Hey everybody. Welcome back to the Elon Musk
Podcast. This is a show where we discuss
the critical crossroads, the Shape, SpaceX, Tesla X, The
Boring Company, and Neurolink. I'm your host, Will Walden.
How will the 94 percent of federal employees who currently
work remotely respond? Well, they discover their every
keystroke and login could soon be tracked.
The answer may arrive sooner than expected as Elon Musk and
Vivek Ramaswamy advance their proposal for comprehensive
federal worker surveillance. Now, the Department of
Government Efficiency, known as DOGE, stepped into the spotlight
this week as its newly appointed leaders, Musk and Ramaswamy
presented their strategy to Republican lawmakers during
multiple closed door sessions on Capitol Hill.
The primary objective centers on achieving $2 trillion in federal
budget reductions through what they term the elimination of
government waste. Now Senator Joni Ernst from Iowa
emerges as a central figure in this developing story, having
released a detailed 60 page report examining the current
state of government remote work. The report presents striking
statistics claiming that merely 6% of federal employees work
full time in physical office location.
Ernst, 2, chairs the Senate Doge Caucus, draws from her
agricultural background to criticize the current remote
work situation, stating growing up on a farm, I know what
working from home really means, but in Washington, working from
home apparently means having a field day.
Now. The proposed The proposed Remote
Act, sponsored by Ernst, introduces comprehensive
monitoring software designed to track federal employees computer
activities. This technology would maintain
detailed records of network traffic, login frequencies,
online duration, and overall digital engagement patterns for
remote workers. Legislation represents a direct
response to concerns about remote worker productivity and
accountability. Now, Elon Musk has amplified
these concerns through social media.
On X, where he shared particularly stark assessments
of the situation, he said if you exclude security guards and
maintenance personnel, the number of government workers who
show up in person into 40 hours of work a week is close to 1%.
Almost no one now the implementation of employee
monitoring software mirrors existing practices in the
private sector. Major corporations like JP
Morgan, Barclays Bank, and United Health Group already
enjoy similar technologies to monitor the remote workforce,
tracking metrics down to individual keystrokes and e-mail
composition times. Now, Elon Musk brings
substantial personal experience regarding remote work policies
to his new advisory role as CEO of Tesla.
He previously mandated a minimum 40 hour in office work week,
informing employees that failure to comply would be interpreted
as resignation. This hardline stance continued
on X after his acquisition, where he required personal
approval for any flexible work arrangements.
Now, the federal Office of Management and Budget presents
contrasting data in their August 2024 report spanning nearly 3000
pages. Their analysis indicates that
approximately half of federal workers occupy full in person
positions, such as healthcare providers and food safety
inspectors. Among employees eligible for
telework, 60% of their work occurs at assigned office
locations. Now, House Speaker Mike Johnson
has voiced strong support for the DOGE initiatives despite
their conflicting statistics. Johnson continues to cite the
disputed figure that only 1% of federal workers maintain daily
in person attendance, demonstrating alignment with
Mosque and Ramaswamy's perspective on federal workforce
reform. Now, the potential impact of
these proposed changes extends beyond simple workforce
logistics, though. In their November Wall Street
Journal op-ed, Musk and Ramaswami outlined the strategy,
stating requiring federal employees to come to the office
five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations
that we welcome. Ramaswami has suggested even
more aggressive measures, proposing the elimination of 75%
of federal positions. Now, Musk frames the remote work
debate as both a productivity and moral issue.
He argues that office workers should not receive special
treatment regarding workplace flexibility when industrial and
service workers must physically report to their job sites.
Saying people should get off their God damn moral high horse
with their work from home BS now, Musk stated, adding that
the laptop class is living in La La land now.
The scope of Doge's actual authority remains uncertain,
though Douglas Holtz Eiken, former Congressional Budget
Office director and current president of the Center Right
American Action Forum, provided context in an interview with
Fortune's Jeff Colvin. They don't have any power,
Holstein explained, describing DOGE as essentially a very high
profile think tank focused on generating ideas rather than
implementing direct changes. The proposed monitoring system
would create unprecedented levels of oversight for federal
employees. Software would track network
activity, login patterns, and overall online engagement,
establishing a comprehensive digital surveillance framework
for the federal workforce. Now, federal employee unions and
workplace advocacy groups have yet to respond formally to these
proposals. Their eventual reaction could
shape the implementation timeline in specific details of
any new monitoring systems or return to office mandates.
Industry experts note that implementing such extensive
monitoring systems across federal agencies would require
substantial technological infrastructure and training
investments. These costs could offset some of
the intended budget savings, at least in the short term.
