News
SpaceX is building launch pad tanks out of Starship parts and that’s a big deal
SpaceX has begun installing the first of numerous propellant storage tanks at its first orbital South Texas launch facilities – a mostly ordinary and expected step made extraordinary by the fact that those tanks will be built out of Starship parts.
Labeled “GSE” for Ground Support Equipment, the first signs of those self-built storage tanks began appearing at SpaceX’s Boca Chica Starship factory less than two months ago in mid-February. A matter of weeks later, the first of those SpaceX-brand cryogenic storage tanks is off to the launch site for installation (and insulation) while at least two more tanks are well on their way to completion.
While a few ground starge tanks may look like a distraction in the scope of a program tasked with building the world’s largest (and fully reusable) rocket, the existence of those tanks is far more significant than it might initially appear.
Simply put, rocket propellant storage – even for extremely cold cryogenic liquids like those that SpaceX uses – is a thoroughly solved problem. Numerous commercial vendors exist and industrial demand for practically identical tanks is far higher, further lowering commercial tank costs even for those with niche use-cases thanks to economies of scale. For SpaceX’s purposes, major discounts could like be secured given that the company would need to purchase around three to four-dozen commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) 100,000 gallon tanks to supply a launch pad with enough commodities for two back-to-back launches of Starship and Super Heavy.
That initial launch capability – which SpaceX appears to be working towards – would likely allow the company to start orbital refueling test flights (and Starlink launches, perhaps) immediately after completion. However, that initial capability wouldn’t suffice for ambitious missions to Mars, the Moon, or higher Earth orbits; where one Starship would need to be rapidly refueled with 3-10+ tanker launches. A launch facility capable of supporting 5-10 back-to-back launches (optimally just a few hours apart) would require many times more propellant storage.
The point is that for the initial target of two (or so) launches between commodity resupply, SpaceX could likely acquire the few dozen new storage tanks it would need for a few million dollars apiece for a total cost likely between $50M and $100M. Instead, SpaceX has decided to design and build its own propellant storage tanks. Even more significantly, the GSE tanks SpaceX has already begun building appear to be virtually identical to Starships.
In other words, SpaceX is effectively taking identical rocket parts, slightly tweaking a handful of those parts, and turning what could have been a rocket into a propellant storage tank. This is significant because relative to all other rockets in history, even including SpaceX’s own Falcon 9 and Heavy, building storage tanks with unchanged rocket parts on a rocket assembly line would be roughly akin to hiring Vincent van Gogh to paint lane lines.
Ever since Elon Musk made the radical decision to switch from composite structures to stainless steel, Starship has always aimed to be radically different than any large rocket before it. Crucially, by using commodity steel, the CEO imagined SpaceX would be able to build Starships fairly easily and for pennies on the dollar next to even SpaceX’s exceptionally affordable Falcon 9. In the last 18 months, it’s become apparent that SpaceX has built a factory capable of churning out one or two massive steel rockets per month and is willing to consign at least four or five of those Starship prototypes to all-but-guaranteed failures for the sake of data-gathering and iterative improvement.
Technically, the most logical conclusion would be that Musk was right and that SpaceX has quickly developed the ability to build steel rockets larger than any other launch vehicle on Earth for perhaps just $5M or less apiece. However, SpaceX is also raising on the order of $1-2B in venture capital annually, so they could technically afford to shoulder the cost of extremely expensive Starship prototypes if the company was confident that there was a path to cut those costs and reach the targets needed for the rocket to make economical sense.
Now, the existence of self-built propellant storage tanks virtually identical to flightworthy Starship airframes all but guarantees that SpaceX is already building Starships for a few million dollars each – and possibly much less. More than a year ago, Musk said that SpaceX was already building the Raptor engines that will power Starship and Super Heavy for less than $1M apiece and was working to mass-produce a simpler variant for less than $250,000. Beyond engines and primary structures, Starship hardware is fairly simple and ranges from Tesla-derived motors, basic flaps, and landing legs to off-the-shelf pressure vessels (COPVs) and wiring. SpaceX has managed that extraordinary cost-efficiency despite the fact that Boca Chica is still nowhere close to the level of volume production Musk is aiming for, meaning that there are still far more efficiencies waiting to be realized.
