News
SpaceX ships another huge propellant tank to South Texas BFR test site
Captured by NASASpaceflight.com forum user “bocachicagal”, the second of several massive liquid methane tanks has arrived at SpaceX’s prospective Boca Chica, Texas facilities, to be dedicated to integrated testing of BFR’s spaceship/upper stage.
If there was any doubt beforehand, the arrival of a second ~100,000 gallon vacuum-insulated tank all but guarantees that SpaceX is planning a major campaign of BFR spaceship testing in South Texas – with as much as 200,000 gallons of storage capacity in those two tanks alone, SpaceX could easily top off two Falcon 9’s with liquid oxygen and still have more than 100 tons left over.
Per NASASpaceflight.com’s forums, it appears that this newest tank arrived at the site sometime yesterday or the day before. Thanks to the fundamental properties of BFR’s planned liquid methane and oxygen fuel and oxidizer, aspects of basic ground support infrastructure may actually be a significant improvement over Falcon 9’s refined kerosene (RP-1) and liquid oxygen, and dramatically superior (at least in a logistical and practical sense) to hydrogen/oxygen, a popular choice for many rockets.
In terms of volume and density, oxygen is about 2.5x denser than methane but optimally combusts at a ratio of roughly 3.5 parts oxygen to 1 part methane (3.5:1), with SpaceX likely to operate the Raptor engine closer to 3.8:1. This means that – despite their major density differences – BFR’s oxygen and methane tanks will ultimately end up very similarly sized to hold ~230t of liquid methane and ~860t of liquid oxygen (2017 BFR numbers).
Testing giant rockets: it’s not easy
As it relates to SpaceX’s South Texas propellant infrastructure, this likely means that a minimum of four large vacuum-insulated tanks will be needed to fully fuel a BFR spaceship (BFS), two for oxygen (~800t) and two for methane (~300t). Depending on how SpaceX has structured its BFR infrastructure acquisitions, the two large tanks now present in Boca Chica could be more than enough to support a wide range of spaceship hop tests. A full load of fuel is almost certainly unnecessary – if not outright implausible – for BFS hop testing: with a full load of ~1100t of fuel and the spaceship’s total mass around ~1250t, all seven planned Raptor engines would need to be installed and operating near full thrust (~1400t, 14,000 kN) to lift the ship off the ground.
-
- F9R seen just before liftoff for a 2014 hop test at SpaceX’s McGregor, TX test facilities. BFR’s first test pad might (or might not) look quite similar. (SpaceX)
-
- An updated spaceship lands on Mars. (SpaceX)
For context, Falcon 9’s first stage produces a maximum thrust of roughly 7,600 kN at liftoff, while Falcon Heavy triples that figure to ~22,800 kN. The spaceship/upper stage of BFR alone thus produces nearly two times as much thrust as an entire Falcon 9 at full throttle and as much as fourteen times as much thrust as Falcon 9 and Heavy’s upper stage, statistics that properly illustrate just how extraordinarily powerful BFR is when compared with the rockets SpaceX currently operates. BFR’s booster (BFB) is even wilder, featuring ~3.5 times as many Raptors and thus ~3.5 times as much thrust as the spaceship/upper stage.
As a result of the sheer power of just the spaceship alone, SpaceX may have to move directly to a style of launch pad closer to that used by Falcon 9 and Heavy rather than the spartan concrete slab used for Falcon 9’s Grasshopper testing. In this case, the rocket would be mounted some distance from the ground to minimize acoustic loads on the vehicle’s after and would likely include a water deluge system to further deaden thermal and acoustic energy while also minimizing damage to the concrete and metal structures that launch and landing pads are built out of.
-
- Prior to liftoff, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are held down by massive “hold-down clamps” at the rocket’s base. Even after engine ignition, those clamps only release once the flight computer decides that the rocket is healthy. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Falcon 9 B1049 lifts off from SpaceX’s LC-40 pad on September 10, producing more than 1.7 million pounds of thrust.(Tom Cross)
-
- A September 2018 render of Starship (then BFS) shows one of the vehicle’s two hinged wings/fins/legs. (SpaceX)
-
- BFR’s booster is at least three times more powerful still than BFS at liftoff. (SpaceX)
Above all else, the presence of not one but two huge ~100,000-gallon vacuum-insulated tanks at SpaceX’s Boca Chica facilities all but guarantees that the company intends to situate a serious campaign of BFR tests there, likely including the integrated spaceship hop tests both Elon Musk and Gwynne Shotwell have explicitly mentioned in recent months. Put simply, SpaceX has no other reason to be bringing massive cryogenic propellant tanks to South Texas – the company has plenty of space at any one of its three large launch complexes (not to mention McGregor) if it wanted to store those tanks elsewhere, and those three facilities already have operational propellant storage and loading infrastructure for Falcon 9 and Heavy launches.
If more massive tanks continue to arrive or if it becomes clear that the two similar tanks present or solely meant for LOX or methane, the scale of SpaceX’s intentions in South Texas will become increasingly clearer.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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
