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!
Elon Musk said weeks ago during SpaceX’s third-quarter earnings call that the company’s Grok Bot, its autonomous AI Agent platform, was showing “the fastest growth of a product” that he’d ever seen in his life.
Now, SpaceXSI is scaling back Grok Bot users’ weekly limits, much to the surprise of those who have relied on it to take away monotonous tasks in their lives.
Elon Musk’s terse November 1 reply on X captured a sharp tension in the early days of agentic AI. Responding to a user who asked for a Grok Bot usage reset after hitting 100 percent with four days still left on the weekly cycle, Musk wrote: “The cost of serving Grok Bot was unsustainably high relative to revenue.”
@DogecoinNorway The cost of serving Grok Bot was unsustainably high relative to revenue
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 1, 2026
The post arrived amid a wave of similar complaints from paying subscribers whose meters had jumped unexpectedly toward or to the limit, sometimes overnight and with little corresponding activity. It also stood in clear contrast to statements Musk had made only days and weeks earlier.
On the SpaceX third-quarter earnings call in mid-to-late October, Musk had described Grok Bot in almost the opposite terms. He called it “the fastest growth of a product that I’ve ever seen in my life” and said he had “never seen anything grow this fast.”
Company figures put paid weekly users at roughly 800,000 earlier in the month, more than doubling over the prior period. Daily active users had climbed from under 100,000 in early September to over 600,000 by late October.
Musk emphasized that the product has no free tier and that users appear to be getting real value beyond what they pay. In other remarks, he noted that usage per user was rising rather than declining, the opposite of the usual decay pattern for new software.
Grok Bot, launched around August, functions as an always-available agent with its own persistent cloud computer; it can schedule, research, shop, browse, and execute multi-step workflows even after the user steps away. Access is bundled into X subscription tiers (roughly $30, $100, and $200 per month) and certain Cursor plans, drawing from shared weekly usage pools whose exact sizes have not been publicly detailed.
The economics of that model are what Musk’s November 1 post put in the spotlight. Agentic systems burn far more compute than ordinary chatbot exchanges. Each task can trigger repeated model calls, tool use, web actions, and sustained background work.
When growth is as rapid as Musk celebrated, the absolute compute bill scales quickly even if average revenue per user stays fixed under flat monthly subscriptions. Industry observers noted the opportunity cost as well: the same GPUs can be rented to other AI labs at higher rates.
A simple back-of-the-envelope comparison circulating after the post illustrated the gap: if every reported daily user paid the top tier, annualized subscription revenue would still be modest relative to the scale of compute infrastructure SpaceX is building and leasing to companies like Anthropic.
Some users also reported possible dashboard anomalies around the same period, though Musk’s framing treated the underlying cost-revenue imbalance as the core issue rather than a pure metering glitch.
The juxtaposition is the core of this exchange. Within roughly two weeks of publicly framing Grok Bot as an unprecedented success with strong unit economics and no free tier, Musk acknowledged that serving the same product had become unsustainable relative to the revenue it generates.
For the broader industry, the episode underscores a structural challenge of the agent era: demand is real and growing faster than many expected, yet the cost of fulfilling that demand through always-on, multi-step agents can outrun subscription pricing before companies can adjust limits, introduce metered billing, or raise prices.
Musk’s reply did not promise an immediate reset or higher allowances; it simply stated the constraint. In doing so, it supplied a rare, explicit public data point on the unit economics of a high-profile AI agent just as adoption numbers were still being celebrated as the fastest in Musk’s experience.
The tension between rapid, paid growth and the compute required to deliver it is now on the record.
News
Tesla owners who tap Emergency Drive Away for fun are in for a surprise
Tapping Activate on Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away reportedly triggers a $539 service bill without moving.
Tesla owners who press Activate on Emergency Drive Away may be on the hook for a service bill even if their car never leaves the Supercharger stall.
Yaro, who posts about Tesla service cases on X as @Tutrifour, said a customer called after tapping Activate while still plugged into a Supercharger. The owner was about to pull away, remembered the cable was still connected and stopped. The car never moved, but the touchscreen showed a red alert reading “Emergency Drive Away has been activated” with “Service is required” underneath. A Service Mode screenshot showed the active alert BMS_a228_EmergencyDriveAwayServiceRequired, which Yaro said only Tesla Service can clear.
Here is a lesson to Tesla owners. Don’t press Activate on the new Emergency Drive Away feature on your Tesla because service charges $539 to inspect the charge port and to clear the alert. Yes, even if you didn’t move the car an inch. https://t.co/NZJENw4SQv
— Yaro (@Tutrifour) October 30, 2026
The cost of clearing it was the bigger surprise. “Don’t press Activate on the new Emergency Drive Away feature on your Tesla because service charges $539 to inspect the charge port and to clear the alert. Yes, even if you didn’t move the car an inch,” Yaro wrote. The $539 figure comes from that single case, and Tesla has not published a set price for the inspection or commented on the post. Yaro also noted that the car would still charge with the alert on screen.
