Welcome to a FREE preview of our weekly exclusive! Each week our team goes ‘Beyond the News’ and handcrafts a special edition that includes our thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
You can receive this newsletter along with all of our other members-exclusive newsletters, become a premium member for just $3/month. Your support goes a long way for us behind the scenes! Thank you.
—
The recent headlines about Dyson’s abandoned efforts at making an electric car were probably music to the EV-doubter crowd’s ears. I assume this not so much because the Rolls Royce of vacuum companies had difficulty transitioning into a completely different industry, but because of the reason given for the shut down:
“However, though we have tried very hard throughout the development process we simply can no longer see a way to make it commercially viable.”
Sure, the jokes are funny. (“I guess they ‘sucked’ at making cars,” etc.) But the dissenters will point to this as yet another example of why the long-term prospects of EVs are overestimated by a long shot. No amount of regulations can fix the business-case and economic fact that there’s a huge cost obstacle to manufacturing battery-electric vehicles that can only bring the price down so much. Even Elon Musk has commented about this, saying something along the lines of how he doesn’t hate cheaper cars; they’re just not possible to make right now.
Quite possibly the biggest obstacles to widespread EV adoption is the affordability factor (the other being supply chain limiting production capability). While Tesla is obviously working on this aspect and some might argue they’re already there with a $35k Standard Range Model 3 (downgraded post-purchase), it really seems like it’s going to be an issue for a long time for companies other than Tesla. In other words, Tesla will probably figure out mass market, cheap cars way quicker than their competitors and stay ahead of the game for years if not decades. Is that a win for the movement, though?
To be perfectly honest, I’m a market principles person. My favorite part about Tesla (and SpaceX) was how a customer-driven approach was taken to revolutionize an industry (or two) after the government-driven approach had been wanting at best. The myths about EV ownership don’t exist in a vacuum (sorry, I had to). They came from a history of compliance EVs that were produced to merely meet requirements and not a bit of innovation more. For people that can’t afford a Tesla, it doesn’t matter that the company has achieved amazing things with their product. Their perspective is somewhat like scrolling through various celebrity Instagram accounts: How nice for them!
If Tesla wants to lead a movement of battery-powered vehicles on a global scale, someone has to be able to keep up. Right? Porsche seems to be on the right track, but they’re even less affordable than a Tesla and have always only sought to appeal to a niche luxury market. It seems to me that the issue is something beyond the tech itself, considering Tesla has “open sourced” its patents. What is it? What is driving huge companies with huge resources to fail at even creating a Tesla-level vehicle circa 2012?
I do think it’s a bit lazy to blame it on oil profits. If EVs made as much business sense for those “gasoline/diesel-centered” companies as it does for Tesla, they’d convert in a heartbeat. That’s the bit about markets that you can usually rely on. If there’s money to gain, there are players waiting to cash in. Also, there will be a market for oil companies for a long time due to manufacturing needs, and their investors are perfectly willing to diversify their portfolios with other things that make good money.
Or maybe that’s it in itself? Once Tesla has the cost-ratio figured out, the other players will follow along and start investing serious money in repeating that success. But what if that’s not it? How committed can Tesla be to its own movement if no one can catch up? Do others need to catch up? Will “good enough” be enough for global EV adoption with Tesla always representing the luxury segment of the market?
Lifestyle
Tesla saves its passengers again – This time after a 300-foot cliff fall in Malibu
A Tesla Model 3 fell 300 feet off a Malibu cliff and both passengers survived.
A Tesla Model 3 plunged roughly 300 feet off a cliff on Mulholland Highway in Malibu on Friday morning, May 29, 2026, and both occupants survived. The crash was reported at approximately 7:30 a.m. near the 2500 block of Mulholland Highway, triggering a multi-agency rescue operation involving Malibu Search and Rescue, the Los Angeles County Fire Department, the California Highway Patrol, and McCormick Ambulance.
When first responders arrived, the male driver was outside the vehicle shouting for help while the female passenger remained pinned inside the Tesla. Rescue crews rappelled down the cliffside on ropes to reach the wreckage. A flight medic was lowered by helicopter to begin treating both victims, and the driver was hoisted up to the roadway before crews used the Jaws of Life to free the trapped passenger. Both were airlifted to a local trauma center with moderate injuries despite a remarkable result for a fall that steep.
The outcome is not surprising, considering Model 3 earned an overall 5-star rating from NHTSA in every category and sub-category, and recorded the lowest probability of injury of any car ever evaluated by the U.S. New Car Assessment Program. The absence of a traditional engine in the front of the vehicle creates a longer crumple zone that absorbs impact energy before it reaches occupants, and the battery pack running along the floor gives the car an unusually low center of gravity that reinforces structural rigidity.
This is not the first time a Tesla has kept passengers alive after going off a cliff. A Tesla Model Y carrying a family of four survived a plunge off a cliff at Devil’s Slide near San Francisco in January 2023, with two adults and two children walking away from a 250-foot fall. That incident drew widespread attention to how the structural integrity of Tesla’s electric platform performs in extreme crash scenarios that most vehicles would not survive.
