News
Tesla owners convey worries over radar loss for inclement weather
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.
Tesla’s recent decision to scrap Radar in favor of a Camera-based approach for Autopilot and Full Self-Driving aligned with the company’s plans and statements over the past few Earnings Calls. For CEO Elon Musk, the goal has been to get away from radar and depend on camera systems for Tesla’s self-driving plan, but some owners are not convinced of the decision. Over the past few days, I have received several emails and Tweets about the decision, with some owners still not completely confident in the vision-based approach Tesla will take.
During the Q1 2021 Earnings Call just a few months back, Elon Musk made it clear Tesla would be switching to a Camera-based system for AP and FSD. Comparing the cameras to human eyes, Musk’s explanation made a lot of sense.
Musk said:
“When your vision works, it works better than the best human because it’s like having eight cameras, it’s like having eyes in the back of your head, beside your head, and has three eyes of different focal distances looking forward. This is — and processing it at a speed that is superhuman. There’s no question in my mind that with a pure vision solution, we can make a car that is dramatically safer than the average person.”
Tesla Model 3, Model Y builds in May 2021 will no longer equip radar
Now, the thing is, eyes, while great for seeing things that are in the clear, are highly effective, and it makes a lot of sense to try and use this sort of approach for self-driving because it is how humans have driven for years. But when humans are confronted with low visibility and severe weather on the road, the confidence goes down, and many drivers adjust by traveling at lower speeds. Some even pull over and wait for the weather to subside, a move that is rare for many but some simply do not like driving in bad weather.
This is where radar comes in handy because it can identify and locate objects and how far they are away from the vehicle in the event of low visibility on the road, which is something that the human eyes, or cameras, simply cannot do.
An email from an Australian reader seemed to narrow in this point even further. A man named Peter emailed me and stated that his Model 3 recently identified a truck that was ahead of him but concealed in an opaque, white mist several car links ahead of his vehicle. “I assumed that visualization was created as a result of radar. In those conditions, the message multiple cameras blocked or obstructed appeared and the autopilot screamed and handed over,” Peter said.
Unless I’m in fog on I-5 and can’t see the massive collision ahead…. I’d like to understand the workaround to this. pic.twitter.com/sQXB63yWlv
— Rome Strach (@romn8tr) May 28, 2021
He then added, “On multiple other occasions I’ve noted on the visualization screen an unsighted vehicle obstructed by an SUV ahead of me.”
Without radar, the recognition of these vehicles would not be possible, so it brings some concerns to drivers who have utilized the radar system in vehicles to gain confidence in their surroundings.
Now, in a somewhat comical response to concerns, Musk posted a Reddit response from u/YukonBurger, which stated that they worked with radar a lot and were “very, very happy” with Tesla’s decision. It basically explained that trying to jive radar and cameras together is extremely difficult, and there are instances where using your eyes is just a better option because you can see how far you are away from things. Interestingly, the post does admit that “radar is really only good for reduced visibility situations where lane-keeping will probably also be degraded enough to not be worth it.” It concluded by stating that vision is still quick enough to avoid accidents or vehicles in front of the car in a short period of time, the real issue comes from cars behind you.
Not sure who wrote this, but it’s accurate pic.twitter.com/gRvWxOJZ56
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 26, 2021
It seems that the real key to vision being a better approach comes down to the fact that, in clear conditions, it won’t have an issue identifying and removing itself from danger. Even in rainy conditions, where visibility isn’t necessarily bad, the vision approach is more advantageous than using radar.
The goal, ultimately, is to make the cars act as a human would, and humans don’t have radar. Instead, they compensate for reduced visibility with less dangerous driving. Slower speeds, more cautious navigation, and less frequent lane changes. Autopilot and FSD are already pretty timid and “shy” to begin with, it’s not like they’re out there driving like pissed-off teenagers.
I think that, while this move is somewhat worrisome for some drivers, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. This has been a part of the plan for some time, and I think that now it is becoming a reality, some are starting to put the pieces together that there won’t be any radar so visibility limitations could end up being problematic. I wouldn’t worry, because I believe the cars will adjust just as humans do, they will simply be more cautious and more courteous on the roads in these settings.
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!
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.