News
SpaceX to put custom Starship propellant storage tanks through first trial
In the latest twist in the saga of SpaceX’s custom-built Starship launch pad propellant storage tanks, the company appears to have retroactively decided to build small prototype meant solely for testing.
Known as a ‘test tank,’ the relatively small steel structure was fairly rapidly assembled from parts of an older Ground Support Equipment (GSE) tank scrapped in July over the last week or so. SpaceX completed the first Starship-derived propellant storage tank in April 2021 and rapidly rolled that tank (GSE1) and a second (GSE2) from the build site to the orbital launch pad just a few weeks apart. Less than a month after that, SpaceX also completed GSE tank #3, though things seemingly devolved into chaos immediately thereafter.
Only three months later would GSE3 finally be transported to – and installed on a concrete mount at – Starship’s first orbital launch site, and only after a number of structural modifications and in the footsteps of GSE tanks #5 and #6. Little is known about why SpaceX’s custom GSE tank production faltered so soon after it began, why none of the five Starship-sized tanks installed at the orbital pad have been fully plumbed or subjected to any kind of testing, or why structural modifications were seemingly required after the fact. However, it’s safe to say that SpaceX’s brand new GSE ‘test tank’ is now at the center of the mystery.
Thankfully, at minimum, the rapid appearance of SpaceX’s first GSE test tank returns some level of familiarity to the brief but chaotic history of Starship’s orbital launch pad propellant tanks. Test tanks are nothing new and have been an integral part of Starship development since Test Tank 1 first headed to SpaceX’s suborbital launch (and test) facilities in January 2020. In the 20 months since, SpaceX has built and tested seven small test tanks, several of which didn’t survive.
Whether intentionally destroyed or not, each test tank explicitly helped SpaceX qualify new manufacturing techniques, different materials, and different skin thickness and generally gather data more quickly and cheaply than full-scale prototypes would allow. Most recently, for example, SpaceX seemingly successfully tested a Super Heavy booster test tank, subjecting the prototype to cryogenic liquid nitrogen and using hydraulic rams to simulate the thrust of nine Raptor engines on an unproven disk-like thrust structure.
Now, almost as if SpaceX snapped out of a trance and remembered the utility of test tanks, the company has assembled a subscale GSE prototype presumably meant to verify that its custom-built propellant storage tanks can handle a set of conditions significantly different from the Starships they’re derived from. In this case, that GSE tank was quite literally built from scrapped sections of GSE tank #4. In fact, the top half (forward dome section) was quite literally cut off of GSE4 after the tank was scrapped last month for unknown reasons.
Over the last several months, while GSE tank production and installation took an unexpected hiatus, SpaceX workers slowly but surely welded steel rings (stiffeners) to the exterior of GSE1, GSE2, and GSE3. When GSE5 and GSE6 eventually headed to the pad, they left with those stiffeners already installed, implying that whatever tripped SpaceX up was likely structural. The GSE4 test tank also includes external stiffeners along each circumferential weld (where rings were stacked or domes joined).
At the same time as SpaceX was (or wasn’t, for several months) building its own GSE tanks, contractors normally tasked with assembling water towers and storage tanks in situ built eight massive 12m (~40 ft) wide tanks of their own. Deemed “cryo shells,” much like their name suggests, those tanks are meant to fully enclose SpaceX’s GSE tanks. SpaceX will use those shells to insulate their thin, single-walled steel propellant tanks, thus keeping their cryogenic contents cryogenic for as long as possible. How they’ll be insulated is unclear, though.
Based on the seemingly retroactive decision to strengthen the exterior of those GSE tanks, the general consensus as of late is that SpaceX wants to pull at least a partial vacuum in the gap between shell and tank. It’s also possible that SpaceX will do the opposite and pressurize that gap (as much as possible) with an insulative gas like nitrogen. Extra confusion comes from the fact that Starship tanks are technically designed to support a literal spacecraft (operating in a near-total vacuum) without the need for external stiffeners.
Additionally, it’s fairly clear that SpaceX hasn’t built a custom subscale cryoshell or concrete installation pad for its GSE4 test tank, meaning that it will really only be useful for testing some of the loads operational GSE tanks will experience inside their sleeves. Additionally, given that SpaceX has already completed six of the orbital pad’s seven GSE tanks and all seven of their cryosleeves, the discovery of any significant issues during GSE4 testing could easily trigger months of rework and delays. With any luck, though, GSE4 will sail through an imminent test campaign, clearing the way for SpaceX to finish plumbing, sleeving, and activating Starship’s first orbital launch site tank farm.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new rules that the Trump Administration is aiming to enforce on autonomous vehicles. On Thursday, NHTSA, under the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation, commenced rulemaking on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
This effort aims to eliminate the mandate for manual brake pedals in vehicles that are designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems. This would impact the Tesla Cybercab, which the company has stated would operate without a steering wheel or pedals.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
The Trump Administration is looking to revise FMVSS No. 135, which requires standard braking systems on light-duty vehicles.
Currently, the regulation requires light-duty cars to use traditional manual braking systems that allow operators to slow the vehicle. With the advent of self-driving in the U.S., these regulations need updating, and these are the changes that could come to FMVSS No. 135:
- Removes requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles designed never to be operated by a human. Existing rules still apply to AVs that retain manual controls.
- All subject vehicles must still meet the same stopping distance performance criteria via alternative testing procedures.
- While this update ensures AVs can physically stop when commanded, NHTSA is separately developing safety performance requirements for AVs in real-world driving scenarios.
- NHTSA will continue to use its broad defect enforcement authority to investigate unsafe ADS behavior and oversee recalls.
As autonomy becomes a greater part of passenger travel, these types of rule adjustments will be more than reasonable. It will give manufacturers the ability to self-certify their vehicles and avoid any red tape that could ultimately delay the deployment of these vehicles.
Administrators are also incredibly excited about the opportunity to play a role in the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
“We are at the cusp of the greatest technological revolution in vehicle technology since the innovation of the Model T,” NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison said. “If we want America to lead the way, we have to reimagine our regulatory framework. That’s why under Secretary Sean Duffy’s AV Framework, NHTSA is tearing down pointless barriers to innovative designs while strengthening the fundamental safety requirements that matter and holding AV developers accountable for safe performance.”
The Cybercab entered mass production at Gigafactory Texas in April. Tesla ultimately plans to push the vehicle into its Robotaxi fleet, potentially when frameworks like these are established.
Tesla plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.
The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.
Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.
🚨 Tesla said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.
Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.
In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.
This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.
Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
