News
SpaceX’s path to refueling Starships in space is clearer than it seems
Perhaps the single biggest mystery of SpaceX’s Starship program is how exactly the company plans to refuel the largest spacecraft ever built after they reach orbit.
First revealed in September 2016 as the Interplanetary Transport System (ITS), SpaceX has radically redesigned its next-generation rocket several times over the last half-decade. Several crucial aspects have nevertheless persisted. Five years later, Starship (formerly ITS and BFR) is still a two-stage rocket powered by Raptor engines that burn a fuel-rich mixture of liquid methane (LCH4) and liquid oxygen (LOx). Despite being significantly scaled back from ITS, Starship will be about the same height (120 m or 390 ft) and is still on track to be the tallest, heaviest, and most powerful rocket ever launched by a large margin.
Building off of years of growing expertise from dozens of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, the most important fundamental design goal of Starship is full and rapid reusability – propellant being the only thing intentionally ‘expended’ during launches. However, like BFR and ITS before it, the overarching purpose of Starship is to support SpaceX’s founding goal of making humanity multiplanetary and building a self-sustaining city on Mars. For Starship to have even a chance of accomplishing that monumental feat, SpaceX will not only have to build the most easily and rapidly reusable rocket and spacecraft in history, but it will also have to master orbital refueling.
The reuse/refuel equation
In the context of SpaceX’s goals of expanding humanity to Mars, a mastery of reusability and orbital refueling are mutually inclusive. Without both, neither alone will enable the creation of a sustainable city on Mars. A Starship launch system that can be fully reused on a weekly or even daily basis but can’t be rapidly and easily refueled in space simply doesn’t have the performance needed to affordably build, supply, and populate a city on another planet (or Moon). A Starship launch system that can be easily refueled but is not rapidly and fully reusable could allow for some degree of interplanetary transport and the creation of a minimal human outpost on Mars, but it would probably be one or two magnitudes more difficult, risky, and expensive to operate and would require a huge fleet of ships and boosters from the start.
The question of how SpaceX will make Starship the world’s most rapidly, fully, and cheaply reusable rocket is a hard one, but it’s not all that difficult to extrapolate from where the company is today. Currently, the turnaround record (time between two flights) for Falcon boosters is two launches in less than four weeks (27 days). SpaceX’s orbital-class reuse is also making strides and the company recently flew the same orbital Crew Dragon capsule twice in just 137 days (less than five months) – fast approaching turnarounds similar to NASA’s Space Shuttle average, the only other reusable orbital spacecraft in history.
While Dragon and Falcon 9 are far smaller than Starship and Super Heavy, Dragon is only partially reusable and requires significant refurbishment after recovery and Falcon 9 boosters are fairly complex. Starship, on the other hand, should effectively serve as a fully reusable all-in-one Falcon upper stage, Dragon capsule, Dragon trunk, and fairing, making it far more complex but potentially far more reusable. To an extent, Super Heavy should also be mechanically simpler than Falcon boosters (no deployable legs or fins; no structural composite-metal joints; no dedicated maneuvering thrusters) and its clean-burning Raptor engines should be easier to reuse than Falcon’s Merlins. Put simply, there are precedents set and evidence provided by Falcon rockets and NASA’s Space Shuttle that suggest SpaceX will be able to solve the reusability half of the equation.
What about refueling?
The other half of that equation, however, could not be more different. The sum total of SpaceX’s official discussions of orbital refueling can be summed up in a sentence included verbatim in CEO Elon Musk’s 2017, 2018, and 2019 Starship presentations: “propellant settled by milli G acceleration using control thrusters.”
On the face of it, that simple phrase doesn’t reveal much. However, with a few grains of salt, hints from what the company’s CEO has and hasn’t said, and context from the history of research into orbital propellant transfer, it’s possible to paint a fairly detailed picture of the exact mechanisms SpaceX will likely use to refill Starships in space. The cornerstone, somewhat ironically, is a 2006 paper – written by seven Lockheed Martin employees and a NASA engineer – titled “Settled Cryogenic Propellant Transfer.” Aside from the obvious corollaries just from the title alone, the paper focuses on what the authors argue is the simplest possible route to large-scale orbital propellant transfer.