For now, with virtually no retooling and the exact same assembly line, SpaceX’s South Texas rocket factory is busy churning out massive launch pad tanks – one of which is already preparing for installation while another two speed towards completion. All told, SpaceX appears to be preparing foundations for seven 9m-wide (30ft), 27.5m-tall (90ft) Starship-derived tanks that should be capable of storing ~2200 tons (4.9 million pounds) of subcooled liquid methane in three tanks and ~7300 tons (16.1 million pounds) of liquid oxygen in the other four tanks – enough for two orbital Starship launches.
News
Tesla expands Model 3 lineup in Europe with most affordable variant yet
The Model 3 Standard still delivers more than 300 miles of range, potentially making it an attractive option for budget-conscious buyers.
Tesla has introduced a lower-priced Model 3 variant in Europe, expanding the lineup just two months after the vehicle’s U.S. debut. The Model 3 Standard still delivers more than 300 miles (480 km) of range, potentially making it an attractive option for budget-conscious buyers.
Tesla’s pricing strategy
The Model 3 Standard arrives as Tesla contends with declining registrations in several countries across Europe, where sales have not fully offset shifting consumer preferences. Many buyers have turned to options such as Volkswagen’s ID.3 and BYD’s Atto 3, both of which have benefited from aggressive pricing.
By removing select premium finishes and features, Tesla positioned the new Model 3 Standard as an “ultra-low cost of ownership” option of its all-electric sedan. Pricing comes in at €37,970 in Germany, NOK 330,056 in Norway, and SEK 449,990 in Sweden, depending on market. This places the Model 3 Standard well below the “premium” Model 3 trim, which starts at €45,970 in Germany.
Deliveries for the Standard model are expected to begin in the first quarter of 2026, giving Tesla an entry-level foothold in a segment that’s increasingly defined by sub-€40,000 offerings.
Tesla’s affordable vehicle push
The low-cost Model 3 follows October’s launch of a similarly positioned Model Y variant, signaling a broader shift in Tesla’s product strategy. While CEO Elon Musk has moved the company toward AI-driven initiatives such as robotaxis and humanoid robots, lower-priced vehicles remain necessary to support the company’s revenue in the near term.
Reports have indicated that Tesla previously abandoned plans for an all-new $25,000 EV, with the company opting to create cheaper versions of existing platforms instead. Analysts have flagged possible cannibalization of higher-margin models, but the move aims to counter an influx of aggressively priced entrants from China and Europe, many of which sell below $30,000. With the new Model 3 Standard, Tesla is reinforcing its volume strategy in Europe’s increasingly competitive EV landscape.
News
Tesla FSD (Supervised) stuns Germany’s biggest car magazine
FSD Supervised recognized construction zones, braked early for pedestrians, and yielded politely on narrow streets.
Tesla’s upcoming FSD Supervised system, set for a European debut pending regulatory approval, is showing notably refined behavior in real-world testing, including construction zones, pedestrian detection, and lane changes, as per a recent demonstration ride in Berlin.
While the system still required driver oversight, its smooth braking, steering, and decision-making illustrated how far Tesla’s driver-assistance technology has advanced ahead of a potential 2026 rollout.
FSD’s maturity in dense city driving
During the Berlin test ride with Auto Bild, Germany’s largest automotive publication, a Tesla Model 3 running FSD handled complex traffic with minimal intervention, autonomously managing braking, acceleration, steering, and overtaking up to 140 km/h. It recognized construction zones, braked early for pedestrians, and yielded politely on narrow streets.
Only one manual override was required when the system misread a converted one-way route, an example, Tesla stated, of the continuous learning baked into its vision-based architecture.
