News
SpaceX’s orbital Starship launch pad tank farm comes to life for the first time
Update: Two days after a bevy of tanker trucks began to arrive at SpaceX’s orbital Starship launch site with load upon load of cryogenic liquid nitrogen, the company’s custom-built tank farm appears to have taken its very first ‘breaths.’
In other words, at least one of seven massive propellant storage tanks – two of which appear to have been fully completed and insulated – began venting. For a tank like SpaceX’s ground support equipment (GSE) tanks, the level of venting observed can only mean one thing: pressure maintenance during operations with cryogenic fluids. As cryofluids are loaded into empty tanks, they inevitably come into contact with warm pipes and tank walls, rapidly warming a portion of the liquid that then boils into gas. Tanks then need to vent that excess gas to avoid bursting.
In the case of SpaceX’s two completed liquid oxygen GSE tanks and a spate of liquid nitrogen (LN2) deliveries this week, it’s clear that the company has begun the process of testing and activating part of its brand new orbital-class Starship tank farm – beginning with much less risky LN2 proof testing. Filling the two finished LOx tanks with LN2 should also serve the dual purpose of flushing and cleaning them of any debris or contaminants, ensuring that it’s safe to fill them with LOx when the time comes.
For the first time, SpaceX appears to have begun delivering large quantities of cryogenic fluids to Starship’s orbital launch pad – still under construction but fast approaching some level of initial operational capability.
Sometime in the morning on September 19th, a semi-truck carrying a cryogenic liquid nitrogen (LN2) transport trailer arrived at SpaceX’s Starbase launch facilities. Normally, that would be a completely mundane, uninteresting event: SpaceX has used and will continue to use liquid nitrogen to safely proof test Starship prototypes and supercool their liquid methane (LCH4) and oxygen (LOx) propellant for the indefinite future. However, up to now, 100% of all Starbase cryogen deliveries have gone to the suborbital launch site, where two “mounts” and a few concrete aprons have supported all Starship and Super Heavy tests and launches to date.
Instead, this particular LN2 tanker headed for Starbase’s first orbital tank farm and began to offload its cryogenic liquid cargo at a number of brand new fill stations specifically designed for the task.
Still well under construction and at least a few weeks or months from total complete, Starship’s orbital launch site tank farm will ultimately be a group of eight massive storage tanks surrounded by thousands of feet of insulated plumbing, industrial pumps, a small army of “cryocoolers,” a blockhouse filled with human-sized valves, and much more. Said tank farm has been under construction for the better part of 2021, beginning with work on its concrete foundation this January.
Nine months later, the orbital tank farm is nearly complete. A power distribution and communications blockhouse has been complete for weeks with virtually all the wiring and cabling needed for the orbital launch mount and tower already in place. Several hundred feet of concrete cable and plumbing conduit have been filled with thousands of feet of wires, cables, and pipes and been sealed and buried. The tank farm blockhouse – where a dozen or so massive valves control the flow of propellant to and from the orbital launch mount and tower – is complete save for some final plumbing.
Finally, seven of eight GSE (ground support equipment) tanks have been installed and partially plumbed. Built in the same factory, six are virtually identical to Starship and Super Heavy tanks and will store LOx (3x), LN2 (2x), LCH4 (2x), and around a million gallons of water. Save for one LCH4 tank, all have been installed at the farm and that last tank (known as GSE8) is nearly complete back at the build site. Additionally, to insulate those seven thin, steel storage tanks, SpaceX has contracted with a water/storage tank company to build seven “cryoshells” and said million-gallon water tank.
The water tank was installed months ago and all seven shells are completed and ready to go as of last month. Only two of those seven cryoshells have been installed – and, rather asymmetrically, both on LOx tanks. SpaceX recently rolled the first LN2 tank cryoshell to the farm and could install it soon but as of now, it will likely be weeks before the orbital tank farm will have sleeved, insulated LOx, LN2, and LCH4 tanks ready for testing.