In orbit, under microgravity conditions, the propellant inside a spacecraft’s tanks is effectively detached from the structure. If a spacecraft applies thrust, that propellant will stay still until it splashes against its tank walls – the most basic Newtonian principle that objects at rest tend to stay at rest. If, say, a spacecraft thrusts in one direction and opens a hatch or valve on the tank in the opposite direction of that thrust, the propellant inside it – attempting to stay at rest – will naturally escape out of that opening. Thus, if a spacecraft in need of fuel docks with a tanker, their tanks are connected and opened, and the tanker attempts to accelerate away from the receiving ship, the propellant in the tanker’s tanks will effectively be pushed into the second ship as it tries to stay at rest.
The principles behind such a ‘settled propellant transfer’ are fairly simple and intuitive. The crucial question is how much acceleration the process requires and how expensive that continuous acceleration ends up being. According to Kutter et al’s 2006 paper, the answer is surprising: assuming a 100 metric ton (~220,000 lb) spacecraft pair accelerates at 0.0001G (one ten-thousandth of Earth gravity) to transfer propellant, they would need to consume just 45 kg (100 lb) of hydrogen and oxygen propellant per hour to maintain that acceleration.
In the most extreme hypothetical refueling scenario (i.e. a completely full tanker refueling a ship with a full cargo bay), two docked Starships would weigh closer to 1600 tons (~3.5M lb) and the “Milli G” acceleration SpaceX has repeatedly mentioned in presentation slides would be ten times greater than the maximum acceleration analyzed by Kutter et al. Still, according to their paper, that propellant cost scales linearly both with the required acceleration and with the mass of the system. Roughly speaking, using the same assumptions, that means that the thrusting Starship would theoretically consume just over 7 tons (half a percent) of its methane and oxygen propellant per hour to maintain milli-G acceleration.
With large enough pipes (on the order of 20-50 cm or 8-20 in) connecting each Starship’s tanks, SpaceX should have no trouble transferring 1000+ tons of propellant in a handful of hours. Ultimately, that means that settled propellant transfer even at the scale of Starship should incur a performance ‘tax’ of no more than 20-50 tons of propellant per refueling. All transfers leading up to the worst-case 1600-ton scenario should also be substantially more efficient. Overall, that means that fully refueling an orbiting Starship or depot with ~1200 tons of propellant – requiring anywhere from 8 to 14+ tanker launches – should be surprisingly efficient, with perhaps 80% or more of the propellant launched remaining usable by the end of the process.
A step further, Kutter et al note the amount of acceleration required is so small that a hypothetical spacecraft could potentially use ullage gas vents to achieve it, meaning that custom-designed settling thrusters might not even be needed. Coincidentally or not, SpaceX (or CEO Elon Musk) has recently decided to use strategically located ullage vents to replace purpose-built maneuvering thrusters on Starship’s Super Heavy booster. If SpaceX adds similar capabilities to Starship, it’s quite possible that the combination of cryogenic propellant naturally boiling into gas as it warms and the ullage vents used to relieve that added pressure could produce enough thrust to transfer large volumes of propellant.
Last but not least, writing more than a decade and a half ago, the only technological barrier Kutter et al could foresee to large-scale settled propellant transfer wasn’t even related to refueling but, rather, to the ability to autonomously rendezvous and dock in orbit. In 2006, while Russia was already routinely using autonomous docking and rendezvous technology on its Soyuz and Progress spacecraft, the US had never demonstrated the technology on its own. Jump to today and SpaceX Dragon spacecraft have autonomously rendezvoused with the International Space Station twenty seven times in nine years and completed ten autonomous dockings – all without issue – since 2019.
Even though SpaceX and its executives have never detailed their approach to refueling (or refilling, per Musk’s preferred term) Starships in space, there is a clear path established by decades of NASA and industry research. What little evidence is available suggests that that path is the same one SpaceX has chosen to travel. Ultimately, the key takeaway from that research and SpaceX’s apparent use of it should be this: while a relatively inefficient process, SpaceX has effectively already solved the last remaining technical hurdle for settled propellant transfer and should be able to easily refuel Starships in orbit with little to no major development required.
