring that futuristic places like this exist.
It’s our highest usage Supercharger in the world: 21.2 GWh delivered in a year, 1.6k sessions/day.
Top 10 Superchargers by energy delivered: https://t.co/9YvJ8lw696 pic.twitter.com/koB3AUJHws
— Max (@MdeZegher) July 21, 2026
On its launch day one year ago, nobody was too sure what the Tesla Diner would be about. It seemed like an interesting concept, and considering it had been in the works for years, it was a highly anticipated launch that many were looking forward to.
Based on its success, we could see additional Diners with Superchargers built throughout the United States, and potentially beyond. Musk has said on several occasions that the company would be willing to bring the Diner idea to more markets.
Tesla makes major change at Supercharger Diner amid epic demand
Of the markets that Musk has mentioned, both Palo Alto and Austin have come to be perceived as ideal selections. However, there are no concrete plans as of now to build new Supercharger Diners anywhere; the location on Santa Monica Boulevard will remain the exclusive spot to pick up Tesla-inspired eats, at least for the time being.
Tesla short sellers won big following the company’s massive fall on Wall Street after it reported subpar Earnings on Wednesday.
Tesla short sellers collected about $4.12 billion in single-day profits on Thursday, according to Bloomberg. Shares fell as much as 15 percent during Thursday’s session. It closed as one of the worst days for Tesla on Wall Street in the past three years.
Investors sold off the stock after Tesla said it would aggressively direct its spending toward AI and its Optimus robot project. The company had record revenues, which were driven by one of the strongest quarters in terms of vehicle deliveries in company history.
However, it missed EPS estimates by reporting just $0.33, a far cry from the $0.53 analysts expected.
S3 Partners reported that about 3 percent of Tesla’s outstanding stock is sold short. Managing Director at S3, Ihor Dusaniwsky, provided the short seller’s potential profit, as well as another figure: shorts have likely had paper gains of $8.92 billion this year, as Tesla shares are down 30 percent in 2026.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla has burned short sellers many times in the past, but the company’s latest Earnings Call was a chance for those skeptics to taste some payback. Although the company gave some very transparent information regarding future projects, the rollout of Robotaxi, Optimus, and Semi, many investors took their profits on Thursday.
Notable short sellers like Michael Burry have been transparent about their skepticism around Tesla shares. Burry just revealed three weeks ago that he had opened up a new short on the stock, stating he shorted Tesla shares at $416.22. “Happy it jumped back to this level,” he said in a blog post.
At the time of publication, Tesla shares were down about 3 percent and the stock was trading at $309.92.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner probably just secured more locations
Tesla short sellers win big after shares fall after earnings