At the moment, that’s one of the biggest points of uncertainty standing between SpaceX and the ability to test Super Heavy or Starship at the orbital launch site. It’s entirely unclear if uninsulated GSE tanks can support any kind of substantial testing – like, say, the first full Super Heavy static fire test campaign – before their contents effectively boil off. As such, it’s a bit of mystery why SpaceX then had at least three tanker loads of liquid nitrogen – likely more than 70 tons (~150,000 lb) total – delivered to the orbital tank farm on September 19th.
By all appearances the first time that the farm’s actual main tanks have been filled with anything, that liquid nitrogen seems to have been loaded into one or both of the two insulated LOx tanks. There are two or three main explanations. First, SpaceX could simply be testing those more or less completed tanks with their first cryogenic fluids. Those partial ‘cryo proof’ tests would also help clean and flush out the interior of the LOx tanks, removing mundane debris or contamination that could become a major hazard when submerged in a high-density oxidizer. Given that both tanks can easily hold ~1300 tons (~2.9M lb) of liquid nitrogen, 70 tons is more of a tickle than a test, though, so a magnitude more would need to be delivered to perform even a half-decent bare-minimum cryoproof.
The other distinct possibility is that SpaceX plans to temporarily use one or both of the only two finished orbital pad tanks to store liquid nitrogen for Super Heavy Booster 4’s first cryogenic proof test. Either way, SpaceX has test windows scheduled every day this week, beginning with a six-hour window that opens at 5pm CDT today (Sept 20). Stay tuned to find out what exactly SpaceX plans to test and if the orbital tank farm and its first taste of liquid nitrogen are involved!
News
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.2.5 might be the most confusing release ever
With each Full Self-Driving release, I am realistic. I know some things are going to get better, and I know some things will regress slightly. However, these instances of improvements are relatively mild, as are the regressions. Yet, this version has shown me that it contains extremes of both.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.2.5 hit my car back on Valentine’s Day, February 14, and since I’ve had it, it has become, in my opinion, the most confusing release I’ve ever had.
With each Full Self-Driving release, I am realistic. I know some things are going to get better, and I know some things will regress slightly. However, these instances of improvements are relatively mild, as are the regressions. Yet, this version has shown me that it contains extremes of both.
It has been about three weeks of driving on v14.2.2.5; I’ve used it for nearly every mile traveled since it hit my car. I’ve taken short trips of 10 minutes or less, I’ve taken medium trips of an hour or less, and I’ve taken longer trips that are over 100 miles per leg and are over two hours of driving time one way.
These are my thoughts on it thus far:
Speed Profiles Are a Mixed Bag
Speed Profiles are something Tesla seems to tinker with quite frequently, and each version tends to show a drastic difference in how each one behaves compared to the previous version.
I do a vast majority of my FSD travel using Standard and Hurry modes, although in bad weather, I will scale it back to Chill, and when it’s a congested city on a weekend or during rush hour, I’ll throw it into Mad Max so it takes what it needs.
Early on, Speed Profiles really felt great. This is one of those really subjective parts of the FSD where someone might think one mode travels too quickly, whereas another person might see the identical performance as too slow or just right.
To me, I would like to see more consistency from release to release on them, but overall, things are pretty good. There are no real complaints on my end, as I had with previous releases.
In a past release, Mad Max traveled under the speed limit quite frequently, and I only had that experience because Hurry was acting the same way. I’ve had no instances of that with v14.2.2.5.
Strange Turn Signal Behavior
This is the first Full Self-Driving version where I’ve had so many weird things happen with the turn signals.
Two things come to mind: Using a turn signal on a sharp turn, and ignoring the navigation while putting the wrong turn signal on. I’ve encountered both things on v14.2.2.5.
On my way to the Supercharger, I take a road that has one semi-sharp right-hand turn with a driveway entrance right at the beginning of the turn.
Only recently, with the introduction of v14.2.2.5, have I had FSD put on the right turn signal when going around this turn. It’s obviously a minor issue, but it still happens, and it’s not standard practice:
How can we get Full Self-Driving to stop these turn signals?
