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!
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new rules that the Trump Administration is aiming to enforce on autonomous vehicles. On Thursday, NHTSA, under the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation, commenced rulemaking on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
This effort aims to eliminate the mandate for manual brake pedals in vehicles that are designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems. This would impact the Tesla Cybercab, which the company has stated would operate without a steering wheel or pedals.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
The Trump Administration is looking to revise FMVSS No. 135, which requires standard braking systems on light-duty vehicles.
Currently, the regulation requires light-duty cars to use traditional manual braking systems that allow operators to slow the vehicle. With the advent of self-driving in the U.S., these regulations need updating, and these are the changes that could come to FMVSS No. 135:
- Removes requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles designed never to be operated by a human. Existing rules still apply to AVs that retain manual controls.
- All subject vehicles must still meet the same stopping distance performance criteria via alternative testing procedures.
- While this update ensures AVs can physically stop when commanded, NHTSA is separately developing safety performance requirements for AVs in real-world driving scenarios.
- NHTSA will continue to use its broad defect enforcement authority to investigate unsafe ADS behavior and oversee recalls.
As autonomy becomes a greater part of passenger travel, these types of rule adjustments will be more than reasonable. It will give manufacturers the ability to self-certify their vehicles and avoid any red tape that could ultimately delay the deployment of these vehicles.
Administrators are also incredibly excited about the opportunity to play a role in the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
“We are at the cusp of the greatest technological revolution in vehicle technology since the innovation of the Model T,” NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison said. “If we want America to lead the way, we have to reimagine our regulatory framework. That’s why under Secretary Sean Duffy’s AV Framework, NHTSA is tearing down pointless barriers to innovative designs while strengthening the fundamental safety requirements that matter and holding AV developers accountable for safe performance.”
The Cybercab entered mass production at Gigafactory Texas in April. Tesla ultimately plans to push the vehicle into its Robotaxi fleet, potentially when frameworks like these are established.
Tesla plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.
The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.
Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.
🚨 Tesla said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.
Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.
In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.
This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.
Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