And the timing of these proposals coincides with broader
national discussions about workplace flexibility and
productivity measurements in the post pandemic era.
The federal government's approach to these issues could
influence private sector policies and practices.
Now, constitutional law experts have begun examining potential
privacy implications of their proposed monitoring systems.
Questions about federal workers reasonable expectations of
privacy while using government equipment may require legal
clarification, and this could take years to figure out.
And as the Trump administration prepares to take office, the
fate of the federal remote work policies remains uncertain.
Nobody knows what's going to go on this.
Like they said before, it's a high level think tank.
They have no power. And the success or failure of
these initiatives will likely depend on the complex
interactions between executive authority, legislative support,
and administrative feasibility. Delaware Chancery Court Judge
Kathleen McCormick struck down Elon Musk's $56 billion Tesla
compensation package for the second time on Monday, while
simultaneously addressing an extraordinary request from the
victorious attorneys. The legal team sought $5.6
billion in fees for their successful challenge to Musk's
pay structure, but McCormick awarded them $345,000,000
instead, payable in cash or in Tesla shares.
So the legal saga traces its origins the 2018 when Tesla
shareholder Richard Tornetta filed a lawsuit challenging the
unprecedented compensation agreement.
Now, Tornado's lawsuit alleged that Musk wielded undue
influence over Tesla's board during the creation of the pay
package, and the shareholders received misleading information
before approving the plan. The compensation structure
consisted of 12 performance milestones, each unlocking
additional Tesla shares as the company's value increased.
Now, Judge Mccormick's initial ruling in January of 2024
determined the process leading to the plan's approval was
fundamentally flawed. She specifically cited Musk's
position as a controlling shareholder at Tesla created
potential conflicts of interest that compromised the board's
independence. Now, McCormick wrote that Aceo's
celebrity status can make even truly independent directors
quote unduly differential and created a distortion field that
interferes with proper oversight.
Now, Tesla's board attempted to salvage the compensation package
by putting it to another shareholder vote in June of
2024. The measure received 72%
approval from shareholders, demonstrating strong support for
maintaining Musk's incentive structure.
However, McCormick remained unconvinced, explaining that no
Delaware court had ever reversed its judgement based on a post
trial stockholder vote. Now, the judges latest ruling
addressed both the compensation package and the attorneys fee
request with careful consideration of legal precedent
and fairness principles. McCormick acknowledged the legal
team substantial work, noting they logged 19,499.95 hours,
conducted extensive investigations, managed document
discovery and took 17 depositions while facing some of
the best law firms in the country.
Now, the attorneys representing Tornetta came from three
prominent firms, Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger and Grossman
LLP, Andrews and Springer, LLC, and Friedman, Oster and Titel
PLLC, and their track record of securing major recoveries in
Delaware courts and successfully managing high stakes litigation
through trial and appeal. Contribution to Mccormick's
decision on their fee award. Now, Tesla's defense team
proposed a considerably lower fee award of $54.5 million.
McCormick found middle ground, determining that while the
plaintiff's attorney's mythology was sound, awarding $5.6 billion
would constitute an unjustifiable windfall.
The final award represents a 25.3 multiplier of the hours
worked by the legal team. You know, the compensation
packages. Original structure reflected
Tesla's ambitious growth targets.
The first milestone required Tesla's market capitalization to
reach $100 billion, with subsequent milestones demanding
additional $50 billion increments.
The company needed to achieve a $650 billion market value for
Musk to fully vest in the award, and Tesla has experienced both
triumphs and challenges. Since the packages
implementation, the company's value has surpassed $1 trillion,
far exceeding the original targets.
However, recent headwinds include slowly electric vehicle
sales growth and increased regulatory scrutiny.
A Musk response to the ruling came through X, where he stated
shareholders should control company votes, not judges.
Tesla echoed this sentiment, posting that the ruling suggests
judges and plaintiffs lawyers run Delaware companies rather
than their rightful owners, the shareholders.
Now the legal team's victory marks a notable shift in
corporate governance oversight. Bernstein, Little, Witzberger,
and Grossman expressed dissatisfaction with both the
ruling and fee resolution, while maintaining readiness to defend
the decision if appealed to the Delaware court system.
The case highlights fundamental questions about executive
compensation and corporate governance.
Mccormick's ruling suggests that even with shareholder approval,
compensation packages must withstand scrutiny regarding the
independence of board decisions and fairness to all
stakeholders. Now, Tesla announced plans to
appeal the decision to the Delaware Supreme Court.
