SpaceX
Yes, we deserve to colonize Mars and keep our “light of consciousness”
Elon Musk has spoken previously about having a duty to maintain the “light of consciousness” of humanity as the main rationale for multi-planetary habitation, or why we should colonize Mars specifically. It’s a pretty simple concept, really. Eventually the Earth will no longer be able to host human life as we know it, suffering from some sort of malady which will wipe out our species. Pick your poison: Asteroid attack, the Sun’s Earth-engulfing expansion, or even climate change. Something will bring us down, someday, unless we are proactive in our approach to survival.
Unfortunately, facts are fun things that don’t always help with solving problems (and annoyingly so), but it seems there’s also a crowd that doesn’t disagree with the facts and instead questions whether we even “deserve” to respond to them altogether.
In her recent TechCrunch article titled “The Ethics of Colonizing Mars”, Shivika Sinha cited Elon Musk, NASA, and the progress being made towards Mars and then asked the question, “Do humans deserve to be multi-planetary?”
Her argument framed capitalism and consumerism as co-conspirators of our modern societal woes, and her conclusion was that we need to change our “parasitic” ways before exporting them to other planets in the universe. The whole argument was really just the human-shaming version of “fix Earth first”, a common objection to deep space colonization.
Interplanetary Transport System by SpaceX
As a perfect, imperfect example of one of billions of humans on this planet, I will quite willingly admit that we are not a perfect species; however, I don’t understand why there’s so much guilt felt for merely existing in certain sects of society. It’s your choice whether to like who you are, but remember that you cannot live without living. You cannot stop pursuing the long-term survival of the species simply because you do not approve of its current state. Why aspire to be more if we are telling ourselves we are not even good enough to be such?
Behavior takes time to adjust. We do not live in a controlled, variable-limited scientific model society wherein our survival mechanisms are neatly categorized into “good” vs. “bad” choices. And more still, since when did survival become a question of worth? Many of humanity’s greatest accomplishments in societal evolution have been those which expand the ability to survive. Indeed, a huge part of compassion in our value system is the belief that everyone has the right to a life that is so much more than simply surviving. Given the consequences of not eventually going to colonize another planet, how does the logic compute that our species is suddenly not worthy of existence whatsoever?
Sinha points to the flaws in our system which are in contradiction with the natural world, destroying it specifically, yet she doesn’t credit the source of the flaws to begin with: That same natural world. We were born in it, raised in it, and learned to survive based on those experiences. Somewhere along the line, we developed consciousness as a result of that process of surviving. We didn’t suddenly arrive on a beautifully balanced Earth ecosystem and begin sucking resources to feed our ravenous appetites. We fought hard to get here, and as an evolved species of this planet, we have the right to fight to continue to survive – just as every other living creature on Earth has done.
But that’s not the line of discussion I wanted to flesh out here.
Instead, I’d like to suggest that multi-planetary habitation is actually quite compatible with Sinha’s (and others like her) perspective because colonization is more than just a survival plan: It’s a tool for evolving our consciousness towards a value system which includes “conscious consumerism” by default.
We evolved with the resources available in our Earth environment, and we’ve often taken them for granted because they were always there and available to us. When we take our species to colonize Mars, we will be doing just the opposite by transforming its environment to provide resources we need to survive. The very act of creating an environment fit for our survival will transform us into hyper-aware custodians. Every resource will be valued right down to the tiniest amounts measurable because even the most minute amounts will be important. Every action we take will have reactions that we must carefully calculate if we hope to survive.
Taking the human race into deep space is so much more than “exporting” our consumerism once we’ve outgrown its birth place. It’s evolving who we are, increasing our awareness, and forcing us to understand the environments we will depend on and cannot risk taking for granted. We will be conscious of every choice we make as a matter of survival, and those lessons we learn in the early days of exploration will set the stage for the next phase of human colonization.
In the end, I think we’re all on the same page as far as long-term “colonize Mars” goals. The difference is simply in perspective. Taking our species to places like Mars isn’t an act based on some sort of contrived selfishness. It’s answering something we’ve had calling to us since the beginning of time: The stars. We came from them, and it’s to be expected that eventually we will want to return. Mars is the next step.
Onwards.
Tesla and SpaceX shares fell on Wednesday after Democrats swept both chambers of Congress. The decline stood out as broader market securities recovered and turned positive, while both of Musk’s publicly traded companies lagged.