There’s no need to use one here; the straight path is a driveway, not a public road. The right turn signal here is unnecessary pic.twitter.com/7uLDHnqCfv
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 28, 2026
When sharing this on X, I had Tesla fans (the ones who refuse to acknowledge that the company can make mistakes) tell me that it’s a “valid” behavior that would be taught to anyone who has been “professionally trained” to drive.
Apparently, if you complain about this turn signal, you are also claiming you know more than Tesla engineers…okay.
Nobody in their right mind has ever gone around a sharp turn when driving their car and put on a signal when continuing on the same road. You would put a left turn signal on to indicate you were turning into that driveway if that’s what your intention was.
Like I said, it’s a totally minor issue. However, it’s not really needed, and nor is it normal. If I were in the car with someone who was taking a simple turn on a road they were traveling, and they signaled because the turn was sharp, I’d be scratching my head.
I’ve also had three separate instances of the car completely ignoring the navigation and putting on a signal that is opposite to what the routing says. Really quite strange.
Parking Performance is Still Underwhelming
Parking has been a complaint of mine with FSD for a long time, so much so that it is pretty rare that I allow the vehicle to park itself. More often than not, it is because I want to pick a spot that is relatively isolated.
However, in the times I allow it to pull into a spot, it still does some pretty head-scratching things.
Recently, it tried to back into a spot that was ~60% covered in plowed snow. The snow was piled about six feet high in a Target parking lot.
A few days later, it tried backing into a spot where someone failed the universal litmus test of returning their shopping cart. Both choices were baffling and required me to manually move the car to a different portion of the lot.
I used Autopark on both occasions, and it did a great job of getting into the spot. I notice that the parking performance when I manually choose the spot is much better than when the car does the entire parking process, meaning choosing the spot and parking in it.
It’s Doing Things (For Me) It’s Never Done Before
Two things that FSD has never done before, at least for me, are slow down in School Zones and avoid deer. The first is something I usually take over manually, and the second I surprisingly have not had to deal with yet.
I had my Tesla slow down at a school zone yesterday for the first time, traveling at 20 MPH and not 15 MPH as the sign suggested, but at the speed of other cars in the School Zone. This was impressive and the first time I experienced it.
I would like to see this more consistently, and I think School Zones should be one of those areas where, no matter what, FSD will only travel the speed limit.
Last night, FSD v14.2.2.5 recognized a deer in a roadside field and slowed down for it:
🚨 Cruising home on a rainy, foggy evening and my Tesla on Full Self-Driving begins to slow down suddenly
FSD just wanted Mr. Deer to make it home to his deer family ❤️ pic.twitter.com/cAeqVDgXo5
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 4, 2026
Navigation Still SUCKS
Navigation will be a complaint until Tesla proves it can fix it. For now, it’s just terrible.
It still has not figured out how to leave my neighborhood. I give it the opportunity to prove me wrong each time I leave my house, and it just can’t do it.
It always tries to go out of the primary entrance/exit of the neighborhood when the route needs to take me left, even though that exit is a right turn only. I always leave a voice prompt for Tesla about it.
It still picks incredibly baffling routes for simple navigation. It’s the one thing I still really want Tesla to fix.
Investor's Corner
Tesla gets tip of the hat from major Wall Street firm on self-driving prowess
“Tesla is at the forefront of autonomous driving, supported by a camera-only approach that is technically harder but much cheaper than the multi-sensor systems widely used in the industry. This strategy should allow Tesla to scale more profitably compared to Robotaxi competitors, helped by a growing data engine from its existing fleet,” BoA wrote.
Tesla received a tip of the hat from major Wall Street firm Bank of America on Wednesday, as it reinitiated coverage on Tesla shares with a bullish stance that comes with a ‘Buy’ rating and a $460 price target.
In a new note that marks a sharp reversal from its neutral position earlier in 2025, the bank declared Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology the “leading consumer autonomy solution.”
Analysts highlighted Tesla’s camera-only architecture, known as Tesla Vision, as a strategic masterstroke. While technically more challenging than the multi-sensor setups favored by rivals, the vision-based approach is dramatically cheaper to produce and maintain.
