

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.
Elon Musk
Tesla kicks Robotaxi geofence expansion into high gear in Austin
Tesla has nearly doubled its Robotaxi geofence in Austin for the second time less than two months after it initially launched.

Tesla has kicked the expansion of its Robotaxi geofence in Austin, Texas, into high gear, as it grew the service area once again early Sunday morning.
Tesla launched its Robotaxi platform in Austin on June 22, and less than a month later, it was able to expand it. After its first expansion, Tesla had a larger geofence than Waymo, which launched its driverless ride-hailing service to the public in Austin in March. Waymo expanded the week after Tesla’s first augmentation.
Waymo responds to Tesla’s Robotaxi expansion in Austin with bold statement
Now, Tesla has answered Waymo once again by developing its service area in Austin to an even larger size. We expected it, as just two weeks ago, CEO Elon Musk said that the company would be growing the Austin geofence, but did not give an indication by how much.
The first geofence in Austin was roughly 20 square miles. On July 14, when the first expansion took place, Tesla Robotaxi riders had roughly 42 square miles of downtown Austin available for travel.
On the morning of August 3, Tesla nearly doubled the geofence by growing it to roughly 80 square miles, according to Grok. For reference, Waymo’s current service area in Austin is about 90 square miles:
For those asking me, here is a comparison of the newly expanded @Tesla @robotaxi
service area (as of 3 August 2025) and the newly expanded Waymo service areas in Austin, Texas.The autonomous ride hailing service area & system capabilities scalability is certainly being tested… pic.twitter.com/uaPpEP66Cq
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) August 3, 2025
The expansion further extends the Southern portion of the geofence, going into suburban zones such as Barton Creek.
The continuous growth shows Tesla is prepared to extend its geofence in basically any direction. Now that it is going into suburban areas, we may get to see more Austin residents experience Robotaxi for an entire evening of activities, including pickup and dropoff at home.
🚨 Tesla Austin Robotaxi geofence sizes (in square miles):
Initial: 6/22 – ~20 square miles
First Expansion: 7/14 – ~42 square miles
Second Expansion: 8/3 – ~80 square miles pic.twitter.com/IwnvSJseE4
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 3, 2025
The only question that remains is how much Tesla can expand at one time. The company seems to have the ability to push the geofence to a majority of Austin, but it maintains that safety is its biggest priority.
The company was spotted testing vehicles in the West Austin suburbs in areas like Marble Falls recently, indicating that Tesla could be expanding its service area to hundreds of square miles in the coming months.
Elon Musk
Tesla to appeal jury verdict that held it partially liable for fatal crash
Tesla will appeal the decision from the eight-person jury.

Tesla will appeal a recent jury verdict that held it partially liable for a fatal crash that occurred in Key Largo, Florida, in 2019.
An eight-person jury ruled that Tesla’s driver assistance technology was at least partially to blame for a crash when a vehicle driven by George McGee went off the road and hit a couple, killing a 22-year-old and injuring the other.
The jury found that Tesla’s tech was found to enable McGee to take his eyes off the road, despite the company warning drivers and vehicle operators that its systems are not a replacement for a human driver.
The company states on its website and Owner’s Manual that Autopilot and Full Self-Driving are not fully autonomous, and that drivers must be ready to take over in case of an emergency. Its website says:
“Autopilot is a driver assistance system that is intended to be used only with a fully attentive driver. It does not turn a Tesla into a fully autonomous vehicle.
Before enabling Autopilot, you must agree to ‘keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times’ and to always ‘maintain control and responsibility for your vehicle.’ Once engaged, Autopilot will also deliver an escalating series of visual and audio warnings, reminding you to place your hands on the wheel if insufficient torque is applied or your vehicle otherwise detects you may not be attentive enough to the road ahead. If you repeatedly ignore these warnings, you will be locked out from using Autopilot during that trip.
You can override any of Autopilot’s features at any time by steering or applying the accelerator at any time.”
Despite this, and the fact that McGee admitted to “fishing for his phone” after it fell, Tesla was ordered to pay hundreds of millions in damages.
Tesla attorney Joel Smith said in court (via Washington Post):
“He said he was fishing for his phone. It’s a fact. That happens in any car. That isolates the cause. The cause is he dropped his cell phone.”
In total, Tesla is responsible for $324 million in payouts: $200 million in punitive damages, $35 million to the deceased’s mother, $24 million to their father, and $70 million to their boyfriend, who was also struck but was injured and not killed.
The family of the deceased, Naibel Benavides Leon, also sued the driver and reached a settlement out of court. The family opened the federal suit against Tesla in 2024, alleging that Tesla was to blame because it operated its technology on a road “it was not designed for,” the report states.
Despite the disclosures and warnings Tesla lists in numerous places to its drivers and users of both Autopilot and Full Self-Driving, as well as all of its active safety features, the operator remains responsible for paying attention.
CEO Elon Musk confirmed it would appeal the jury’s decision:
We will
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 1, 2025
The driver being distracted is a big part of this case that seemed to be forgotten as the jury came to its decision. Tesla’s disclosures and warnings, as well as McGee’s admission of being distracted, seem to be enough to take any responsibility off the company.
The appeal process will potentially shed more light on this, especially as this will be a main point of emphasis for Tesla’s defense team.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk echoes worries over Tesla control against activist shareholders
Elon Musk has spoken on several occasions of the “activist shareholders” who threaten his role at Tesla.