The appeal process could establish important precedents
for future executive compensation cases and the
weight given to post trial shareholder votes in Delaware
corporate law. Now legal experts know that the
timing of Mccormick's decision coincides with broader
discussions about executive compensation and corporate
accountability. The ruling may influence how
other companies structure their executive pay packages and
handle board oversight responsibilities.
This case demonstrates the complexity of balancing
shareholder interests with executive incentives.
While Tesla achieved remarkable growth under Musk's leadership,
the court determined that procedural fairness and board
independence cannot be compromised regardless of
business success. Questions remain about how Tesla
will structure future compensation for Musk.
Mccormick's ruling leaves room for the board to create a new
package, provided it follows proper procedures and maintains
independence from Musk's influence.
And attorneys for Tesla shareholders said that their
commitment to defending the court's decision through any
appeals process suggesting this legal battle may continue to
shape corporate governance standards in Delaware courts for
decades to come. And Mccormick's dual rulings on
the compensation package and attorney fees established clear
boundaries for executive pay and legal compensation and corporate
litigation, while reinforcing the court's rule in maintaining
proper corporate governance standards.
Now, the Delaware court's rejection of both Musk's
compensation package and the attorneys multibillion dollar
fee request reinforces judicial authority over corporate
governance while establishing new standards for executive pay
and legal compensation and high stakes corporate litigation.
Breaking news, Donald Trump just pictured Isaacman to run NASA
when he comes in office. Now this makes me wonder if
SpaceX might actually end up taking over the whole moon
program. What do you think about their
Starship possibly replacing the $2 billion per launch SLS
rocket? So this space exploration
landscape just shifted dramatically as president-elect
Donald Trump nominated Jared Isaacman, who's 41 year old CEO
shift for payments and accomplished private astronaut
to serve as the next NASA Administrator.
Isaacman, who has commanded 2 private Space Flight missions
through SpaceX, brings a unique combination of business acumen
and hands on space experience to the role.
His nomination arrives at a critical juncture for America's
space program, as NASA grapples with ongoing delays in its
Artemis moon missions and mounting pressure from China's
advancing space capabilities. The selection of Isingman makes
a notable departure from NASA's recent leadership appointments,
which have traditionally favored former politicians.
The current administrator, Bill Nelson, and his predecessor Jim
Bridenstine, both served in Congress before taking the helm
at NASA. Now, Isaac's min's background in
the private sector, coupled with his actual Space Flight
experience, suggests a potential shift toward greater commercial
integration in NASA's operations.
His successful leadership of payment processing company Shift
4, combined with his achievement in conducting the first ever
private space walk from a SpaceX Dragon capsule during the
Polaris Dawn mission, demonstrate his capacity to
merge technological innovation with practical space operations.
The timing of Trump's announcements carries
particularly weight as it comes months earlier than typical
presidential transitions. This accelerated timeline
coincides with increased involvement from SpaceX CEO Elon
Musk's in discussions about space exploration with the
president-elect. Trump's personal attendance at
Spacex's 6th Starship test launch in Texas shows the
growing influence of commercial space companies and shaping
national space policy. Now the relationship between
Musk and Trump has intensified, with SpaceX founder taking on an
advisory role focused on federal budget reduction strategies.
Now, Isaac Mann's nomination arrives during a period of
uncertainty for NASA's Space Launch System, the agency's most
powerful rocket, which is designed for deep space
missions. Each SLS launch carries a price
tag over $2 billion, prompting criticism about cost efficiency.
Now. the Rockets performance during the Artemis 1 mission in
2022 proved successful, yet questions persist about its long
term viability in an era of increasing commercial space
capabilities. Now, the substantial investment
already made in SLS infrastructure at Kennedy Space
Center as complexity that any potential program changes now.
The incoming administration's previous public statements about
NASA's Artemis program warrant attention, though Isaacman has
openly criticized the agency's expenditure on SLS rockets and
questioned the decision to award a second lunar Lander contract
to Blue Origin. His statement was Spend billions
on lunar Lander redundancy that you don't have with SLS at the
expense of dozens of scientific programs.
I don't like it. That provides insight into his
perspective on resource allocation within NASA's
portfolio. Now, the relationship between
NASA and SpaceX continues to evolve, though, particularly
regarding the development of Starship.
This spacecraft serves a dual role in the current Artemis
architecture, functioning as the lunar Lander for astronaut
service missions. And SpaceX has achieved notable
progress with Starship recently, including a technological feat.
