News
SpaceX’s odd Starbase propellant storage tank prototype passes first test
Likely to the relief of many, SpaceX appears to have successfully tested a prototype of the custom-built Starbase propellant storage tanks that will eventually hold thousands of tons of fuel and oxidizer.
For reasons unknown, SpaceX’s built its first ground support equipment (GSE) ‘test tank’ – a subscale prototype designed to quickly verify basic production quality and design goals – months after it began mass-producing operational storage tanks. In fact, of the seven total GSE tanks expected to be built, SpaceX has already completed seven, installed five, and scrapped one. Known as GSE4, SpaceX actually used modified parts of that scrapped tank to assemble the GSE test tank that first rolled to Starbase’s launch (and test) facilities on August 23rd.
Two days later, SpaceX subjected the small tank to its first test.
Given that SpaceX appears to have almost retroactively assembled the GSE4 test tank after building the final products, the results from its testing were always going to be significantly more anxiety-inducing than any of the more than half-dozen other tanks the company has tested in the last year and a half. Having already fabricated, assembled, or even installed six of seven planned GSE tanks, the discovery of major issues during testing could potentially cause months of delays by forcing SpaceX to perform lengthy repairs or even fully scrap all six existing tanks and start over.
Thankfully, at least for the time being, it appears that SpaceX can write off those potential worst-case scenarios. On August 25th, SpaceX took advantage of a test window initially believed to be for Starship S20 and put the cobbled-together GSE4 tank through its paces for the first time. As with previous test tanks, all SpaceX can really do is fill the prototype with liquid nitrogen (LN2), a non-flammable alternative to liquid oxygen or methane propellant that is approximately as cold and heavy. As a storage tank prototype, though, GSE4 has no need for hydraulic ram setups used to simulate the thrust of Raptor engines on several previous prototypes.
As such, one or several cryogenic proof tests were all that were ever really in GSE4’s future. On GSE4’s first test, SpaceX performed a more or less normal cryogenic proof, completely filling the tank with LN2, closing its vents, and then allowing the natural process of LN2 boiloff to raise the tank to the desired test pressure. However, unlike other test tanks, GSE4 never actually appeared to reopen its main vents. In fact, SpaceX may have never actually drained liquid nitrogen from the test tank, instead simply letting it slowly warm up and boil off into gas that was seemingly managed and vented by ground systems instead of the tank itself.
As a result, GSE4 stayed frosty (indicating a significant amount of remaining liquid nitrogen) for more than eight hours, strongly implying that it was either very slowly drained or simply allowed to warm up naturally. Given that large cryogenic storage tanks really don’t have to be significantly pressurized to complete their job, it’s possible that GSE4’s first test was primarily meant to verify the basic structural integrity of a tank that’s slightly different than those on Starship and, more importantly, test a different method of pressure and fluid management where most of that work is done by external, permanent systems on the ground.
That’s exactly what one might expect of rocket tankage slightly modified to serve as ground storage tanks. SpaceX’s GSE tanks never have to act as self-contained units and can instead rely almost entirely on separate systems.
Aside from verifying that that slightly different method of tank operations works as expected, GSE4’s first test likely also allowed SpaceX to better characterize the thermal properties of the thin steel skin and domes that are Starship and GSE tanks. Unlike GSE4, operational GSE tanks will be enclosed inside 12m (~40 ft) wide ‘cryo shells’ designed to insulate their cryogenic contents, but the insulative properties of the inner tanks (or the lack there of, rather) will still determine how well that insulation works and how much is actually needed to reach the desired boiloff rates. A contractor hired by SpaceX has already completed all seven cryo shells, so any results gathered from GSE4 will obviously be more of a check than a developmental test, but data is still data.
News
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works
For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions appeared to be dead in the water after a large amount of speculation late last year that the company would add the user interface seemed to cool down after several weeks of reports.
However, it appears that CarPlay might make its way to Tesla vehicles after all, as a recent report seems to indicate that it is still being worked on by software teams for the company.
The real question is whether it is truly needed or if it is just a want by so many owners that Tesla is listening and deciding to proceed with its development.
Back in November, Bloomberg reported that Tesla was in the process of testing Apple CarPlay within its vehicles, which was a major development considering the company had resisted adopting UIs outside of its own for many years.
Nearly one-third of car buyers considered the lack of CarPlay as a deal-breaker when buying their cars, a study from McKinsey & Co. outlined. This could be a driving decision in Tesla’s inability to abandon the development of CarPlay in its vehicles, especially as it lost a major advantage that appealed to consumers last year: the $7,500 EV tax credit.
Tesla owners propose interesting theory about Apple CarPlay and EV tax credit
Although we saw little to no movement on it since the November speculation, Tesla is now reportedly in the process of still developing the user interface. Mark Gurman, a Bloomberg writer with a weekly newsletter, stated that CarPlay is “still in the works” at Tesla and that more concrete information will be available “soon” regarding its development.
While Tesla already has a very capable and widely accepted user interface, CarPlay would still be an advantage, considering many people have used it in their vehicles for years. Just like smartphones, many people get comfortable with an operating system or style and are resistant to using a new one. This could be a big reason for Tesla attempting to get it in their own cars.