CEO Elon Musk already joked about the unsuccessful campaigning for the Republicans, but now the new party will make pretty drastic changes to how it handles Tesla and SpaceX, and those companies will adjust their outlook.
Let’s take a deeper look.
Tesla ($TSLA)
Tesla shares traded lower during the regular session after Democrats secured both the House and Senate. The stock was down 2.32 percent at around 1:45 p.m. on the East Coast, trading at around $389.30.
The pressure is tied to more than the raw scale of Musk’s political spending, estimated at $450–474 million this cycle with roughly $224 million directed at Texas. In that state, Tesla now faces a Democratic governor and a Democratic senator after Gina Hinojosa unseated Greg Abbott and James Talarico defeated Ken Paxton.
The Austin Gigafactory, Robotaxi pilot programs in multiple Texas cities, and any related AI compute expansion sit under a new state executive who campaigned against certain corporate subsidies and floated a moratorium on new data-center construction.
Federally, Democratic control of key committees opens the door to deeper examination of Tesla’s autonomous-driving safety record, federal energy-storage and manufacturing incentives, and the national-security implications of any combination with SpaceX.
Investors are also weighing whether the company’s historically close alignment with the prior Republican leadership will invite slower permitting, additional hearings, or tighter rules on Full Self-Driving deployment.
For Tesla, the political shift adds near-term friction around state permitting and federal regulatory approvals for autonomy and energy storage. A potential merger with SpaceX may face slower review even if it proceeds.
Core growth drivers such as vehicle deliveries, energy deployments, and robotaxi rollout remain intact, yet the stock now carries a higher political-risk premium that could weigh on valuation until the company demonstrates workable relationships with the new Texas leadership and congressional majorities.
SpaceX ($SPCX)
SpaceX shares also declined in live trading on November 4 following the Democratic midterm sweep. The stock traded at $134.97, down 4.49 percent. The drop occurred even as broader indexes stabilized, highlighting a company-specific reaction to the election outcome.
Musk’s large contributions, concentrated in Texas races that both companies lost, place SpaceX’s Starbase launch facility and headquarters under a new Democratic governor.
At the federal level, Democratic control of Congress enables greater scrutiny of NASA, the Department of Defense, and other contracts that support a meaningful share of revenue, along with reviews of Starlink national-security uses and any Tesla merger. Analysts have noted that empowered committees can hold hearings and request documents on these relationships.
For SpaceX, the results raise the risk of delayed contract awards, higher compliance costs, and tighter constraints on AI and satellite infrastructure expansion, particularly in Texas where a data-center moratorium has been discussed.
A merger with Tesla could encounter political friction that slows integration of launch, connectivity, and autonomy capabilities.
While Starlink growth and launch cadence continue as primary drivers, the company faces a more contested path for federal funding and state-level operations, requiring management to rebuild ties with the new congressional majorities and Texas leadership to limit the overhang.
SpaceX has selected Qualcomm Technologies to supply core infrastructure for Starlink Mobile’s planned nationwide terrestrial 5G network in the United States.
Announced on November 4, the multi-year agreement covers radios, baseband units, and commercial-grade Layer 1 software based on Qualcomm’s Dragonwing Cellular Infrastructure platforms, specifically the QRU100 and QDU100:
🚀 SpaceX has picked Qualcomm to supply radios, baseband units and Layer 1 software for Starlink Mobile’s nationwide terrestrial 5G network.
Deployment across tens of thousands of U.S. cell sites starts in 2027. Qualcomm calls it its biggest 5G deal yet. https://t.co/YKLRakuJjB
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 4, 2026
These will power Massive MIMO radio units featuring 64 transmit and 64 receive paths (64T64R), designed to boost coverage, capacity, and spectral efficiency at scale. Qualcomm has described the pact as its largest 5G deal to date, with deployment across tens of thousands of U.S. cell sites scheduled to begin in 2027.
The terrestrial build-out is meant to complement, not replace, Starlink’s satellite direct-to-cell capabilities. SpaceX has assembled substantial spectrum holdings for this purpose: roughly 65 MHz of mid-band frequencies acquired from EchoStar (including AWS-4 and related bands) and up to 14 MHz of low-band 800 MHz spectrum from Grain Management.