No one's ever done this before, but they've landed the vehicle's
massive booster stage, and it was successfully caught by the
robotic chopsticks during its return flight to the Texas
launch facility. The company's emphasis on
reusability presents potential billions of dollars in cost
advantages for future missions. Now, China's declared intentions
to land astronauts on the moon by 20-30 adds urgency to
America's lunar ambitions. The Chinese space program's
track record of meeting announced deadlines contrast
with NASA's recent schedule delays, technical challenges
with various Artemis components including space suits, Orion
spacecraft systems and also Starship that pushed the first
crew Lander landing to autumn of 2026, significantly later than
initially planned. Now, the nomination of Eisigman
raises questions about the future direction of NASA's
Aeronautics Research Division under the current
administration. This development has focused on
developing environmentally friendly aviation technologies.
Similarly, the Space Science unit has experienced budget
constraints in workforce reductions as resources were
redirected toward the Artemis program.
Isaac Mann's approach to balancing these competing
priorities remains to be determined for the future.
Now the Polaris program, which has privately funded series of
increasingly challenging space missions, is up in arms too.
It's up up for grabs, I should say.
The successful completion of Polaris Dawn, featuring the
first commercial spacewalk demonstrated Isaac Min's ability
to execute complex space operations.
Now during this historic event, Isaac Min's observation back at
home, we all have a lot of work to do.
But from here, Earth sure looks like a perfect world, revealed
his philosophical perspective on space exploration.
Now, the transition in NASA leadership occurs amid ongoing
debates about the most efficient path to lunar exploration.
Now, while the SLS rocket currently serves as the only
vehicle certified to launch the Orion crew capsule directly to
the moon, alternative launch scenarios using Spacex's Falcon
Heavy rocket have been considered.
However, such alternatives would require substantial
modifications to both hardware and procedures, potentially
introducing additional delays to the Artemis timeline.
Technical requirements for lunar missions extend beyond launch
capabilities, though the ability to reach various lunar
destinations, particularly the scientifically intriguing South
Pole region, demands specific vehicle performance
characteristics. The complexity of these
requirements raises questions about the readiness of
commercial providers to assume. Greater responsibility for
mission critical systems, now Isaac Mann's business experience
could prove valuable in managing NASA's substantial budget,
though, which currently stands at nearly $25 billion.
His statement accepting the nomination emphasized both
personal passion and professional commitment, he
said. Having been fortunate to see our
amazing planet from space, I'm passionate about America leading
the most incredible adventure in human history.
Further expressed his intentions to step down to shift for CEO
upon confirmation while maintaining majority ownership
of the company. Now, the commercial space
sector's growing capability to conduct human spaceflight
operations independently raises fundamental questions about
NASA's future role. Under Isaac Man's leadership,
the agency might accelerate its transition toward becoming a
customer of Commercial Services rather than maintaining
traditional operational control over all aspects of space
missions. The evolution could affect
thousands of NASA employees and contractors across the United
States, and the broader implications for International
Space collaboration remain uncertain.
NASA's current partners, particularly with the European
Space Agency and other international contributors to
the Artemis program, might require reassessment under new
leadership priorities. These relationships represent
years of diplomatic and technical cooperation that
factor into America's global leadership in space exploration.
Now, the success of NASA's Moon program depends heavily on the
integration of various complex systems, including the Orion
spacecraft, lunar Landers, and surface systems, and any major
changes to the current architecture would need to
address these interdependencies while maintaining progress
toward establishing goals. A challenge of balancing
innovation and practical constraints will likely define
Isaacman's tenure. If confirmed as administrator.
Our changes in NASA's leadership historically result in
adjustments to programs, priorities, and implementation
strategies. As Isaacman prepares for Senate
confirmation hearings, his vision for America's space
program will face scrutiny from legislators concerned with
maintaining both technological leadership and also fiscal
responsibilities. He has extensive leadership
experience in both business and spaceflight operations, and it
provides a unique foundation for addressing the challenges of
NASA. It could transform American
space policy, combining commercial space expertise in a
way that's never been seen before with the money from the
government to advance lunar exploration and growing
international competition from China.
So do you remember for the last decade Elon Musk saying the full
self driving for Tesla cars was just around the corner?
Well, with this new FSD version 13.2 roll out and this potential
upgrade during the Trump presidency, should we finally
take these claims seriously? While Tesla initiated deployment
of its newest Full Self, driving the FSD software version 13.2 to
employees and select customers during the weekend, propelling
the company's stock value higher.
In Monday trading, the EV manufacturer shares rose 3.2% to
$356.07, extending a remarkable 37% increase since the November
5th presidential election results.