There’s a good chance that minor to moderate problems will be discovered and need to be solved once SpaceX begins to test refueling in orbit but crucially, there are no obvious showstoppers standing between SpaceX and the start of those flight tests. Aside from the obvious (preparing a new rocket for its first flight tests), the only major refueling problem SpaceX arguably needs to solve is the umbilical ports and docking mechanisms that will enable propellant transfer. SpaceX will also need to settle on a location for those ports/mechanisms and decide whether to implement ullage vent ‘thrusters’, cold gas thrusters like those on Falcon and current Starship prototypes, or more efficient hot-gas thrusters derived from Raptors. At the end of the day, though, those are all solved problems and just a matter of complex but routine systems engineering that SpaceX is an expert at.
News
Tesla Semi wins over truck drivers with real-world praise amid latest upgrades
The consensus among participants is clear: the Semi feels quieter, quicker, and far less physically demanding than diesel rigs while delivering three times the power and dramatically lower operating costs.
Tesla’s all-electric Semi is proving more than just a flashy concept as it is winning converts among the professionals who know trucks best.
As fleets roll out Pilot Programs for Tesla across North America, drivers are raving about the Class 8 electric truck’s unique features, including a centered driver’s seat, massive touchscreen visibility, instant torque, and absence of gear-shifting fatigue.
These features are transforming long days behind the wheel into noticeably easier, less stressful shifts.
Tesla Semi pricing revealed after company uncovers trim levels
In a recent Wall Street Journal profile of early pilots, Dakota Shearer of IMC Logistics described backing out of a tight spot he had mistakenly entered:
“I backed right out of there, no problem. It’s like I’d never done it in the first place. That right there showed me that the technology the Tesla has makes a big difference.”
His colleague Angel Rodriguez of Hight Logistics, who switched from a 13-speed diesel, agreed:
“It’s just easier on your body. It’s less stressful because you’re not really having to engage the clutch and the stick shift.”
Veteran drivers in other tests echo the same enthusiasm. Tom Sterba, a Senior Driver at Saia, spent days testing the Semi and came away impressed with the navigation and overall feel:
“The navigation systems in these trucks are just unbelievable. That’s what I love about it.”
Sterba summed up the experience with a line that has since gone viral among trucking circles:
“I hope I retire in this truck.”
Pilot programs with ArcBest, thyssenkrupp Supply Chain Services, and Mone Transport delivered similar feedback. Drivers consistently praised the center-seat layout for eliminating blind spots, the smooth acceleration, and the overall comfort and safety.
Real-world data backed the hype, as ArcBest logged thousands of miles at efficient consumption rates, even over the challenging routes, like Donner Pass, while other fleets beat Tesla’s own efficiency targets.
The consensus among participants is clear: the Semi feels quieter, quicker, and far less physically demanding than diesel rigs while delivering three times the power and dramatically lower operating costs.
The latest chapter in the Semi’s story arrived just days ago on Jay Leno’s Garage, as Leno became the first outsider to drive the updated long-range production model, joined by Tesla Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen, and Semi Program Director Dan Priestley.
Tesla reveals various improvements to the Semi in new piece with Jay Leno
The episode revealed major upgrades heading to volume production this year: the truck sheds roughly 1,000 pounds, adopts a 48-volt architecture, switches to fully electric steering with Cybertruck-derived actuators, and uses 4680 battery cells engineered for an over-one-million-mile lifespan.
Aerodynamics improved, enabling a 500-mile range on the long-haul version, and about 325 miles on the shorter-wheelbase standard-range model. Megachargers can now deliver up to 1.2 megawatts, adding roughly 300 miles in about 30 minutes.
Leno hauled heavy loads and marveled at the turning radius and effortless power delivery. “I don’t feel like I’m pulling anything,” he said during the episode.
With hundreds of Semis already accumulating over 13.5 million fleet miles and high uptime, the future of heavy-duty trucking looks electric. Drivers are giving raving reviews, and they’re ready to climb aboard the electric trucking industry for good.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX to merge in 2027, Wall Street analyst predicts
The move, Ives argues, is no longer a distant possibility but a logical next step, fueled by deepening operational ties, shared AI ambitions, and Elon Musk’s vision for dominating the next era of technology.
