News
Elon Musk wants the Government to be a referee, not a player in the game of industry and innovation
Elon Musk is one of the most innovative minds to ever exist in the tech community. With his multiple companies providing successful changes in how some industries, like automotive, are looked at, Musk is a proven CEO with a track record to back it up. His many ideas basically changed the idea of what it is like to drive a car, which many of us thought would be dominated by gas and diesel-powered engines for years to come. An innovative mind and a lot of hard work undoubtedly contributed to Tesla’s success, and Musk has no interest in giving credit to anyone who didn’t earn it.
With the election coming to a close and a new Presidential campaign being selected to run the United States for the next four years, Musk was recently asked during an interview with the Wall Street Journal whether President-Elect Joe Biden’s plans to spend big on industry and innovation were a good thing. Musk doesn’t seem to have a problem with the idea, but he is vocal about the fact that the government should do more regulating than contributing. The role of Government, after all, is to enact laws and make sure they are abided by citizens. Additionally, assisting with companies’ innovation is something the Government shouldn’t stick its nose up at. Still, Musk just hopes that it plays more of an administrative role instead of becoming a “player in the game.”
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
“It’s the Government’s role to establish the rules of the game and then ensure that those rules are properly enforced,” Musk said. The CEO even compared the Government’s role to that of a referee in a game of football: Know the rules, enforce them correctly, make sure the game is fair.
What the Government doesn’t need to do is stay out of the way of the big companies who are working to innovate the processes of daily life to benefit them and their objectives. “I think when the Government does not do a great job is when they want to not just be a referee on the field, they want to be a player on the field. This does not end up in a good situation.”
The issue with the Government overreaching into the field of industry and innovation is that they will “pick technology winners and losers” instead of letting companies play out their innovation themselves. This could lead to small companies being undermined even if they have ideas or technology that larger companies don’t have access to.
This scenario, if Government was overly involved in tech and innovation, could have crippled Tesla’s efforts when the company was just starting to churn out vehicles in 2008. Even though Tesla had established itself as a player in electric vehicles, it was a small, relatively unknown company that faced massive problems due to lack of funds. Nearly shutting its doors after issues with the original Roadster, Tesla somehow overcame the adversity and received more investor money.
Now, imagine if the Government would have been a player instead of a referee in this scenario. It would have likely given a large financial assistance package to a well-developed, large scale automaker like Ford or GM to develop EVs. Instead, it stayed out of the innovation portion of the equation and let the players decide the game for themselves. Tesla ended up becoming the leader in EVs, while GM and Ford are failing to catch up. It’s fairly safe to say that without Tesla, EVs would not be what they are today. The legacy automakers that exist in the universe of automotive manufacturing would likely have cranked out one or two low-range models because their primary focus is still on gas-powered cars and not on electrification.
This whole picture perfectly aligns with how Tesla’s story has played out thus far. It is fairly obvious that the Government in 2008 would have sided with a company with proven infrastructure, and not some company who had a shot in the dark to change the entire framework of vehicle manufacturing. This is where Musk made his next point: Make the rules that incentivize the outcome, not the path.
The ultimate goal is to let companies figure out issues on their own. There is no reason to have Government programs essentially hold the hands of private industry. There needs to be more of a focus on the end goal and not the path a company takes to get there. Rarely is the road to success a straight and narrow path. Many companies, Tesla being a prime example, have to fight and struggle to create a new, innovative project. Tesla’s story is perfect evidence that the end goal takes a lot of persistence and it doesn’t need to be filled with hand-holding from large Government entities. While Biden’s plan to pump money into innovation and industry may help some companies get back on their feet in dire times of need, it shouldn’t hold the hands of these large companies whose job it is to figure out the answer to problems.
When large car companies begin to manufacture and deliver electric vehicles that are good for consumers, then they should be rewarded. Riding on the coattails of Government assistance packages that don’t necessarily guarantee innovation is the wrong way to go about things. When companies prove that they are in the business of creating a great product, then the rewards should come in. It’s that simple.