The latest FSD upgrade promises substantial improvements in
autonomous driving capabilities, with Tesla forecasting A6 fold
reduction in required driver interventions per mile traveled
now. Early demonstrations of version
13.2 revealed enhanced functionalities, including the
system's ability to navigate from parking spot to parking
spot with minimal human interaction.
Now, Tesla's Artificial Intelligence division announced
the update through its social media account on X, stating new
Brain who DIS. NOW investment firm Stifle,
demonstrated confidence in Tesla's autonomous driving
technology by substantially increasing its stock price
target from $287.00 to $411.00. The adjustment primarily stems
from analysts optimistic outlook regarding the company's robotaxi
program, dubbed Cyber Cab, and continued advancement in self
driving technology. This assessment comes despite
maintaining steady EBITDA projections for 2024 and 2025
and reducing expectations for 2026.
Now, financial analysts at Roth MKM upgraded Tesla stock rating
from Neutral to Buy, establishing a new price target
of $380.00, significantly higher than their previous $80.00 a
target. Now, the firm's analysts suggest
that Elon Musk's public support for former President Trump and
new President Trump has expanded Tesla's consumer base and
strengthened confidence and potential market growth.
Now, Tesla CEO Elon Musk projected achievement of genuine
autonomous driving capability by mid 2025, focusing initialing on
Model 3 and on Model Y vehicles in California and Texas.
Now, during Tesla's third quarter earnings call last year,
Musk acknowledges sorry. Earlier this year, Musk
acknowledges tendency to provide optimistic timelines while also
revealing potential hardware limitations in vehicles equipped
with hardware 3 point O, promising free upgrades if
necessary. Now, early user feedback from
experience FSD testers indicate substantial improvements in the
system's performance. Veteran tester Dirty Tesla on X
reported successful navigation through snow covered dirt roads
with complete autonomy, while aid driver noted superior ride
smoothness compared to professional ride sharing
services. Now, the technical
implementation of FSD version 13.2 demonstrates notable
advancements in practical functionality.
Tesla Autopilot engineer emphasized the system's
comprehensive park to park capabilities, allowing vehicles
to complete entire journeys with minimal driver input beyond
initial destination selection. Market analysts attribute
Tesla's recent stock performance partially to expectations of a
more favorable regulatory environment under the new Trump
administration. Wedbush Securities analyst Dan
Ives suggested that Trump's presidency could expedite the
implementation timeline for autonomous driving technology,
potentially advancing goals originally set for 2026 or 2027.
And the company's strategic positioning includes aggressive
sales initiatives, particularly in the US market.
Tesla recently introduced year end discounts on Model Y
vehicles as part of its effort to achieve record-breaking
quarterly deliveries with analyst consensus projecting
498,000 vehicle deliveries in quarter four.
Now there's another tester out there.
FSD tester Chuck Cook documented improved performance in
challenging scenarios, specifically noting enhanced
navigation of unprotected left turns and natural appearing
U-turn maneuvers. These objectives or observations
suggest meaningful progress in the system's ability to handle
complex traffic situations. Now, the software updates impact
extends beyond really basic driving capabilities.
Whole Mars blog NX verify the system's comprehensive
automation, reporting successful navigation without requiring
steering wheel interaction throughout the journey at all.
This achievement marks a notable step towards Tesla's goal of
fully autonomous operations. You know, Tesla stock maintains
a leading position within the auto manufacturers industry
group, holding an 88 composite rating in 95 relative strength
rating. These metrics reflect strong
market performance relative to industry peers and overall
market conditions and the technological advancement
represented by FSD. The new FSD addresses several
previous limitations. The elimination of steering
wheel jitter and improved parking lot navigation,
including automated Supercharger station positioning, shows that
it's a refined control system and also enhanced environmental
awareness. Market response to Tesla's
latest FSD release occurs against the backdrop of
intensifying competition in the autonomous vehicle sector.
The company's stock consolidation around 34 month
highs suggests investors confidence and technical
progress and marketing positioning for Tesla.
And the integration of autonomous charging capabilities
with FSD 13.2 represents a huge technical achievement.
System's ability to navigate to improperly aligned with
Supercharger stations addresses a crucial aspect of EV
operation. Current market projections
anticipate continued growth in Tesla's delivery numbers with
expectations of two Point O 6,000,000 vehicles in 2024.
This forecast brings upon the company's previously quarter
rating record of 200 or 485,000 deliveries in quarter 4/20/23
in. The development of autonomous
driving technology from Tesla occurs within a very complex
regulatory and political landscape.
The potential influence of the future administration policies
on implementation of timelines adds another dimension to market
considerations and development strategies.
This new release of FSD combines technical advancement with
market optimization, while political factors and regulatory
considerations shape the company's autonomous driving
future under the new administration.