Tesla gets updated “Apple CarPlay” hack that can work on new models
For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.
It holds one distinct advantage over Tesla’s UI in my opinion, and that’s the ability to read and respond to text messages, which is something that is available within a Tesla, but is not as user-friendly.
With that being said, I would still give CarPlay a shot in my Tesla. I didn’t particularly enjoy it in my Bronco Sport, but that was because Ford’s software was a bit laggy with it. If it were as smooth as Tesla’s UI, which I think it would be, it could be a really great addition to the vehicle.
With the launch of a new trim level for the Model Y last night, something almost went unnoticed — the loss of a moniker that Tesla just recently added to a couple of its variants of the all-electric crossover.
Tesla launched the Model Y All-Wheel-Drive last night, competitively priced at $41,990, but void of the luxurious features that are available within the Premium trims.
Upon examination of the car, one thing was missing, and it was noticeable: Tesla dropped the use of the “Standard” moniker to identify its entry-level offerings of the Model Y.
The Standard Model Y vehicles were introduced late last year, primarily to lower the entry price after the U.S. EV tax credit changes were made. Tesla stripped some features like the panoramic glass roof, premium audio, ambient lighting, acoustic-lined glass, and some of the storage.
Last night, it simply switched the configurations away from “Standard” and simply as the Model Y Rear-Wheel-Drive and Model Y All-Wheel-Drive.
There are three plausible reasons for this move, and while it is minor, there must be an answer for why Tesla chose to abandon the name, yet keep the “Premium” in its upper-level offerings.
“Standard” carried a negative connotation in marketing
Words like “Standard” can subtly imply “basic,” “bare-bones,” or “cheap” to consumers, especially when directly contrasted with “Premium” on the configurator or website. Dropping it avoids making the entry-level Model Y feel inferior or low-end, even though it’s designed for affordability.
Tesla likely wanted the base trim to sound neutral and spec-focused (e.g., just “RWD” highlights drivetrain rather than feature level), while “Premium” continues to signal desirable upgrades, encouraging upsells to higher-margin variants.
Simplifying the overall naming structure for less confusion
The initial “Standard vs. Premium” split (plus Performance) created a somewhat clunky hierarchy, especially as Tesla added more variants like Standard Long Range in some markets or the new AWD base.
Removing “Standard” streamlines things to a more straightforward progression (RWD → AWD → Premium RWD/AWD → Performance), making the lineup easier to understand at a glance. This aligns with Tesla’s history of iterative naming tweaks to reduce buyer hesitation.
Elevating brand perception and protecting perceived value
Keeping “Premium” reinforces that the bulk of the Model Y lineup (especially the popular Long Range models) remains a premium product with desirable features like better noise insulation, upgraded interiors, and tech.
Eliminating “Standard” prevents any dilution of the Tesla brand’s upscale image—particularly important in a competitive EV market—while the entry-level variants can quietly exist as accessible “RWD/AWD” options without drawing attention to them being decontented versions.
You can check out the differences between the “Standard” and “Premium” Model Y vehicles below:
@teslarati There are some BIG differences between the Tesla Model Y Standard and Tesla Model Y Premium #tesla #teslamodely ♬ Sia – Xeptemper
Elon Musk
Tesla bull sees odds rising of Tesla merger after Musk confirms SpaceX-xAI deal
Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities wrote on Tuesday that there is a growing chance Tesla could be merged in some form with SpaceX and xAI over the next 12 to 18 months.
A prominent Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) bull has stated that the odds are rising that Tesla could eventually merge with SpaceX and xAI, following Elon Musk’s confirmation that the private space company has combined with his artificial intelligence startup.
Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities wrote on Tuesday that there is a growing chance Tesla could be merged in some form with SpaceX and xAI over the next 12 to 18 months.
“In our view there is a growing chance that Tesla will eventually be merged in some form into SpaceX/xAI over time. The view is this growing AI ecosystem will focus on Space and Earth together…..and Musk will look to combine forces,” Ives wrote in a post on X.
Ives’ comments followed confirmation from Elon Musk late Monday that SpaceX has merged with xAI. Musk stated that the merger creates a vertically integrated platform that combines AI, rockets, satellite internet, communications, and real-time data.
In a post on SpaceX’s official website, Elon Musk added that the combined company is aimed at enabling space-based AI compute, stating that within two to three years, space could become the lowest-cost environment for generating AI processing power. The transaction reportedly values the combined SpaceX-xAI entity at roughly $1.25 trillion.
Tesla, for its part, has already increased its exposure to xAI, announcing a $2 billion investment in the startup last week in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter.
While merger speculation has intensified, notable complications could emerge if SpaceX/xAI does merge with Tesla, as noted in a report from Investors Business Daily.
SpaceX holds major U.S. government contracts, including with the Department of Defense and NASA, and xAI’s Grok is being used by the U.S. Department of War. Tesla, for its part, maintains extensive operations in China through Gigafactory Shanghai and its Megapack facility.
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works
Tesla brings closure to Model Y moniker with launch of new trim level