On behalf of the entire Teslarati team, we’re working hard behind the scenes on bringing you more personalized members benefits, and can’t thank you enough for your continued support!
News
SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit
SpaceX filed with the FCC for Starship Flight 14, its first true orbital launch attempt.
SpaceX has asked the Federal Communications Commission for permission to fly Starlink terminals during Starship’s fourteenth flight test, and the filing lays out a genuine trip to orbit, something the program has never attempted.
Every Starship flight so far, including Flight 13’s successful splashdown in the Indian Ocean on July 24, has flown a suborbital arc that ends with the ship reentering the atmosphere within the same hour it launches. The FCC paperwork describes a mission profile built around an actual orbital insertion instead.
The payload is the other half of the story. Flight 13 carried 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, but because that mission never reached orbit, the satellites reentered along with the ship rather than joining the constellation, something Teslarati covered in detail after SpaceX released footage shot from one of those satellites as it drifted away from Starship in space. Flight 14 is designed to close that gap. If the orbital insertion holds, the roughly 20 V3 satellites onboard would separate into an operational orbit and could eventually go into service, each one rated for about 1 terabit per second of downlink capacity by SpaceX’s own account.
SpaceX announces new Starbase for ‘thousands of Starship launches annually’
Elon Musk first flagged the orbital attempt during SpaceX’s August 4 earnings call, the company’s first as a public entity following its June IPO under the ticker SPCX. He also floated catching the ship with the Starbase tower on the same flight, an idea he walked back on August 20, saying the catch attempt would more likely come “in a few months,” as Teslarati reported at the time. Flight 14 will instead target a splashdown for the ship in the Indian Ocean, the same recovery method used since Flight 12.
Hardware has been catching up to the ambition. Booster 21 completed a full 33-engine static fire on August 28, and Ship 41 finished its own six-engine test the week before. An airspace briefing circulated to pilots on August 20 listed September 15 as the target date, later than the end of August window Musk mentioned on the earnings call, though SpaceX has not confirmed a launch date publicly and Starship schedules routinely slip while hardware and FAA paperwork line up.
The FCC filing itself does not guarantee a launch date. It covers communications authority, and not flight readiness, considering SpaceX still needs Ship 41 fully stacked and cleared by the FAA before Flight 14 can fly. But the filing is a real marker of intent and it puts a specific regulatory process behind what had so far only been Musk’s word on the earnings call.
Tesla is set to launch Cybercab on Thursday at an event in Austin, Texas, which will officially bring the company’s first steering wheel-less and pedal-less vehicle to a limited number of consumers for the first time.
The event, which is invite-only, is still thin on details: we’ll be there, and it seems the event will be held at Gigafactory Texas, but the launch of this vehicle truly relies on it being operational outside of the factory and on public roads.
🚨 Close-Up look at Tesla Cybercab without steering wheel: pic.twitter.com/9TXCDeDCz7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 3, 2026
Nevertheless, there are some big things to expect, and other things to temper expectations on. For what it’s worth, we believe this event could be perhaps the biggest indication that Tesla is ready to truly enter a new phase and chapter in its historic story.
Tesla Cybercab’s First Foray into the Public with Real-World Riders
Cybercab will likely hit the streets of Austin and the surrounding areas, likely in the established geofence that Tesla has expanded on for the past 14 months. Just yesterday, Tesla expanded it once again by 9 percent.
Tesla will put, for the first time, a vehicle without any manual controls on public roads, likely without any help from teleoperators. This is a truly groundbreaking development if it comes through in this fashion: it would be groundbreaking for Tesla to roll out a truly driverless ride-hailing vehicle.
Cybercab Has Already Been Unveiled
This is not an unveiling event. Cybercab has been released for nearly two years, as Tesla first showed it to the public on October 10, 2024.
