The Tesla community is one of the more polarizing groups that exists in the world of cars. It appears that it is almost 50/50 in terms of whether supporters of Tesla are willing to lend their support to other manufacturers. Some aren’t willing to hear other companies out.
While there isn’t an overwhelming push in one way or another, one thing is for certain: Tesla supporters love Tesla. But whether they’re willing to commend another automaker for developments that they may have made or cars they plan to build is a different story.
For years, Tesla was always considered a car company that didn’t have much potential. It didn’t have much money. It didn’t have many proven automotive industry veterans behind the engineering or supply chain of their cars, and it was trying to convince people that gas was inferior to electric. In 2008, this wasn’t a simple task. It was closer to impossible at the time.
Only a few people could afford Tesla’s Roadster, which was all apart of the plan so the company could pile up some funding for future projects. But on top of that, even if it was affordable, would people have bought it? Who knows.
This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
But after Tesla started manufacturing the Model S, people began to really listen. People had invested their money into the company’s IPO just two years earlier, and the Model S was the sleek, fast, and pretty car that everyone wanted. But it was still an uphill climb. After the Model X came out, it wasn’t much of a difference; it was just the SUV version of an electric car. But the Model 3 came around and convinced many people around the world that Tesla was for real. It had built a car that people could afford. It had great range, it had performance. Most of all, Tesla proved that it could mass-produce a vehicle, even if it was hell.
Slowly but surely, the doubters switched sides. They realized they had been all wrong about Tesla, but the early investors and the people who have believed in the company since the beginning weren’t having it. Who could blame them?
They had believed in Tesla from the start. They were the ones who knew that Elon Musk could lead the company to a new era, and they were right. Now that others are coming on board, there is a spot in that where many of us can feel a bit of sympathy for them. If you weren’t with us then, don’t be with us now. Hints of a bandwagon feel come to mind when explaining this situation. It’s almost reminiscent of how I see a lot of Chiefs hats and jackets at the store now. I don’t for a second believe there are this many Kansas City fans in York County, PA.
I don’t necessarily disagree with what the Tesla loyal fans are doing. They have believed in Tesla since day 1, and now that it’s the most valuable car company in the world and is successful, many people are on board, and that can be not very pleasant.
However, more fans means more sales, which means the stock price goes up. It means there are more EVs on the road instead of gas cars, and it means Tesla’s mission is coming true. While the fandom is something that can be chalked up to a “bandwagon feel,” maybe some people just wanted proof that Tesla was for real, and I can understand that too.
Tesla’s Day 1’s also have had to deal with other car companies casting stones in Tesla’s direction for years. GM, Ford, all of these companies didn’t care about making EVs. They would roll out one or two models, some of them never even making it to production lines. Then they would say Tesla’s business model was ridiculous or unsustainable. Now, they’re drawing inspiration from that “unsustainable” company. Interesting how that works, isn’t it?
Now that other car companies are all about the electric mission, they’re claiming their car is the “Tesla Killer” (a term I have come to hate in my time as an automotive journalist). They’re claiming their batteries will be better, and their cars will be cheaper. Blah blah blah, we’ve all heard it before. The problem is these companies continue to talk the talk but not walk the walk. They’re always saying how they will be the next big thing, but it rarely comes to fruition considering car companies constantly delay releases or do away with projects completely.
On the other hand, Elon has always been an open supporter of more car companies making more EVs. It all contributes, and I don’t think he’s ever taken any criticism very personally; I would imagine he’s used it as motivation based on the way things have turned out. I personally commend him for always taking the high road and never being petty or ugly toward a car company that hasn’t supported him. I think it only added fuel to the fire for him and made him want to accomplish the Master Plan that much more.
But if we all love Elon and support him and are thankful for what he’s done for the EV community, should we take his guidance and support other car companies for what they’re trying to do? Is it just a lost cause? What do you make of other car companies trying to release effective modes of electric transport?
Personally, I support any EV. I will never say that any EV is better than Tesla’s because I truly believe they are the best EVs out there. I think there are always things to work on, but if you want something that will be dependable and deliver great range, Tesla is the best option currently.
I do like other car companies, too. Rivian and Lucid are both showing tremendous potential, and I think they have a great chance to be right there in a few years. Volkswagen will always have a little place in my heart since the first car I ever had was a 1998 Jetta K2, but I think they have a lot of work to do. It will get done, I’m sure, but if I am going to support an EV company that once produced ICE, it will be VW.
I would love to hear what your thoughts are on this. I want to know if you support other car companies that are producing EVs, or are you Tesla-loyal? Let’s keep it respectful as always. Please do not openly attack any company or attack anyone else’s beliefs. Try and be as respectful as you can and consider everyone’s opinions.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
It is safe to say SpaceX won’t be going for electric rockets anytime soon.