The low-band airwaves improve indoor penetration and range, while mid-band supports higher capacity. SpaceX executives, including President Gwynne Shotwell, have outlined a hybrid architecture in which satellites eliminate outdoor dead zones and terrestrial nodes add capacity where demand is highest.
Earlier comments suggested small cells or femtocells potentially co-located with existing Starlink user terminals on roofs, though later filings also reference more conventional antennas on towers and structures.
The big picture is SpaceX’s bid to become a full-fledged U.S. mobile carrier rather than a satellite partner or dead-zone filler. AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile together generate hundreds of billions in annual wireless revenue; Shotwell has said SpaceX expects to win customers by offering superior coverage, including during disasters, through seamless satellite-terrestrial handoff.
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
Starlink already represents a major share of SpaceX’s revenue and profit following the company’s 2026 IPO. By vertically integrating spectrum, satellite manufacturing, launch capacity, and now ground radio equipment, SpaceX aims to control more of the connectivity stack.
Qualcomm’s involvement also positions the network for future evolution toward AI-native 6G infrastructure, with energy-efficient processing that could improve deployment economics.
Challenges remain: spectrum depth still lags the Big Three, capital costs for tens of thousands of sites will be substantial, and regulatory approvals continue, but the Qualcomm deal marks a concrete step from spectrum accumulation toward operational network build-out.
In short, the partnership accelerates Starlink Mobile’s shift from orbital broadband specialist to hybrid mobile competitor, testing whether a space-based company can reshape terrestrial wireless economics and coverage in the world’s largest market.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk’s Grok Bot is picking up the phone now, and the first calls are wild
Elon Musk wants Grok Bot users making phone calls, and one Comcast call saved $500.
Elon Musk is pushing Grok Bot users toward a feature that, until this week, few of them could actually use. “Try asking Grok @Bot to make calls!” Musk wrote on X Tuesday afternoon, quoting a demo from Sawyer Merritt that included audio from a live call.
Musk first announced calling on October 25, writing that the agent could “call someone or a business for you, make a request on your behalf, take notes on the response and send you a note summarizing the conversation.” There were no release notes at the time, and the feature only appeared in preview builds. That changed on Tuesday, when creator Peter Yang said all Grok Bot users should now be able to call US businesses. Musk reposted his demo.
Try asking Grok @Bot to make calls! — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 3, 2026
Yang’s call shows how far the feature goes. In his video, his bot dialed Comcast, worked through the phone menu, deflected small talk about the weather by saying it does not “have eyes on the sky,” turned down three upsells and used a cheaper fiber offer from competitor Sonic as leverage. His bill dropped from $84 to $45 per month on a faster plan, a savings of nearly $500 a year. The call ran about 25 minutes, and the bot paused to get Yang’s approval before accepting the final terms.
Merritt described what the user sees: a live transcript runs during the call, and when the business asks for something the bot does not know, an answer box pops up in the chat. The user types a reply and Grok relays it to the person on the line. Other users posted results Tuesday, including a $100 gift card recovered from Verizon Fios after a 51 minute call and a same day pediatric appointment, which Musk also shared. Not every call worked. One user said a rep refused to cancel a subscription once it was clear an AI was on the phone.
Grok @Bot can now call someone or a business for you, make a request on your behalf, take notes on the response and send you a note summarizing the conversation! — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 25, 2026
The Grok Bot terms require every call to identify itself as a virtual assistant calling on the user’s behalf and warn that calls may be recorded. Marketing, mass calling and impersonation are prohibited, and calling currently works only with US numbers.
The timing stands out. Days ago, users began hitting their weekly limits early, and Musk said the cost of serving Grok Bot was “unsustainably high relative to revenue,” as Teslarati reported. A call that spends most of its 25 or 50 minutes on hold is the kind of long running task that eats into usage, and SpaceXSI has not said how calls count against the weekly pool. Grok Bot is included from the $30 Premium tier of The X Subscription upward.
For Tesla owners, the agent has been in their cars since September 22 and is enabled across every Cybercab and Model Y Robotaxi. Musk has already pitched it for phone chores like scrubbing your number from spam call lists. Neither Tesla nor SpaceXSI has confirmed whether a bot can place one of these calls on request from inside the vehicle.
EVgo taps Tesla Superchargers for mass charging expansion
Tesla Giga Texas reportedly moves to 24/7 production