Robin Hornig of Auto Bild summed up his experience with FSD Supervised with a glowing review of the system. As per the reporter, FSD Supervised already exceeds humans with its all-around vision. “Tesla FSD Supervised sees more than I do. It doesn’t get distracted and never gets tired. I like to think I’m a good driver, but I can’t match this system’s all-around vision. It’s at its best when both work together: my experience and the Tesla’s constant attention,” the journalist wrote.
Tesla FSD in Europe
FSD Supervised is still a driver-assistance system rather than autonomous driving. Still, Auto Bild noted that Tesla’s 360-degree camera suite, constant monitoring, and high computing power mark a sizable leap from earlier iterations. Already active in the U.S., China, and several other regions, the system is currently navigating Europe’s approval pipeline. Tesla has applied for an exemption in the Netherlands, aiming to launch the feature through a free software update as early as February 2026.
What Tesla demonstrated in Berlin mirrors capabilities already common in China and the U.S., where rival automakers have rolled out hands-free or city-navigation systems. Europe, however, remains behind due to a stricter certification environment, though Tesla is currently hard at work pushing for FSD Supervised’s approval in several countries in the region.
News
Tesla reliability rankings skyrocket significantly in latest assessment
“They definitely have their struggles, but by continuing to refine and not make huge changes in their models, they’re able to make more reliable vehicles, and they’ve moved up our rankings.”
Tesla ranked in the Top 10 of the most reliable car companies for 2026, as Consumer Reports’ latest index showed significant jumps from the past two years.
In 2022, Tesla ranked 27th out of 28 brands. Last year, it came in 17th.
🚨🚨 Tesla entered the Top 10 in Consumer Reports’ list of reliable carmakers for the first time
In the past two years, Tesla has ranked 17th in 2024 and 27th out of 28 brands in 2022.
Subaru, BMW, Porsche, Honda, and Toyota were the Top 5 OEMs in the rankings. pic.twitter.com/z216bccVoH
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 4, 2025
However, 2026’s rankings were different. CR‘s rankings officially included Tesla in the Top 10, its best performance to date.
Finishing tenth, the full Top 10 is:
- Subaru
- BMW
- Porsche
- Honda
- Toyota
- Lexus
- Lincoln
- Hyundai
- Acura
- Tesla
Tesla has had steady improvements in its build quality, and its recent refinements of the Model 3 and Model Y have not gone unnoticed.
The publication’s Senior Director of Auto Testing, Jake Fisher, said about Tesla that the company’s ability to work through the rough patches has resulted in better performance (via CNBC):
“They definitely have their struggles, but by continuing to refine and not make huge changes in their models, they’re able to make more reliable vehicles, and they’ve moved up our rankings.”
He continued to say that Tesla’s vehicles have become more reliable over time, and its decision to avoid making any significant changes to its bread-and-butter vehicles has benefited its performance in these rankings.
Legacy automakers tend to go overboard with changes, sometimes keeping a model name but recognizing a change in its “generation.” This leads to constant growing pains, as the changes in design require intense adjustments on the production side of things.
Instead, Tesla’s changes mostly come from a software standpoint, which are delivered through Over-the-Air updates, which improve the vehicle’s functionality or add new features.
Only one Tesla vehicle scored below average in Consumer Reports’ rankings for 2026 was the Cybertruck. Fisher’s belief that Tesla improves its other models over time might prove to be true with Cybertruck in a few years.
He continued:
“They’re definitely improving by keeping with things and refining, but if you look at their 5- to 10-year-old models that are out there, when it comes to reliability, they’re dead last of all the brands. They’re able to improve the reliability if they don’t make major changes.”
Regarding Subaru’s gold medal placing on the podium, Fisher said:
“While Subaru models provide good performance and comfort, they also excel in areas that may not be immediately apparent during a test drive.”
Other notable brands to improve are Rivian, which bumped itself slightly from 31 to 26. Chevrolet finished 24th, GMC ended up 29th, and Ford saw itself in 18th.
Tesla expands Model 3 lineup in Europe with most affordable variant yet
Tesla FSD (Supervised) stuns Germany’s biggest car magazine
