News
SpaceX’s first orbital-class Starship ‘tank farm’ is almost finished
Roughly six months after the process began, SpaceX has installed the seventh and final custom-built propellant storage tank at Starbase’s first orbital-class Starship launch site.
Built out of the same factory and parts as the steel tanks that make up most of the two-stage Starship rocket’s structure, SpaceX completed the first two of those ‘ground support equipment (GSE)’ tanks in April and wasted no time installing both at Starbase’s orbital launch site (OLS). However, after a strong start, GSE tank work seemingly halted for several months and it wasn’t until August that SpaceX first enclosed one of the then three installed tanks with a sleeve designed to insulate their cryogenic contents. Since then, progress has picked back up and SpaceX has built and installed another three (for a total of six) storage tanks over the last two months.
That work effectively culminated on September 7th with the transport of the farm’s seventh and final GSE tank from build site to launch pad.
Unintuitively known as GSE-8 after SpaceX chose to scrap one of the original seven planned tanks earlier this year, the company wasted no time installing it shortly after its two-mile trip down the highway. GSE-8 is the second of two liquid methane (LCH4) tanks now installed at the orbital launch site and joins another three liquid oxygen (LOx) and two liquid nitrogen (LN2) tanks for a total of seven.
Combined, the OLS tank farm should be able to store more than 2400 tons of LCH4 and 4000 tons of LOx, as well as 2600+ tons of LN2 to be used for ‘subcooling’ (and thus densifying) that propellant well below its boiling point. Ultimately, that means that despite the massive scale of Starbase’s first orbital-class tank farm, it will still only hold enough propellant for a single orbital Starship launch and have to be almost fully restocked after each flight.
Given the logistical nightmare of arranging something like 100+ tanker trucks for each tank farm ‘refill,’ a process that could easily take a week or more on its own, it should come as no surprise that SpaceX is also building a dedicated liquid oxygen and nitrogen plant adjacent to its Starbase factory. On top of liquid natural gas (LNG) refinery and tenuous plans to potentially tap local natural gas wells, SpaceX is clearly well aware of the logistical challenges of regular Starship launches.
While there are no clear signs of the inevitable permitting and environmental reviews it would require, it’s likely that SpaceX will eventually create a brief above or below-ground cryogenic pipeline connecting its propellant factory to Starbase’s orbital launch site(s). If or when implemented, that would allow SpaceX to resupply its two planned orbital tank farms with minimal effort or human intervention beyond the process of producing the propellant.
For the time being, SpaceX will likely rely on a slow but simple parade of tanker trucks to gradually fill its first orbital tank farm. Before even that process is possible, though, SpaceX will need to finish plumbing GSE-8 and several other tanks, install the last two insulative ‘cryoshells,’ and finally fill the annuli between all seven tanks and their shells with an insulative foam-like material known as perlite. Dozens of bags of perlite and several kilns (used to expand the material into low density insulation) are already distributed around the orbital tank farm.
Meanwhile, SpaceX also continues to slowly fill the first two completed OLS tanks (nominally meant to hold LOx) with liquid nitrogen, serving both to test the tanks and pad plumbing and to clean their interiors for liquid oxygen service. Ultimately, while a good amount of work remains, Starbase’s first orbital-class tank farm could be fully ready to support its first Super Heavy booster proof and static fire test campaign just a few weeks from now.
News
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile want 290 MHz cut from an FCC satellite plan before Thursday.
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are asking the Federal Communications Commission to pull nearly 300 MHz of spectrum out of a proposal that would let satellite companies like SpaceX offer cell service directly to ordinary phones. The request lands one day before the agency votes on it.
The FCC will vote Thursday, October 29, on a notice of proposed rulemaking that would make an additional 482 MHz available for direct to device service, expanding the number of eligible bands from five to 13, according to the FCC fact sheet. It would also scrap the rule requiring a satellite operator to lease spectrum from carriers, replacing it with a certification that the operator has coexistence agreements in place or holds the terrestrial license itself.
That second path matters for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported earlier this month, SpaceX agreed to buy Grain Management’s nationwide 800 MHz portfolio to turn Starlink Mobile into a full US carrier, adding to the spectrum it already bought from EchoStar.
The carriers want two bands removed, 2.5 GHz and 3.45 GHz, which make up 290 MHz of the 482 MHz on the table. Through industry group CTIA, they argued that about 300 million users depend on those bands and that satellite operations in them are not technically feasible. T-Mobile, which calls 2.5 GHz the foundation of its Ultra Capacity 5G network, said in its own filing that satellite interference could wipe out up to 96% of a cell site’s uplink coverage area and cut uplink speeds by 88% to 99%.
Executives from all three carriers met with FCC staff on October 20, and T-Mobile CEO Srini Gopalan met separately with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. T-Mobile’s role stands out because it is still SpaceX’s US launch partner for Starlink Mobile. The three carriers have also teamed up on their own satellite joint venture to pool spectrum, a move widely seen as a response to Starlink.
SpaceX is asking for the opposite. In an October 23 filing after meetings with FCC staff and commissioners’ offices, the company asked regulators to add the 902 to 928 MHz band to the proposal. “Doing so now saves time later,” SpaceX wrote. The company also asked the FCC to modernize interference rules and align satellite deployment requirements with those for terrestrial cell networks, saying the goal is to let satellite and ground networks work together so Americans stay connected wherever they are.
The carriers have not been shy about how they view SpaceX as a competitor. On Verizon’s third quarter earnings call Monday, its chief executive said Starlink Mobile “just can’t compete with a terrestrial network” and estimated SpaceX would need four to six years and $300 billion to $500 billion to build a full US carrier network.
Thursday’s vote will not settle which bands survive. Adopting the notice opens a public comment period, with final rules to come later in the proceeding. The FCC already considered and rejected 2.5 GHz for satellite coverage once, in 2024. SpaceX also is not the only satellite player watching: the FCC approved Amazon’s $11.6 billion acquisition of Globalstar on October 27, giving its planned direct to device fleet its own mobile satellite spectrum.
A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.
The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.
There were no injuries reported.
🚨 A Tesla Semi reportedly caught fire, with California Highway Patrol confirming. The Semi was on I-880 SB
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.
However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.
@Tslachan From on of the videos looks like it’s an old Semi (not the refresh version that recently started production) https://t.co/KzwmR2kXow
— Area Under The Curve 🎗️ (@AreaUnderCurve) October 28, 2026
At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.
The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.
The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.
Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.
A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.
“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”
🚨 Here’s the first look at Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away function in action:
Apparently this driver accidentally enabled it and drove forward; you can see the Supercharger pull with the car.
Tesla said previously this would cost up to $25k if not used properly. https://t.co/B4qQRrsO6B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.
Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.
Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:
- You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
- You must leave the area immediately.
- Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
- Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.
After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know