This cost edge, combined with Tesla’s rapidly expanding real-world data engine, positions the company to scale robotaxis far more profitably than competitors, BofA argues in the new note:
“Tesla is at the forefront of autonomous driving, supported by a camera-only approach that is technically harder but much cheaper than the multi-sensor systems widely used in the industry. This strategy should allow Tesla to scale more profitably compared to Robotaxi competitors, helped by a growing data engine from its existing fleet.”
The bank now attributes roughly 52% of Tesla’s total valuation to its Robotaxi ambitions. It also flagged meaningful upside from the Optimus humanoid robot program and the fast-growing energy storage business, suggesting the auto segment’s recent headwinds, including expired incentives, are being eclipsed by these higher-margin opportunities.
Tesla’s own data underscores exactly why Wall Street is waking up to FSD’s potential. According to Tesla’s official safety reporting page, the FSD Supervised fleet has now surpassed 8.4 billion cumulative miles driven.
Tesla FSD (Supervised) fleet passes 8.4 billion cumulative miles
That total ballooned from just 6 million miles in 2021 to 80 million in 2022, 670 million in 2023, 2.25 billion in 2024, and a staggering 4.25 billion in 2025 alone. In the first 50 days of 2026, owners added another 1 billion miles — averaging more than 20 million miles per day.
This avalanche of real-world, camera-captured footage, much of it on complex city streets, gives Tesla an unmatched training dataset. Every mile feeds its neural networks, accelerating improvement cycles that lidar-dependent rivals simply cannot match at scale.
Tesla owners themselves will tell you the suite gets better with every release, bringing new features and improvements to its self-driving project.
The $460 target implies roughly 15 percent upside from recent trading levels around $400. While regulatory and safety hurdles remain, BofA’s endorsement signals growing institutional conviction that Tesla’s data advantage is not hype; it’s a tangible moat already delivering billions of miles of proof.
News
Tesla to discuss expansion of Samsung AI6 production plans: report
Tesla has reportedly requested an additional 24,000 wafers per month, which would bring total production capacity to around 40,000 wafers if finalized.
Tesla is reportedly discussing an expansion of its next-generation AI chip supply deal with Samsung Electronics.
As per a report from Korean industry outlet The Elec, Tesla purchasing executives are reportedly scheduled to meet Samsung officials this week to negotiate additional production volume for the company’s upcoming AI6 chip.
Industry sources cited in the report stated that Tesla is pushing to increase the production volume of its AI6 chip, which will be manufactured using Samsung’s 2-nanometer process.
Tesla previously signed a long-term foundry agreement with Samsung covering AI6 production through December 31, 2033. The deal was reportedly valued at about 22.8 trillion won (roughly $16–17 billion).
Under the existing agreement, Tesla secured approximately 16,000 wafers per month from the facility. The company has reportedly requested an additional 24,000 wafers per month, which would bring total production capacity to around 40,000 wafers if finalized.
Tesla purchasing executives are expected to discuss detailed supply terms during their visit to Samsung this week.
The AI6 chip is expected to support several Tesla technologies. Industry sources stated that the chip could be used for the company’s Full Self-Driving system, the Optimus humanoid robot, and Tesla’s internal AI data centers.
The report also indicated that AI6 clusters could replace the role previously planned for Tesla’s Dojo AI supercomputer. Instead of a single system, multiple AI6 chips would be combined into server-level clusters.
Tesla’s semiconductor collaboration with Samsung dates back several years. Samsung participated in the design of Tesla’s HW3 (AI3) chip and manufactured it using a 14-nanometer process. The HW4 chip currently used in Tesla vehicles was also produced by Samsung using a 5-nanometer node.
Tesla previously planned to split production of its AI5 chip between Samsung and TSMC. However, the company reportedly chose Samsung as the primary partner for the newer AI6 chip.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.2.5 might be the most confusing release ever
Tesla gets tip of the hat from major Wall Street firm on self-driving prowess