Tesla Model Y driver who drove off cliff with family attempts to avoid criminal conviction
Elon Musk
NASA’s first human outpost on the Moon starts now – SpaceX on deck
NASA named the rovers, landers, and vendors that will build America’s first Moon Base.
NASA has laid out its most detailed Moon Base plan to date, describing a permanent outpost near the Moon’s south pole that the agency intends to build over the coming decade as a direct stepping stone to Mars. “The Moon Base will be America’s and humanity’s first outpost on another celestial world,” NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said, adding that every mission crewed and uncrewed “will be a learning opportunity as we return to the lunar surface, build the infrastructure to stay, and master the skills required to live and operate in one of the most demanding and dangerous environments imaginable.”
The plan is structured in three phases involving both uncrewed and crewed missions to deliver equipment, vehicles, and infrastructure to the surface, with the first three moon base missions targeted to launch before the end of 2026.
Moon Base I, targeting fall 2026, will use Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Mark 1 lander to deliver scientific instruments to the Shackleton Connecting Ridge, the same region where Artemis astronauts will land. Moon Base II will send Astrobotic’s Griffin lander carrying more than 1,100 pounds of cargo including Astrolab’s FLIP rover to begin developing mobility systems on the surface. Moon Base III will carry the Lunar Vertex science mission on Intuitive Machines’ Nova-C Trinity lander to study lunar swirls near the south pole, with ESA and Korean science payloads aboard.
On the rover side, NASA awarded Astrolab $219 million and Lunar Outpost $220 million to build the first phase of Lunar Terrain Vehicles, with both rovers targeted for deployment to the lunar surface by 2028. Astrolab’s crewed rover weighs roughly 2,000 pounds and can reach over 6 mph. Lunar Outpost’s Pegasus rover can operate autonomously or via remote control at over 9 mph. Blue Origin separately received $188 million with an option worth $280.4 million to deliver cargo landers for rover transport.
NASA also confirmed that MoonFall, a mission deploying four survey drones to scout Artemis landing sites, has selected Firefly Aerospace to build the transport spacecraft, with a 2028 launch target.
SpaceX sits at the center of that commercial layer. SpaceX holds the NASA Human Landing System contract for the Starship-derived lander that will put astronauts on the surface under Artemis IV, currently targeting 2028. Before that can happen, SpaceX must demonstrate in-orbit propellant transfer at scale, a process requiring multiple Starship tanker launches to fuel a single mission. Water ice at the lunar south pole is central to the base’s long-term viability, as it can be converted into drinking water, breathable oxygen, and rocket fuel, directly reducing dependence on Earth resupply. That resource loop becomes far more practical if Starship can land and be refueled on or near the Moon itself.
Elon Musk has publicly stated that Starship V3, which recently completed its first flight, should be capable enough for initial Mars missions. The Moon Base plan announced Tuesday is the infrastructure layer that connects everything between those two ambitions, and SpaceX is the only American company currently contracted to build the rocket that gets humans to either destination.
Elon Musk
Tesla ditches India after years of broken promises
Tesla has ditched its plans to build a factory in India after years of failed negotiations.
Tesla’s long-running effort to establish a manufacturing presence in India is officially over. India’s Minister of Heavy Industries H.D. Kumaraswamy confirmed on May 19, 2026 that Tesla has informed authorities it will not proceed with a manufacturing facility in the country.
Tesla first signaled serious interest in India around 2021, when it began hiring local staff and lobbying the Indian government for lower import tariffs. The ask was straightforward: reduce duties enough for Tesla to test the market with imported vehicles before committing capital to a local factory. India’s position was equally firm, with an ask of Tesla to commit to manufacturing first, then receive tariff relief. Neither side moved, and the talks quietly collapsed.
Tesla to open first India experience center in Mumbai on July 15
India had offered a policy that would reduce import duties from 110% down to 15% on EVs priced above $35,000, provided companies committed at least $500 million toward local manufacturing investment within three years. Tesla declined to participate. The tariff standoff was only part of the problem. Analysts pointed to significant gaps in India’s local supply chain, inadequate industrial infrastructure, and a mismatch between Tesla’s premium pricing and the purchasing power of India’s automotive market as additional factors that made the investment difficult to justify.
First signs of an unraveling relationship came in April 2024, when Musk abruptly cancelled a planned trip to India where he was set to meet Prime Minister Modi and announce Tesla’s market entry. By July 2024, Fortune reported that Tesla executives had stopped contacting Indian government officials entirely. The government at that point understood Tesla had capital constraints and no plans to invest.
The more fundamental issue is that Tesla’s existing factories are currently operating at approximately 60% capacity, making a commitment to building new manufacturing capacity in a new market difficult to defend to investors. Tesla will continue selling imported Model Y vehicles through its existing showrooms in Mumbai, Delhi, Gurugram, and Bengaluru, but local production is no longer part of the plan.
Tesla improves Dashcam playback with awesome addition
Tesla Full Self-Driving attempts 150-mile stress test: the good and the bad
