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
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 once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