In a characteristically blunt reply on X, SpaceX frontman Elon Musk stated, “Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible,” following reports that MSCI had assigned SpaceX its lowest possible ESG rating of CCC.
The assessment, issued just this past week, coinciding closely with SpaceX’s public market debut, placed the company on par with nations like Russia in sustainability scoring and cited significant risks in environmental, social, and governance areas.
MSCI flagged SpaceX’s exposure to rocket emissions and other operational impacts, alongside governance concerns such as concentrated control by Musk and limited shareholder protections. Musk’s terse comment directly addressed the environmental pillar, underscoring a core physical constraint that ESG frameworks often overlook when evaluating high-thrust industries.
Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 21, 2026
Electric propulsion systems do exist and are widely used in space. Ion thrusters and Hall-effect thrusters accelerate ionized propellant, typically xenon or krypton, using electric fields, achieving very high specific impulse, often exceeding 3,000 seconds compared to roughly 300–450 seconds for chemical rockets.
This efficiency makes them ideal for satellite station-keeping, orbit raising, and deep-space missions where low thrust over long durations is sufficient. SpaceX’s own Starlink satellites employ electric propulsion for these purposes.
However, launching from Earth’s surface demands something entirely different: enormous thrust delivered rapidly to overcome gravity and atmospheric drag. A typical orbital-class booster must generate thrust far exceeding its weight, often in the millions of Newtons within seconds.
Chemical rockets achieve this through exothermic combustion of dense propellants, producing high-mass-flow, high-velocity exhaust. Electric systems, by contrast, expel very small amounts of mass at extremely high speeds. Generating equivalent thrust would require impractical onboard power levels, massive energy storage or generation systems, and prohibitive added mass, rendering the approach infeasible with current or near-term technology.
Musk has previously expressed a similar sentiment, noting a desire for electric orbital rockets while acknowledging the inescapable requirements of Newton’s third law and energy delivery. The distinction is clear: electric propulsion excels once a vehicle is already in space; it cannot replace the high-thrust chemical phase required to reach orbit from the ground.
The episode illustrates broader critiques of ESG ratings. Proponents argue they incentivize better risk management and long-term sustainability. Detractors, including Musk—who has previously called ESG a “scam”—contend that such metrics can penalize essential activities when no practical alternative exists, potentially discouraging innovation in sectors like space access.
Elon Musk dubs the S&P 500 ESG as “outrageous scam” after Tesla gets booted from index
SpaceX has sought to mitigate launch-related impacts through reusability: Falcon 9 boosters have flown more than 30 times in some cases, dramatically lowering the manufacturing and emissions burden per kilogram delivered to orbit. Starship’s design further emphasizes rapid reusability and methane propellant, which can theoretically be produced via sustainable pathways.
Ultimately, Musk’s remark serves as a reminder that certain engineering realities persist regardless of scoring systems. As humanity expands its presence in space for communications, science, and exploration, balancing genuine environmental progress with technological necessity remains a central challenge.
ESG frameworks may evolve, but the fundamental limits of electric launch propulsion are unlikely to change soon.
Tesla just trademarked ‘MEGAPOD’ with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), its latest move in what seems to be a hint that the company is incredibly focused on its AI efforts and storage needs as compute increases.
The application carries serial number 99893717 and lists the applicant as Tesla, Inc., located at 1 Tesla Road, Austin, Texas 78725.
The filing remains in ‘live pending’ status, and it is a new application waiting for assignment to an examining attorney. It has not yet been published or registered.
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD
Summary:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and… pic.twitter.com/3l85DsKadl— Robin (@xdNiBoR) June 19, 2026
According to the official goods and services description in the application, Tesla describes ‘MEGAPOD’ as:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and cooling systems, sold as a unit; self-contained modular computing hardware systems for artificial intelligence workloads; integrated computer hardware platforms for artificial intelligence computing, namely, enclosures containing computer hardware, power distribution hardware, and cooling hardware, sold as a unit; downloadable software for monitoring, managing, optimizing, and regulating modular artificial intelligence computing hardware systems.”
This description specifies complete, self-contained modular units that integrate servers and specialized AI processing hardware with networking components, power distribution, and cooling systems. It also includes associated downloadable software for oversight and optimization of these systems. The language emphasizes hardware sold “as a unit” and enclosures that combine the necessary elements for AI computing workloads.
Tesla has an established history of developing and commercializing modular hardware systems. Its Megapack product line, for example, consists of utility-scale battery energy storage systems designed as containerized units for grid applications. The MEGAPOD filing follows a similar pattern of protecting a name for modular, integrated hardware platforms, this time focused on artificial intelligence computing infrastructure.