Tesla and SpaceX are two of Elon Musk’s most popular and notable companies, but a new note from one Wall Street analyst claims the two companies will become one sometime next year, as 2027 could see the dawn of a new horizon.
In a bold new research note, Wedbush analyst Dan Ives has reaffirmed his long-standing prediction: Tesla and SpaceX will merge in 2027.
The move, Ives argues, is no longer a distant possibility but a logical next step, fueled by deepening operational ties, shared AI ambitions, and Elon Musk’s vision for dominating the next era of technology.
He writes:
“Still Expect Tesla and SpaceX to Merge in 2027. We continue to believe that SpaceX and Tesla will eventually merge into one company in 2027 with the groundwork already in place for both operations to become one organization. Tesla already owns a stake in SpaceX after the company’s $2 billion investment in xAI got converted to SpaceX shares following SpaceX’s acquisition of xAI earlier this year initially tying both of Musk’s ventures closer together but still represents <1% of SpaceX’s expected valuation. The recent announcement of a joint Terafab facility between SpaceX and Tesla further ties both operations together making it more feasible to merge operations given the now existing overlap being built out across the two with this the first step.”
The groundwork is already being laid. Earlier this year, SpaceX acquired xAI, converting Tesla’s $2 billion investment in the AI startup into a small equity stake, less than 1 percent, in SpaceX.
Regulatory filings cleared the transaction in March 2026, formally linking the two Musk-led companies financially for the first time. Then came the announcement of a joint TERAFAB facility in Austin, Texas: two advanced chip factories, one dedicated to Tesla’s AI needs for vehicles and Optimus robots, the other targeting space-based data centers.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
Ives calls Terafab the “first step” toward full operational integration.
SpaceX’s impending IPO, expected as soon as mid-June 2026, will turbocharge these plans. The company aims to raise approximately $75 billion at a roughly $1.75 trillion valuation, far exceeding earlier estimates.
Proceeds will fund Starship rocket flights, a NASA-contracted lunar base, expanded Starlink services across maritime, aviation, and direct-to-mobile applications, and crucially, orbital AI infrastructure
A major driver is the exploding demand for AI compute. U.S. data centers are projected to consume 470 TWh of electricity by 2030, constrained by power grids and land.
🚨 Wedbush’s Dan Ives says that Tesla and SpaceX will merge in 2027. SpaceX will IPO soon, his new note says:
“According to media reports, SpaceX could file a prospectus for an IPO imminently with the goal of raising ~$75 billion above the prior expectation of ~$50 billion…
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 27, 2026
SpaceX’s strategy, launching millions of solar-powered satellites to host data centers in orbit, bypasses Earth’s energy bottlenecks. Solar energy captured in space avoids atmospheric losses and day-night cycles, offering a scalable solution for AI training and inference.
The xAI acquisition ties directly into this vision, positioning the combined entity as a leader in extraterrestrial computing.
The merger would create a formidable conglomerate spanning electric vehicles, robotics, satellite communications, human spaceflight, and defense.
Ives highlights SpaceX’s role in the Trump administration’s “Golden Dome” missile defense shield, which would leverage Starlink satellites for tracking.
For Tesla, access to SpaceX’s launch cadence and orbital assets could accelerate autonomous driving, Robotaxi fleets, and Optimus deployment.
Musk, who has signaled his desire to own roughly 25 percent of Tesla to steer its AI future, views the combination as essential to overcoming fragmented regulatory scrutiny from the FTC and DOJ.
Challenges remain. Antitrust hurdles could delay or reshape the deal, and shareholder approvals on both sides would be required. Yet Ives remains bullish, maintaining an Outperform rating on Tesla with a $600 price target, implying substantial upside from current levels. The analyst sees the merger as the “holy grail” for consolidating Musk’s disruptive tech empire.