FIRST LOOK: Tesla ‘Cybercab’ Robotaxi makes its global debut
While there is some small speculation that Tesla could release the Roadster at the event as a surprise, it seems more likely the focus will be on the Cybercab and the huge accomplishment that will come with releasing a vehicle with no manual controls.
There Will Be a Lot of Hype
What’s important to remember about the Cybercab event is that Tesla will continue to prioritize safety and the rollout will likely be slow, just as it has been with Robotaxi.
One of the biggest complaints about Robotaxi is vehicle population, and the fact that the wait for a ride, at least in some instances, has been longer than most want to admit.
It will take time for this project to truly scale. It will take time for Tesla to roll this out in a large fashion. The important thing to note is that they are doing it, and they’re doing it with a vehicle that is completely engineered and built internally. That’s something no other ride-hailing service can say.
Elon Musk recently restated a fact that still defines SpaceX’s origin story: if Falcon 1’s fourth launch had failed, the company would not exist. The comment answered a reminder that after three consecutive losses, SpaceX had money for only one more attempt.
On X, Peter Diamandis said that the present-day acknowledgement of SpaceX’s success does not discount the rough start the company had. “Almost nobody remembers that Elon’s first rocket failed three times, and there was money for exactly only one more attempt.”
Musk said, “If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist.”
If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 30, 2026
In late 2008, the firm was nearly out of cash. Another failure would have ended payroll, closed the Hawthorne factory, and left the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as unfinished drawings.
The first flight lifted off from Omelek Island on 24 March 2006. Thirty-three seconds later, a corroded aluminum fitting on a fuel line leaked. Kerosene ignited around the Merlin engine, control was lost, and the vehicle came apart. The small DARPA payload, FalconSAT-2, survived the short flight only to land on a storage shed near the pad. Investigators later traced the fitting to a materials mix-up that should never have reached the rocket.
Flight 2, on 21 March 2007, looked far better at first. The first stage burned cleanly and handed off to the Kestrel-powered upper stage. The vehicle crossed 100 kilometers and reached a peak of about 289 kilometers. Then propellant slosh in the second-stage tank started a circular coning motion that grew until the engine shut down. Telemetry faded as the stage tumbled, and SpaceX had reached space but not orbit. Over the next year, the team redesigned everything from the ground up, including tanks, baffles, and the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C.
That engine flew on Flight 3 on 2 August 2008. The first stage performed almost perfectly and reached 217 kilometers. After main-engine cutoff, leftover fuel in the cooling channels produced a faint residual thrust, roughly 10 pounds per square inch of chamber pressure. On a Texas test stand, the effect was invisible beneath ambient air pressure. In vacuum it was enough to push the spent first stage back into the second stage after separation. The stages collided, the upper stage spun, and the mission was lost. Musk later said a slightly longer delay before staging would have saved the flight.
Six weeks later, the team assembled Flight 4 from remaining parts and flew it on 28 September 2008 at 23:15 UTC. The payload was Ratsat, a 165-kilogram aluminum mass simulator built in-house. Staging was delayed so residual thrust could decay. The Kestrel ignited, the fairing split away, and nine and a half minutes after liftoff the vehicle was in orbit. After a coast, the second stage restarted, settling into a 621-by-643-kilometer path at 9.35 degrees inclination. Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach Earth orbit. Musk called the insertion “middle of the bull’s-eye.”
SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success
That success unlocked NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services award later that year. Without it, there would have been no Falcon 9, no reusable first stages, and no Dragon cargo or crew flights to the International Space Station. Launch prices would have remained far higher. Starlink’s constellation would not exist; broadband from low Earth orbit would still be a paper concept.
Ride-share markets, high launch cadence, and the current pace of lunar and Mars hardware would be years behind. Communications, Earth observation, and the cost of putting anything into space would look more like the 2000s than the 2020s.
One extra second of residual thrust in August 2008 would have written a different decade.
SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit
Tesla Cybercab Event: what to expect from Austin
