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.
Earlier this week, NTSB Chief Jennifer Homendy made some disparaging comments regarding Tesla’s use of “Full Self-Driving” to explain its semi-autonomous driving suite. The remarks from Homendy show that Tesla may not have a fair chance when it ultimately comes to proving the effectiveness of its FSD program, especially considering agency officials, who should remain impartial, are already making misdirected comments regarding the name of the suite.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Homendy commented on the company’s use of the phrase “Full Self-Driving.” While Tesla’s FSD suite is admittedly not capable of Level 5 autonomy, the idea for the program is to eventually roll out a fully autonomous driving program for those who choose to invest in the company’s software. However, instead of focusing on the program’s effectiveness and commending Tesla, arguably the leader in self-driving developments, Homendy concentrates on the terminology.
Homendy said Tesla’s use of the term “Full Self-Driving” was “misleading and irresponsible,” despite the company confirming with each driver who buys the capability that the program is not yet fully autonomous. Drivers are explicitly told to remain vigilant and keep their hands on the wheel at all times. It is a requirement to use Autopilot or FSD, and failure to do so can result in being locked in “Autopilot jail” for the duration of your trip. Nobody wants that.
However, despite the way some media outlets and others describe Tesla’s FSD program, the company’s semi-autonomous driving functionalities are extraordinarily safe and among the most complex on the market. Tesla is one of the few companies attempting to solve the riddle that is self-driving, and the only to my knowledge that has chosen not to use LiDAR in its efforts. Additionally, Tesla ditched radar just a few months ago in the Model Y and Model 3, meaning cameras are the only infrastructure the company plans to use to keep its cars moving. Several drivers have reported improvements due to the lack of radar.
These comments regarding FSD and Autopilot are simple: The terminology is not the focus; the facts are. The truth is, Tesla Autopilot recorded one of its safest quarters, according to the most recently released statistics that outlined an accident occurring on Autopilot just once every 4.19 million miles. The national average is 484,000 miles, the NHTSA says.
It isn’t to say that things don’t happen. Accidents on Autopilot and FSD do occur, and the NHTSA is currently probing twelve incidents that have shown Autopilot to be active during an accident. While the conditions and situations vary in each accident, several have already been proven to be the result of driver negligence, including a few that had drivers operating a vehicle without a license or under the influence of alcohol. Now, remind me: When a BMW driver is drunk and crashes into someone, do we blame BMW? I’ll let that rhetorical question sink in.
Of course, Homendy has a Constitutional right to say whatever is on her mind. It is perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of self-driving systems. I’ll admit, the first time I experienced one, I was not a fan, but it wasn’t because I didn’t trust it. It was because I was familiar with controlling a vehicle and not having it manage things for me. However, just like anything else, I adjusted and got used to the idea, eventually becoming accustomed to the new feelings and sensations of having my car assist me in navigating to my destination.
To me, it is simply unfortunate for an NTSB official to claim that Tesla “has clearly misled numerous people to misuse and abuse technology.” One, because it isn’t possible, two, because it would be a massive liability for the company, and three, because Tesla has never maintained that its cars can drive themselves. Tesla has never claimed that its cars can drive themselves, nor has Tesla ever advised a driver to attempt a fully autonomous trek to a destination.
The numerous safety features and additions to the FSD suite have only solidified Tesla’s position as one of the safest car companies out there. With in-cabin cameras to test driver attentiveness and numerous other safety thresholds that drivers must respond to with the correct behaviors, Tesla’s FSD suite and its Autopilot program are among the safest around. It isn’t favorable for NTSB head Homendy to comment in this way, especially as it seems to be detrimental to not only Tesla’s attempts to achieve Level 5 autonomy but the entire self-driving effort as a whole.
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!
-Joey
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
