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.