Now, let's switch some gears here from Tesla all the way to
this guy's with SpaceX and NASA. And the future of NASA's most
powerful rocket hangs in the balance following Donald Trump's
recent electoral victory. The Space Launch System or the
SLS, which is a cornerstone of our return to the moon, faces
potential cancellation, according to space industry
insiders. So Eric Berger recently posted
on X. To be clear, we're far from
anything being settled, but based on what I'm hearing, it
seems at least 5050 that NASA's Space Launch System rocket will
be cancelled. Eric Berger says it you know, he
has some inside information. He's been in this game for a
very long time and it cred some shed some credibility on this
potential of cancellation of the SLS.
So the SLS rocket let's get into this a little bit.
The SLS rocket serves as the primary launch vehicle for
NASA's Artemis program, which aims to return humans to the
moon for the first time since the Apollo era ended in 1972.
Now this massive rocket his demonstrated its capabilities
through successful testing, including the unmanned Artemis 1
mission in 2022. The complete of Artemis 3
mission would mark humanity's return to the Lerner surface,
and the current mission architecture for Artemis 3
involves a carefully choreographed sequence of
events. 4 astronauts will launch aboard NASA's Orion spacecraft,
which is carried by the SLS rocket into lunar orbit.
Now, upon reaching lunar orbit, 2 crew members will transfer to
Spacex's Starship vehicle, which will have launched separately to
make that ascent to the moon's surface.
And after completing their lunar exploration, these astronauts
will return to orbit in Starship, rejoin their
colleagues in Orion, make the journey back to Earth.
Now, technical challenges have pushed the timeline for the
first crewed lunar landing to autumn of 2026, considerably
later than initially planned. Various factors contribute to
these delays, including necessary redesigns of astronaut
space suits, complications with Orion's heat shield and life
support systems, and ongoing development issues with Starship
Lunar Lander down at Boca Chica Star Base, Texas.
Additionally, the upgraded mobile launch tower for the SLS
has experienced both cost overruns and scheduled delays.
You know, NASA space probe program has announced plans to
send its own astronauts to the lunar surface by 20-30, adding a
competitive element to this timeline.
Chinese space missions typically maintain conservative scheduling
estimates, suggesting their projected timeline may be more
reliable than American estimates.
This development has created pressure on NASA to maintain its
schedule and technological edge in space exploration.
Now Elon Musk's role in the incoming administration as a
chief cost cutter tasked with finding up to $2 trillion in
U.S. Federal budget reductions.
As another layer of complexity to the situation.
Musk's own space company, which is SpaceX, has achieved recent
success with its Starship program, including an impressive
demonstration where the vehicles massive booster stage was
recovered using robotic arms. The chopsticks at their Texas
launch site at Starbase. Now let's get a little bit of
finances. The aspects of the SLS program
have drawn scrutiny from various quarters.
Each launch of the SLS carries an estimated price tag exceeding
$2 billion, while billions more have already been invested in
the Rockets development in supporting infrastructure at
Kennedy Space Center. These costs stand in stark
contrast to Spacex's focus on reusable rocket technology,
which promises significantly lower launch costs.
We're not talking billions of dollars for an SLS, we're
talking millions of dollars now. The Starship vehicle presents an
intriguing alternative to the SLS, though, as it could
potentially serve both as a launch vehicle and the lunar
Lander. However, this option comes with
significant technical hurdles. Starship remains in its testing
phase right now must they must still demonstrate critical
capabilities such as in orbit refueling in uncrewed lunar
landings before it could be considered for crude missions.
Now, the Falcon Heavy, which is another SpaceX vehicle, has been
suggested as a possible launch platform for Orion.
This alternative would require substantial modifications to
both the rocket and the launch procedures, potentially
introducing new delays and technical challenges to the
Artemis program. But it wouldn't cost billions of
dollars to get this thing ready. These changes could impact both
positions of America and the Chinese Space Race.
Now. The Artemis program's goals
extend beyond simple lunar landings, though.
The program envisions establishing a permanent lunar
base where astronauts can conduct Advanced Research and
development technologies necessary for future space
exploration. The base would serve as a
proving ground for technologies and procedures needed for
eventual missions to Mars. Now, the Trump administration
has shown interest in prioritizing Mars exploration
over lunar missions, aligning with Musk's stated goal of
establishing a human presence on the Red Planet by 2028.
The shift in focus could significantly impact the future
of the SLS and the broader Artemis program.