Tesla launched Emergency Drive Away on October 1 with software update 2026.38.3, letting drivers pull away from a U.S. Supercharger with the cable still attached, as Teslarati reported. To use it, a driver shifts into Drive while connected, holds the brake and taps Activate. The prompt warns that driving with the cable connected will damage the vehicle and the Supercharger, and that short camera recordings will be shared with Tesla.
Tesla Charging has been clear about what follows a real activation. Repairs to a Supercharger stall can run up to $25,000 depending on the site, a service visit for the car’s charge port is mandatory, and deliberate misuse “will invoke additional penalties.” What the company had not spelled out is that the service requirement is triggered the moment Activate is pressed, not the moment the cable breaks away.
From an engineering standpoint, that is the cautious choice. Once Activate is pressed, the car cannot be sure the charge port latch was not stressed, so flagging it for inspection removes the guesswork. It also means the button carries a price on its own, which is a stronger deterrent against casual use than any warning screen.
Customer called because they have an active alert after tapping ACTIVATE on the new Emergency Drive Away feature. They didn’t actually drive away but were about to until they “remembered” they had the charge cable connected.
This alert can only be cleared by Tesla Service. https://t.co/SkHyJJPFwU
— Yaro (@Tutrifour) October 28, 2026
The report follows the feature’s first known real world use, when a driver in Austin during F1 weekend appeared to trigger it by accident and dragged the Supercharger cable along with the car. The Reddit user who filmed it said the driver seemed to have only half read the prompts.
For owners, the takeaway is to treat the red prompt as a stop sign. If it appears after shifting out of Park by mistake, shift back and unplug the normal way from the touchscreen, the Tesla app or the button on the charge handle. Activate is meant for moments when staying at the stall is the bigger risk, and Tesla is now pricing it that way.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk calls Earth’s data centers “peanuts” next to what SpaceX is planning in orbit
Elon Musk says SpaceX capex efficiency is underestimated as orbital data centers loom by 2028.
Elon Musk is pushing back on one of the biggest worries hanging over SpaceX stock. In a reply on X on Sunday, Musk said the company’s capital expenditure efficiency is severely underestimated. He was responding to a Milk Road Stocks post citing analyst Kyle Reidhead, who estimates SpaceX will need to spend roughly $470 billion over the next five quarters.
Reidhead built that figure around the target SpaceX set on its third quarter earnings call: 13 gigawatts or more of compute by the end of 2027. In his breakdown, Nvidia captures 83 to 89 percent of the spending. SpaceX ended the quarter with 1.7 GW of nameplate compute and guided to $35 billion to $40 billion in fourth quarter capex, as Teslarati reported.
Musk did not attach a number to his claim, but the earnings call shows the argument. CFO Bret Johnsen said new compute currently pays for itself in under a year at today’s pricing, and Musk said that window could shrink to six months next year. Using that pace, Reidhead argues about $230 billion of the $470 billion could come from operating cash flow and about $60 billion from SpaceX’s roughly $90 billion cash pile, leaving around $180 billion to borrow. Musk confirmed last week that SpaceX had already closed a new $40 billion debt raise to buy GPUs.
The ground buildout is not the end goal. It is what is meant to pay for the move to orbit. Replying on Friday to charts built from Sequoia partner Shaun Maguire’s SpaceX model, Musk wrote that “Terrestrial compute will be peanuts compared to orbital compute,” adding that orbital compute deployed per month “probably exceeds terrestrial around the end of 2028 and then far exceeds it in 2029.”
Maguire’s model shows how steep that path is. It has capex climbing from $88 billion this year to $290 billion in 2027 and $369 billion in 2028, with SpaceX burning $77.8 billion in cash this year and $122.6 billion next year before turning $114.9 billion cash positive in 2028. Musk’s response to the model was, “I think we can do better.”
The orbital half runs through Starmind. SpaceX plans to operate up to 1 million AI satellites flying in clusters of about 10, linked by roughly 10 terabits of bandwidth, with deployment of thousands of units starting as soon as late 2027 out of its Gigasat factory in Bastrop, Texas, according to SpaceX’s space safety page. Musk has said each Starmind spacecraft will carry more than 250 kW of solar power.
Getting there depends on launch volume. Maguire’s model assumes 250 Starship flights in 2028, up from two this year and 38 next year. The nearer test is financial: SpaceX guided to $33 billion to $37 billion in first quarter 2027 revenue, more than double the $14.58 billion it booked in Q3, and Musk reposted that guidance again on Sunday morning.
Grok Bot users hit with weekly limits early, Elon Musk explains what happened
Tesla owners who tap Emergency Drive Away for fun are in for a surprise