Elon Musk continues to raise concerns over his control of Tesla as its CEO and one of its founders, as activist shareholders seem to be a viable threat to the company in his eyes.
Musk has voiced concerns over voting control of Tesla and the possibility of him being ousted by shareholders who do not necessarily have the company’s future in mind. Instead, they could be looking to oust Musk because of his political beliefs or because of his vast wealth.
We saw an example of that as shareholders voted on two separate occasions to award Musk a 2018 compensation package that was earned as Tesla met various growth goals through the CEO’s leadership.
Despite shareholders voting to award Musk with the compensation package on two separate occasions, once in 2018 and again in 2024, Delaware Chancery Court Judge Kathaleen McCormick denied the CEO the money both times. At one time, she called it an “unfathomable sum.”
Musk’s current stake in Tesla stands at 12.8 percent, but he has an option to purchase 304 million shares, which, if exercised, after taxes, he says, would bump his voting control up about 4 percent.
However, this is not enough of a stake in the company, as he believes a roughly 25 percent ownership stake would be enough “to be influential, but not so much that I can’t be overturned,” he said in January 2024.
I am uncomfortable growing Tesla to be a leader in AI & robotics without having ~25% voting control. Enough to be influential, but not so much that I can’t be overturned.
Unless that is the case, I would prefer to build products outside of Tesla. You don’t seem to understand…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 15, 2024
Musk’s concerns were echoed in another X post from Thursday, where he confirmed he has no current personal loans against Tesla stock, and he reiterated his concerns of being ousted from the company by those he has referred to in the past as “activist shareholders.”
The CEO said during the company’s earnings call in late July:
“That is a major concern for me, as I’ve mentioned in the past. I hope that is addressed at the upcoming shareholders’ meeting. But, yeah, it is a big deal. I want to find that I’ve got so little control that I can easily be ousted by activist shareholders after having built this army of humanoid robots. I think my control over Tesla, Inc. should be enough to ensure that it goes in a good direction, but not so much control that I can’t be thrown out if I go crazy.”
The X post from Thursday said:
Just fyi I don’t have personal loans at this time against Tesla stock.
Also, the taxes on the options are ~45%, so net gain in voting control is more like 4%.
It is worrying in that I don’t want to build millions of robots and then potentially be ousted by activists and…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 31, 2025
There is a concern that Musk could eventually put his money where his mouth is, and if politicians and judges are able to limit his ownership stake as they’ve been able to do with his pay package, he could eventually leave the company.
The company’s shareholders voted overwhelmingly to approve Musk’s pay package. A vast majority of those who voted to get Musk paid still want him to be running Tesla’s day-to-day operations. Without his guidance, the company could face a major restructuring and would have a vastly new look and thesis.
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Elon Musk gives key update on plans for Tesla Diner outside of LA
-
News7 days ago
Tesla hints a smaller pickup truck could be on the way
-
Investor's Corner2 weeks ago
LIVE BLOG: Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2025 earnings call updates
-
Investor's Corner2 weeks ago
Tesla ‘Model Q’ gets bold prediction from Deutsche Bank that investors will love
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Elon Musk’s Neuralink posts massive update with new milestone
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Tesla preps to expand Robotaxi geofence once again, answering Waymo
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Tesla Supercharger Diner officially opens: menu, prices, features, and more
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla sells 3 million Model 3 since 2017, one in every 1.5 minutes