The convergence of Trump's and Musk's Mars ambitions raises
questions about the long term direction of American space
policy. The original Artemis program,
established during President Trump's first administration in
2017, laid out a comprehensive plan for substantial lunar
exploration. The plan included not only
landing missions, but also the development of supporting
infrastructure and technologies necessary for long term lunar
presence. The current uncertainty
surrounding the SLS puts this broader vision at risk, and
NASA's assertion that the SOS is, quote, the only rocket that
can send Orion astronauts and cargo directly to the moon in a
single launch shows the rocket's unique capabilities.
The space agency has invested considerable resources in
developing this specialized vehicle designed specifically
for deep space missions. Canceling the program could
necessitate significant redesigns of mission
architecture and supporting systems.
Now, the technical requirements for lunar missions demand
specific rocket designs and extensive planning for crew
safety and mission success. Landing sites, particularly in
the unexplored lunar South Pole region, present unique
challenges that the current mission architecture was
designed specifically to address.
Any alternative launch system could need to meet these same
stringent requirements, including the Falcon Heavy and
Starship. That the economic implications
of cancelling SLS program extend behind the billions of dollars
already invested in it. The program supports thousands
of jobs across multiple States and maintains crucial aerospace
engineering capabilities within the United States.
These factors could influence potential political support for
any proposed changes to the program, but NASA's willingness
to collaborate with commercial space companies demonstrates the
agency's adaptability and recognition of private sector
capabilities. However, the complexity of deep
space missions suggests that a hybrid approach combining
government and also commercial capabilities might prove more
effective than completely privatizing lunar exploration
efforts now. The decision about the SLS
future carries implications for American leadership in space
exploration, international cooperation, and the development
of new space technologies. The incoming administration must
weigh various factors, including technical capabilities, economic
considerations, and geopolitical implications, before making any
final decisions about the program's future.
And the potential cancellation of the SLS is at a critical
juncture right now in American space exploration.
It's proven. It's already been around the
moon and back, and the Starship hasn't quite made it to orbit
yet. It's an emerging commercial
alternative to the SLS, but it's not quite there yet.
There's also national security interests and international
competition in space to think about.
SpaceX has only launched a few Starship rockets by this time
and they haven't done a in orbit refueling.
They haven't gone to complete orbit yet.
They haven't launched a satellite from this thing.
It is not crew rated like the Orion.
And also it can't get to the moon in one shot.
It has to stay in orbit to refuel a bunch of times, about a
dozen to 20 times somewhere in that region before it actually
goes to the moon. So astronauts would have to
launch and probably a Falcon Heavy or even a Falcon 9 to get
to the Starship. And then the crew would transfer
from that capsule to the Starship and then fly all the
way to the moon. And they would completely
dismantle the Orion program at this point because they wouldn't
really need it other than getting back to Earth.
And it would completely destroy that program and thousands of
people would lose their jobs or be restructured into NASA's.
Web fabric of of people that work there.
So it's a very complex thing to think about.
If they go forward with canceling the SLS, it'll be
probably another six years before Starship is actually
ready to fly this whole mission and they have to reconfigure
Falcon Heavy. It's going to be a big deal.
How effective is Tesla's Full Self Driving system under poor
visibility? And also what led a new federal
investigation targeting Tesla's driver assistance tech?
Could this scrutiny disrupt Elon Musk's robo taxi?
Now the National Hwy. Traffic Safety Administration,
the NHTSA, announced a preliminary evaluation into
Tesla's FSD technology after four reported crashes between
November 2023 and May of 2024. These incidents all occurred
under reduced visibility conditions such as fog, sun
glare or airborne dust. The agency's focus is whether
the software is capable of detecting and responding
appropriately in such scenarios. One of these incidents in
Rimrock, AZ involved a Tesla Model Y striking and killing a
pedestrian. The crashes have prompted
concerns over the system's reliability in non ideal driving
environments, leading to broader inquiries into its operational
safety. The investigation effects
approximately 2.4 million Tesla vehicles equipped with FSD,
spanning models released between 2016 and 2024.
This includes Model S, Model X, Model 3 and Model Y, and also
the 2023-2024 Cyber Truck. The preliminary evaluation is
just the first step in a potentially lengthy process that
could lead to recalls if the vehicles are deemed a safety
risk. The investigation will assess
whether Tesla has made updates to the FSD system to improve its
handling of poor visibility, and the NHTSA is also evaluating the
safety implications of the updates, examining their timing,
purpose and effectiveness. Now, the four crashes under
investigation are under certain scenarios with SFD appeared to
falter. Rimrock, AZ November 2023 I
already spoke about that when a pedestrian was killed after
being struck by a 2021 Tesla Model Y January 2024 in nipped
in California, a Model 3 collided with another vehicle
during a dust storm and Red Mills, Virginia in March of
2024, a Model 3 was involved in a crash on a cloudy day and
Collinsville, OH May 2024 a Model three hit a stationary
object on a foggy rural Rd., resulting in injuries.