If realized, a 2027 Tesla-SpaceX union would not only reshape corporate boundaries but redefine humanity’s trajectory in AI and space exploration. It would mark the moment two pioneering companies become one unstoppable force, pushing the limits of what’s possible on Earth and beyond.
News
Tesla ‘Killer’ heads to the graveyard as AFEELA taps out
SHM has officially discontinued development of its highly anticipated AFEELA electric vehicles. On March 25, the joint venture between Sony and Honda announced it would halt the AFEELA 1 luxury sedan and a planned SUV model.
There have been many Tesla “Killers” over the years, all of which have either failed to dethrone the automaker from its dominance in the United States, or even make it to the market altogether.
The Sony Honda Mobility (SHM) project, known as AFEELA, is the latest to make it to the grave, as the company announced its intentions to abandon the project earlier this week, Bloomberg reported.
SHM has officially discontinued development of its highly anticipated AFEELA electric vehicles. On March 25, the joint venture between Sony and Honda announced it would halt the AFEELA 1 luxury sedan and a planned SUV model.
🚗 Tesla Killers Graveyard:
Sony-Honda AFEELA
The sleek, AI-packed luxury sedan with PlayStation integration. Officially cancelled in March 2026 after Honda scaled back its EV plans.Fisker Ocean
Stylish SUV with solar roof promises. Company filed for bankruptcy in 2024 amid… https://t.co/Om14UhISOy— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 26, 2026
The decision follows Honda’s March 12 reassessment of its electrification strategy, which scrapped several upcoming EV programs amid slowing demand, high costs, and shifting market conditions.
SHM stated that it could no longer rely on key Honda technologies and manufacturing assets, leaving “no viable path forward.” Reservation fees for early buyers in California are being fully refunded, and the joint venture’s future is now under review.
Launched with fanfare in 2022, the AFEELA was positioned as a tech-forward premium EV blending Honda’s engineering reliability with Sony’s entertainment and AI expertise.
Prototypes featured advanced autonomous driving systems, immersive in-cabin displays, and even PlayStation integration, earning it early media labels as a potential “Tesla Killer.”
Priced around $90,000, the sedan was slated for limited production at Honda’s Ohio plant with deliveries targeted for late 2026. Industry watchers saw it as a serious challenger to Tesla’s dominance in software, connectivity, and premium appeal.
Yet, like many ambitious EV projects, it fell victim to broader industry headwinds: softening consumer demand, persistent high interest rates, and intense competition from established players.
The AFEELA joins a long list of vehicles once hyped as “Tesla Killers” that failed to deliver. In the late 2010s, Fisker’s second act, the Ocean SUV, promised stylish design and solid-state battery tech but collapsed into bankruptcy in 2024 after production delays, quality issues, and financial shortfalls.
Faraday Future poured billions into the FF 91 luxury sedan, touting it as a hyper-tech rival with unmatched performance and features; the company delivered fewer than 100 vehicles before fading into obscurity.
Lordstown Motors’ Endurance electric pickup generated massive pre-order buzz and Wall Street excitement but imploded after exaggerated range claims, a factory sale, and eventual bankruptcy.
Even Lucid Motors’ Air sedan, frequently called a Tesla slayer for its superior range and luxury, has struggled with sluggish sales and missed growth targets despite strong reviews.
Rivian’s R1T and R1S trucks enjoyed similar early acclaim and a blockbuster IPO, yet production ramp-up challenges and profitability woes have prevented it from dethroning Tesla.
The AFEELA’s quiet demise underscores a harsh reality in the EV sector. While Tesla’s first-mover advantage in software, charging infrastructure, and brand loyalty remains formidable, legacy automakers and tech newcomers alike continue to underestimate the complexities of scaling affordable, desirable electric vehicles.
As market realities force tough choices, the graveyard of “Tesla Killers” grows longer, another reminder that innovation alone is rarely enough to topple an established leader.
Tesla Semi wins over truck drivers with real-world praise amid latest upgrades
Tesla and SpaceX to merge in 2027, Wall Street analyst predicts
Tesla lands on Fortune’s 2026 Most Innovative Companies and the Cybercab is why
Elon Musk says Tesla is developing a new vehicle: ‘Way cooler than a minivan’
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
