News
SpaceX’s Elon Musk teases in-house R&D for BFR refueling on Mars
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk took to Twitter to reaffirm SpaceX’s commitment to developing their own technology for refueling BFR beyond Earth, noting that the high-efficiency hardware would be “critical for propellant production at Mars Base Alpha.”
Known as in-situ resource utilization (ISRU), Musk briefly commented on SpaceX’s in-house work on the tech in an October 2017 Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything), noting that “Design is pretty far along…it’s a key part of the whole system.” His most recent tweet on June 10 reiterated ISRU’s centrality to any successful (read: sustainable) colonization of Mars, and the CEO further confirmed what was already all but guaranteed, describing a chemical reaction known as the Sabatier process.
“SpaceX is already developing high-efficiency CO2 capture with H2O to form liquid CH4 (methane) & O2.” – Elon Musk, June 2018
SpaceX’s BFR visualized just before launch at the upgraded LC-39A pad. (SpaceX)
At the most basic level, by combining heated, high-pressure carbon dioxide and hydrogen (easily derived from Mars’ CO2-rich atmosphere and wealth of water ice) and a bed of nickel or aluminum oxide, the Sabatier process can produce methane and water. Water can be easily decomposed into hydrogen and oxygen or used for drinking, cooking, and plumbing, among an infinite number of other uses. Akin to a more advanced version of what is already successfully utilized aboard the International Space Station, efficient Sabatier reactors can also be used to partially recycle wastewater and carbon dioxide (produced by humans breathing) to recover a significant fraction of pure water and methane.
In the case of SpaceX’s BFR rocket and spaceship, its propellant of choice will be liquid oxygen and methane (known as methalox) partly because of how comparatively easy it is to handle methane and to produce it on Mars, while simultaneously being a significant enabler of efficient long-term crewed spaceflight (i.e. the months-long deep space journeys to and from Mars). Less consumable mass required to keep passengers alive and happy directly translates into more payload to the surface of Mars, lowering the overall cost per kilogram delivered and thus the cost per ticket!
-
- The BFR spaceship pictured landing on Mars. (SpaceX)
-
- A US astronaut completes installation of the ISS’s upgraded Sabatier reactor, which helps to partially close the loop on water consumables. (NASA, 2011)
After landing on Mars, Sabatier reactors would be used to gradually refuel each Big F. Spaceship. Of course, the Sabatier process follows the laws of thermodynamics and thus requires a power source to heat the inputs, as well as cool the outputted methane and oxygen into fuel-grade cryo-cooled liquids. At least until SpaceX chooses to jump into the ring with the US nuclear (fissile) material regulation apparatus and develop or launch nuclear reactors, the most reliable power source for interplanetary colonization, that power will have to be supplied by acres upon acres of solar panels optimized to be as light, dense, and efficient as possible. If anything, the dust storm currently threatening the livelihood of Mars rover Opportunity should serve as evidence that solar power on Mars is at best a relatively cheap and simple stopgap for better power sources, especially for any long-term human presence on the Red Planet.
Optimally, BFS’ own internal solar array would (and likely will, at least at first) double as a source of power both in space and on the surface of Mars, neatly removing the need to waste precious cargo space on duplicate hardware. Even better, perhaps there is a chance that SpaceX’s materials scientists, engineers, and chemists can find ways to significantly optimize the Sabatier reaction for their specific needs, potentially lowering the energy required to get the desired end-product. It’s sort of a theme with interplanetary colonization, butttt… lower energy requirements translate to fewer solar panels needed to produce a given quantity of propellant in a set period of time, meaning that more payload can thus be dedicated to more important cargo like food, habitats, ISRU hardware, mining and tunneling machinery, and humans.
With any luck, followers of SpaceX may get an update on the company’s BFR plans later this year, likely just before or immediately after the first prototype spaceship is shipped to Texas for acceptance testing and a Grasshopper-style program of suborbital hops.
Follow us for live updates, peeks behind the scenes, and photos from Teslarati’s East and West coast photographers.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Twitter
Pauline Acalin – Twitter
Eric Ralph – Twitter
News
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile want 290 MHz cut from an FCC satellite plan before Thursday.
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are asking the Federal Communications Commission to pull nearly 300 MHz of spectrum out of a proposal that would let satellite companies like SpaceX offer cell service directly to ordinary phones. The request lands one day before the agency votes on it.
The FCC will vote Thursday, October 29, on a notice of proposed rulemaking that would make an additional 482 MHz available for direct to device service, expanding the number of eligible bands from five to 13, according to the FCC fact sheet. It would also scrap the rule requiring a satellite operator to lease spectrum from carriers, replacing it with a certification that the operator has coexistence agreements in place or holds the terrestrial license itself.
That second path matters for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported earlier this month, SpaceX agreed to buy Grain Management’s nationwide 800 MHz portfolio to turn Starlink Mobile into a full US carrier, adding to the spectrum it already bought from EchoStar.
The carriers want two bands removed, 2.5 GHz and 3.45 GHz, which make up 290 MHz of the 482 MHz on the table. Through industry group CTIA, they argued that about 300 million users depend on those bands and that satellite operations in them are not technically feasible. T-Mobile, which calls 2.5 GHz the foundation of its Ultra Capacity 5G network, said in its own filing that satellite interference could wipe out up to 96% of a cell site’s uplink coverage area and cut uplink speeds by 88% to 99%.
Executives from all three carriers met with FCC staff on October 20, and T-Mobile CEO Srini Gopalan met separately with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. T-Mobile’s role stands out because it is still SpaceX’s US launch partner for Starlink Mobile. The three carriers have also teamed up on their own satellite joint venture to pool spectrum, a move widely seen as a response to Starlink.
SpaceX is asking for the opposite. In an October 23 filing after meetings with FCC staff and commissioners’ offices, the company asked regulators to add the 902 to 928 MHz band to the proposal. “Doing so now saves time later,” SpaceX wrote. The company also asked the FCC to modernize interference rules and align satellite deployment requirements with those for terrestrial cell networks, saying the goal is to let satellite and ground networks work together so Americans stay connected wherever they are.
The carriers have not been shy about how they view SpaceX as a competitor. On Verizon’s third quarter earnings call Monday, its chief executive said Starlink Mobile “just can’t compete with a terrestrial network” and estimated SpaceX would need four to six years and $300 billion to $500 billion to build a full US carrier network.
Thursday’s vote will not settle which bands survive. Adopting the notice opens a public comment period, with final rules to come later in the proceeding. The FCC already considered and rejected 2.5 GHz for satellite coverage once, in 2024. SpaceX also is not the only satellite player watching: the FCC approved Amazon’s $11.6 billion acquisition of Globalstar on October 27, giving its planned direct to device fleet its own mobile satellite spectrum.
A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.
The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.
There were no injuries reported.
🚨 A Tesla Semi reportedly caught fire, with California Highway Patrol confirming. The Semi was on I-880 SB
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.
However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.
@Tslachan From on of the videos looks like it’s an old Semi (not the refresh version that recently started production) https://t.co/KzwmR2kXow
— Area Under The Curve 🎗️ (@AreaUnderCurve) October 28, 2026
At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.
The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.
The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.
Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.
A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.
“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”
🚨 Here’s the first look at Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away function in action:
Apparently this driver accidentally enabled it and drove forward; you can see the Supercharger pull with the car.
Tesla said previously this would cost up to $25k if not used properly. https://t.co/B4qQRrsO6B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.
Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.
Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:
- You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
- You must leave the area immediately.
- Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
- Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.
After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know
