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.
Lifestyle
California hits Tesla Cybercab and Robotaxi driverless cars with new law
California just gave police power to ticket driverless cars, including Tesla’s Cybercab fleet.
California DMV formally adopted new rules on April 29, 2026 that allow law enforcement to issue “notices of noncompliance”, or in other words, ticket autonomous vehicle companies when their cars commit moving violations. The rules take effect July 1, 2026, officially closes a regulatory gap that previously let driverless cars operate on public roads with nearly no traffic enforcement consequences.
Until now, state traffic law only applied to human “drivers,” which meant that when no person was behind the wheel, police had no mechanism to issue a ticket. Officers were limited to citing driverless vehicles for parking violations only. A well-known example came in September 2025, when a San Bruno officer watched a Waymo robotaxi execute an illegal U-turn and could do nothing but notify the company.
Under the new framework, when an officer observes a violation, the autonomous vehicle company is effectively treated as the driver. Companies must report each incident to the DMV within 72 hours, or 24 hours if a collision is involved. Repeated violations can result in fleet size restrictions, operational suspensions, or full permit revocation. Local officials also gained new authority to geofence driverless vehicles out of active emergency zones within two minutes and require a live emergency response line answered within 30 seconds.
Tesla Cybercab ramps Robotaxi public street testing as vehicle enters mass production queue
California’s new enforcement rules arrive at a pivotal moment for Tesla. The company is ramping Cybercab production at Giga Texas toward hundreds of units per week, targeting at least 2 million units annually at full capacity, while simultaneously pushing to expand its Robotaxi service to dozens of U.S. cities by end of 2026. Unsupervised FSD for consumer vehicles is currently targeted for Q4 2026, and when it arrives, Tesla’s fleet may not have a human to absorb legal accountability, under the July 1 rules.
Tesla has confirmed plans to expand its Robotaxi service to seven new cities in the first half of 2026, including Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Miami, Orlando, Tampa, and Las Vegas, with the service already running without safety drivers in Austin. Musk has said he expects robotaxis to cover between a quarter and half of the United States by end of year.
News
Tesla Model X shocks everyone by crushing every other used car in America
The Model X is one of Tesla’s flagship models, the other being the Model S. Earlier this year, Tesla confirmed it would discontinue production of both the Model S and Model X to make way for Optimus robot production at the Fremont Factory in Northern California.
The Tesla Model X was the fastest-selling used vehicle in the United States in the first quarter of the year, crushing every other used car in America.
iSeeCars data for the first quarter shows that the Model X was the fastest-selling used car, lasting just 25.6 days on the market on average, two days better than that of the second-place Lexus RX 350h. The Cybertruck, Model Y, and Model S, in seventh, ninth, and thirteenth place, respectively, also made the list.
The Model X is one of Tesla’s flagship models, the other being the Model S. Earlier this year, Tesla confirmed it would discontinue production of both the Model S and Model X to make way for Optimus robot production at the Fremont Factory in Northern California.
Tesla brings closure to flagship ‘sentimental’ models, Musk confirms
Bringing closure to these two vehicles signaled the end of the road for the cars that have effectively built Tesla’s reputation for luxury and high-end passenger vehicles.
Relying on the sales of its mass market Model Y and Model 3, as well as leaning on the success of future products like the Cybercab, is the angle Tesla has chosen to take.
Teslas are also performing extremely well as a whole on the resale market. iSeeCars data shows that, “while the average price of a 1- to 5-year-old non-Tesla EV fell 10.3% in Q1 2026 year-over-year, the average price of a used Tesla was essentially flat at 0.1% lower across the same period. Traditional gas car prices dropped 2.8% during this same period.”
Additionally, market share for gas cars has dropped nearly 3 percent since the same quarter last year. Tesla has remained level, while the non-Tesla EV market share has increased 30 percent, mostly due to more models available.
Nevertheless, those non-Tesla EVs have seen their value drop by over 10 percent, while Tesla’s values have remained level.
Executive Analyst Karl Brauer said:
“Used electric vehicles without a Tesla badge have lost more than 10% of their value in the past year. This compares to stable values for Teslas and hybrids, and a modest 2.8% drop for traditional gasoline vehicles.”
Teslas, as well as non-luxury hybrids, are displaying the strongest resistance in the face of faltering demand, the publication says. But the more impressive performance is that of the Model X alone.
Tesla’s decision to stop production of the Model X may have played some part in the vehicle’s pristine performance in Q1. With the car already placed at a premium price point, used models are already more appealing to consumers. Perhaps second-hand versions were more than enough for those who wanted a Model X, and only a Model X.
Cybertruck
Tesla Cybertruck’s head-scratching trim sold terribly, recall documents reveal
The head-scratching offering was only available for a few months, and evidently, it did not sell very well, which we all suspected. New recall documents on the vehicle from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) now reveal just how poorly it sold.
After Tesla decided to build a Rear-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck trim back in 2025, which was void of many features and only featured a small discount.
The head-scratching offering was only available for a few months, and evidently, it did not sell very well, which we all suspected. New recall documents on the vehicle from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) now reveal just how poorly it sold.
The recall deals with a potentially separating wheel stud and potentially impacts 173 Cybertruck units with the 18-inch steel wheels. The Cybertruck RWD was the only trim level to feature these, and the 173 potentially impacted units represent a portion of the population of pickups. Therefore, it’s not the entire number of RWD Cybertruck sold, but it could show how little interest it gathered.
The NHTSA document states:
“On affected vehicles, higher severity road perturbations and cornering may strain the stud hole in the wheel rotor, causing cracks to form. If cracking propagates with continued use and strain, the wheel stud could eventually separate from the wheel hub.”
Only 5 percent are expected to be impacted, meaning less than 10 units will have the issue if the NHTSA and Tesla estimates are correct. Nevertheless, the true story here is how terribly the RWD Cybertruck sold.
Tesla ended production and stopped offering the RWD Cybertruck to customers last September. For just $10,000 less than the All-Wheel-Drive trim, Tesla offered the RWD Cybertruck with just one motor, textile seats instead of leather, only 7 speakers instead of 15, no Rear Touchscreen, no Powered Tonneau Cover for the truck bed, and no 120v/240v outlets.
For just $10,000 more, at $79,990, owners could have received all of those premium features, as well as a more capable All-Wheel-Drive powertrain that featured Adaptive Air Suspension. The discount simply was not worth the sacrifices.
Orders were few and far between, and sources told us that when it was offered, sales were extremely tempered because customers could not see the value in this trim level.
Even Tesla’s most loyal supporters thought the offering was kind of a joke, and the $10,000 extra was simply worth it.
California hits Tesla Cybercab and Robotaxi driverless cars with new law
Tesla Model X shocks everyone by crushing every other used car in America