Now the NHTSA is seeking to determine if these incidents are
indicative of broader systematic issues within the full self
driving system. Tesla has long marketed FSD
software as a step toward autonomous driving, though it
currently requires driver supervision, not its website.
Tesla clearly states that FSD is not a fully autonomous system in
advisors users to remain attentive during driving behind
the wheel. The system has faced scrutiny
throughout the years, with critics arguing that Tesla's
reliance and a camera only approach without supplemental
sensors like radar or Lidar may limit its reliability in adverse
conditions. And some industry experts
suggest that weather related challenges could be a critical
hurdle for Tesla's self driving. Now, this latest probe is not
Tesla's first encounter with regulators.
Earlier in 2023, NHTSA closed an investigation into Tesla's less
advanced Autopilot system after examining nearly 500 crashes.
That inquiry identified 13 fatal accidents, leading to heightened
concerns about Tesla's driver assistance technology.
Tesla also faces lawsuits and government investigations into
its claims about Autopilot and FSD.
One high profile case, Tesla reached a settlement early this
year avoiding a trial over an Autopilot related crash.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has issued subpoenas
related to Tesla's self driving claims, and the California
Department of Motor Vehicles has accused the company of
overstating the system's capabilities.
Now, Elon Musk has frequently touted Tesla's advancements in
autonomous technology, positioning it as a cornerstone
of the company's future. Just a week before the
investigation was announced, Musk unveiled the prototype of
the Cyber Cab 2 Seater Robo Taxi concept without a steering wheel
or pedals. Now, Musk claimed that Model
Threes and Model Y vehicles would operate without
supervision in California and Texas by 2025, but offer no
specifics on how this would be achieved.
However, regulatory hurdles loom large for Tesla to deploy
vehicles without traditional controls, approval from NHTSA
would be required. This poses a huge challenge as
the agency investigates Tesla's current technology and its
ability to ensure safety. Now, Tesla's approach to
autonomous driving relies exclusively on camera based
vision systems powered by artificial intelligence, a
method some experts argue is vulnerable to environmental
limitations. And competing companies such as
Waymo and Cruise incorporate lidar and radar technology to
enhance their system's ability to navigate complex
environments. Now, Jeff Schuster, who's a vice
president at Global Data, noted that weather conditions could
impede the performance of camera based systems, adding the
regulatory oversight may delay Tesla's deployment of fully
autonomous vehicles. And the investigation adds to
more pressure on Tesla as it faces increased competition in
the electric vehicle market. Companies focus on self driving
technology comes amid slowing demand for its core vehicles and
rivals are making strides in the robo taxi space with more robust
sensor arrays. Tesla's legal troubles and
regulatory scrutiny could also impact investor confidence.
While Tesla's stock rose slightly after the announcement
of the investigation, prolonged uncertainty could weigh on the
company's market position. Now.
What's next? The NHTS as preliminary
evaluation is expected to last up to 8 months, but the agency
identifies significant safety risks.
It could escalate the investigation to an engineering
analysis or recommend a recall. Tesla has not commented publicly
on the latest probe, leaving questions about its next steps
unanswered. The agency is also examining
whether Tesla drivers are adequately adhering to
instructions to remain engaged while using FSD.
Past investigations in Autopilot revealed instances where drivers
rely too heavily on the system, leading to accidents.
Now, Tesla has faced other fatal accidents involving its driver
assist systems. In one instance in April of
2023, a Model S operating in FSD mode struck and killed a
motorist near Seattle. Such incidents have drawn
criticism from safety advocates, who argue that Tesla's branding
of the software as Full Self Driving and mislead users into
overestimating its capabilities. Now, the company's December 2023
recall of more than two million vehicles to address issues with
its Autopilot system also remains under review.
The NHTSA is still evaluating whether those measures
adequately resolve concerns about drivers not paying
attention. Hey, thank you so much for
listening today. I really do appreciate your
support. If you could take a second and
hit the subscribe or the follow button on whatever podcast
platform that you're listening on right now, I greatly
appreciate it. It helps out the show
tremendously and you'll never miss an episode.
And each episode is about 10 minutes or less to get you
caught up quickly. And please, if you want to
support the show even more, go to patreon.com/stagezero and
please take care of yourselves and each other and I'll see you
tomorrow.