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
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.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has awarded the 2025-2026 Tesla Cybertruck crew cab pickup its highest honor: Top Safety Pick+. This marks the Cybertruck as the only full-size pickup to achieve this distinction in recent evaluations.
The award applies specifically to vehicles built after April 2025, following structural upgrades including front underbody reinforcements and footwell modifications.
These changes enabled strong performance in updated crash tests. The Cybertruck earned “Good” ratings in the small overlap front (driver and passenger sides), updated moderate overlap front, and updated side tests—core requirements for the Top Safety Pick+ designation.
It also secured acceptable or good headlights across trims and a “Good” rating for its standard front crash prevention system in pedestrian scenarios, along with acceptable or good performance in vehicle-to-vehicle testing.
The Cybertruck avoided every single pedestrian collision, including:
- Daytime child crossing
- Nightitime adult crossing
- Night parallel adult
In IIHS pedestrian front crash prevention tests, @Cybertruck avoided every single collision – daytime, nighttime & different angles
It was also the only pickup to earn Top Safety Pick+ (highest award) in 2026https://t.co/BNPqT9TbsW pic.twitter.com/M6nwDisBFK
— Tesla (@Tesla) June 24, 2026
In the large pickup category, competitors such as the Toyota Tundra received only a standard Top Safety Pick, while the Ford F-150 and Ram 1500 did not qualify for either award. This positions the Cybertruck as a standout in occupant protection and crash avoidance among its peers.
Credit: IIHS
Ironically, the same vehicle celebrated for superior U.S. safety performance remains banned from public roads in the United Kingdom and much of Europe. Regulators there cite the Cybertruck’s sharp external edges and highly rigid stainless-steel construction as failing pedestrian-protection standards. European and UK rules require rounded surfaces on protruding parts to minimize injury risk in collisions with vulnerable road users.
Critics also point to the truck’s substantial weight and unyielding body structure, which some argue could transfer more force to other vehicles or pedestrians rather than absorbing it.
Tesla’s engineering philosophy underpins the Cybertruck’s strong IIHS results. The vehicle features a distinctive stainless-steel exoskeleton made from ultra-hard 30X cold-rolled stainless steel. This provides exceptional structural rigidity and a robust safety cage that resists deformation in side impacts and rollovers.
Engineers designed integrated load paths to channel crash forces away from the occupant compartment while allowing controlled energy absorption in key zones. Post-April 2025 refinements to the front underbody further optimized performance in overlap crashes.
Complementing the passive structure is Tesla’s advanced active safety suite, including the standard Collision Avoidance Assist system with automatic emergency braking. This contributed directly to the vehicle’s strong front crash prevention scores. The skateboard platform and low center of gravity also enhance stability and handling, reducing the likelihood of certain crashes.
The IIHS recognition highlights how Tesla’s combination of high-strength materials, structural innovation, and software-driven safety systems can deliver top-tier protection in rigorous testing. While global regulatory differences on design and pedestrian interaction continue to limit the Cybertruck’s availability outside North America, its U.S. safety credentials set a new benchmark for full-size pickups.
Elon Musk
SpaceX’s newest Starmind will make earth data centers obsolete
Elon Musk confirmed Starmind as SpaceX’s AI satellite constellation name, targeting one million orbital compute nodes.
Elon Musk confirmed that Starmind will be the official name of SpaceX’s planned AI satellite constellation, following a trademark filing by xAI that surfaced earlier this week. Starmind is what’s being described to the FCC as a constellation of up to one million AI satellites
It’s worth noting that SpaceX’s Starlink communication satellite and Starmind are built on the same orbital infrastructure concept but serve entirely different purposes. Starlink is a connectivity network, with satellites receiving and relaying data between points on Earth, and functioning as a high-speed internet backbone in space. The satellites themselves do not process or think, and move information from one place to another, the same function a fiber cable performs underground.
SpaceX just forced Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to team up for the first time in history
Starmind, on the other hand, is something completely different, and tather than moving data, its satellites would compute data through artificial intelligence and directly in orbit using onboard processors powered by large solar arrays. Where a Starlink satellite is essentially a very fast pipe, a Starmind satellite is a server. The practical implication is that Starmind would allow AI models to run inference, process queries, and generate outputs from space, then beam results down to users anywhere on Earth within milliseconds, and without the data ever needing to travel to a terrestrial data center.
Starship will be able to carry 30 to 50 AI1 satellites per launch, delivering the equivalent of dozens of server racks per flight, with no land acquisition, no power grid approval, and no cooling infrastructure required on the ground.
SpaceX is pursuing this new technology as terrestrial data centers are running into hard limits such as lack of physical space, community opposition, and power and water consumption at a scale that is increasingly difficult to permit. Space has unlimited solar power, natural vacuum cooling, and no zoning boards. Musk said in a June 8 video presentation that he expects space to become the lowest-cost location to deploy AI compute within two to three years. Two AI1 prototypes are scheduled to launch in early 2027, with volume production targeted for the end of that year at a new facility called Gigasat.
The real world applications Starmind enables extend well beyond powering Grok. A constellation of orbiting AI processors could run inference workloads for any paying customer, anywhere on Earth, with latency measured in milliseconds rather than the seconds associated with ground-based cloud routing across continents. Starmind, if it scales as described, would make SpaceX the landlord of AI compute the same way Starlink made it the landlord of satellite internet.
Tesla and driver sued by family of woman killed in Texas crash: what we know
Tesla Cybertruck is officially the safest pickup, IIHS says
