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
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