This could be an early move, especially as Tesla did not have trademark rights to the word ‘Cybercab,’ the name of its self-driving, ride-hailing-focused vehicle.
Trademark applications of this type allow companies to secure priority rights to a name for defined categories of goods and services. The USPTO examines applications for compliance with legal requirements, including distinctiveness and absence of conflicts with prior marks. If the application proceeds successfully through examination, publication, and any opposition period, it could result in a federal trademark registration providing nationwide protection. This is what Tesla’s obvious intention is with ‘MEGAPOD.’
Public reports and analysis suggest MEGAPOD could represent modular, container-style AI computing pods designed for easy deployment. These would bundle servers, AI accelerators, power systems, and cooling into self-contained units suitable for distributed AI workloads. This approach aligns with Tesla’s announced AI compute strategy.
In March 2026, Elon Musk outlined plans for “Digital Optimus” (also referred to as Macrohard), a joint Tesla-xAI project for AI agents capable of handling complex digital tasks. The plans include running these agents on Tesla’s AI4 hardware in parked vehicles as well as dedicated compute units installed at Supercharger stations, which collectively offer substantial unused electrical capacity.
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
A modular hardware platform like the one described in the ‘MEGAPOD’ filing would support scalable, rapid deployment of such distributed compute resources. It could complement Tesla’s other AI infrastructure efforts, including the Dojo supercomputer used for training models and the development of AI systems for autonomous driving and robotics, by enabling edge or regional AI inference without reliance on traditional centralized data centers.
Investor's Corner
SpaceX is launching a secret spacecraft that could change how things are made in space
SpaceX’s secret disk-shaped Starfall capsule is targeting a market no reentry vehicle has cracked.
SpaceX is targeting Tuesday, June 23 for the first flight of Starfall, a reentry capsule the company has developed almost entirely in private. The Falcon 9 launch window opens at 6:43 a.m. ET from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, with a backup window available the same time on June 24. SpaceX has made no public announcement about the vehicle, only providing launch details. Everything known about it has come through FAA and FCC regulatory filings.
What makes Starfall different starts with its shape. Rather than the traditional cone used by Dragon and every other cargo return capsule in operation, Starfall is a flat disk that measures roughly 10.2 feet (3.1 meters) wide and just 2.5 feet (0.75 meters) tall, and weighing 4,630 pounds (2,100 kg) and capable of returning up to 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms) of payload from orbit. The disk geometry maximizes structural efficiency and payload volume relative to mass, and the heat shield mechanically jettisons just before splashdown, allowing recovery teams to retrieve both the capsule and the shield separately from the Pacific Ocean.
The difference with Starfall from existing competitors, such as Varda Space Industries, which has largely built the orbital manufacturing market and returns heavy payloads per flight is that Starfall’s specification is roughly 30 times more per mission, and is designed to be mass-produced and launched on either Falcon 9 or Starship. That combination of volume and launch access is something no standalone startup can replicate, and it puts SpaceX in direct competition with the companies that currently pay it to reach orbit.
SpaceX to launch military missile tracking satellites through new Space Force contract
The intended market is orbital manufacturing: pharmaceuticals, protein crystals, semiconductors, and advanced optical fiber that physically cannot be produced in the presence of gravity. FAA documents describe Starfall’s long-term purpose as building a “self-sustaining commercial in-space manufacturing market” and as a potential successor to the industrial capabilities of the International Space Station, which is set to retire in the late 2020s. Military rapid global cargo delivery is a parallel application under active discussion with the Pentagon.
The reason some industries seek manufacturing in space comes down to gravity. On Earth, gravity causes materials to settle, separate, and deform during production. In microgravity, those constraints disappear.
SpaceX’s already controls launch access, which means it currently functions as the landlord for every competitor in the orbital manufacturing return space. Starfall converts that landlord position into vertical ownership, and it would no longer just carry other companies’ capsules to orbit, but rather operate the capsule, own the return logistics, and capture the service revenue directly. Viewed alongside Starlink, Colossus, and the xAI merger, Starfall fits a consistent pattern: SpaceX identifying infrastructure layers that others depend on and moving to own them outright. Orbital manufacturing return is the next layer on that list.
If Tuesday’s reentry, parachute sequence, and recovery demonstration goes as planned, the second FAA-approved test flight follows. A successful pair of demos would position SpaceX to begin offering Starfall as a commercial service, likely first to pharmaceutical and materials science customers before scaling toward the military and broader manufacturing segments.
Elon Musk responds to SpaceX’s ESG rating and says its rockets won’t go electric
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD: here’s what it is
