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.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
