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.
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
