News
Who will forego owning a car when Tesla’s ride-sharing service becomes available?
Picture this: no car payment, no car insurance, no circling the block looking for parking and no depreciation. Foregoing car ownership sounds pretty great. Why is it then that so many Americans insist on having a car? Simply stated: freedom.
Somewhere after the years of public transit, biking many miles or begging your parents for a ride, most of us got our own set of wheels. For some of us, it came in the form of a $900 death trap of a car that shook violently above 55 miles per hour. For others, an uncool but reliable toaster of a car. The car world as we have known it has always meant that unless you live and work in a major city with great public transportation, a personally owned vehicle is about the only convenient way to travel from point A to point B on a regular basis. This is especially true for families. If you’ve never been on a bus or subway with a baby in a stroller, spare yourself the circus. It’s also true depending on exactly which neighborhood you live in, even if you are in a major city. Taxicabs, where available, are far more convenient than public transportation, but certainly aren’t widely available outside of the most densely populated metro areas and at least to me, have always been cost prohibitive to use for any more than a special occasion. To reiterate the point, we all like freedom. And convenience. We like to go where we want to when we want to, without standing on a bus or watching a train timetable.
Ride-sharing services such as Lyft and Uber have upended the traditional taxicab model and, in many markets, undercut the price while providing a superior service. I certainly enjoyed riding in a flawlessly clean Kia Optima Hybrid Saturday night with a chatty and friendly driver far more than the high mileage, stale smelling, yellow Crown Vics that pass as taxis in Philly. The before and after experience are far better as well. Smart phone apps tell you who will be picking you up, in which kind of car, and exactly how far away they are. Cabs still require being flagged down and the joke’s on you when the 5th one passes you by with the “vacant” indicator light in use but passengers in the rear. Afterwards, you get notified that your credit card was charged in some amount that you had already been prepared for. In a taxi, you either pull out cash when you see the ever-surprising sum due or watch the driver give you an attitude for using their in-car credit card machine.
Trends are already developing among young adults to move into thriving urban areas, work nearby and pass up owning their own wheels. A lot of reasons contribute but the ease of using ride-sharing services is certainly one of them. What I’d like to explore here is whether or not this trend will grow – both among young adults as well as others – as autonomous vehicles come to market and bring with them the possibility that ride-sharing services will be even more common and affordable. I offer below a few categories of people and my assessment on whether or not they may give up a car in favor of autonomous vehicle ride-sharing.
TARGET: YOUNG, SINGLE, URBAN DWELLER. ANSWER: YES.
These folks are already the group that are giving up cars today, so surely they’ll continue to do so when that option becomes cheaper and even more widely available.
TARGET: YOUNG, SINGLE, ANYWHERE ELSE DWELLER; ANSWER: PROBABLY.
These folks will share many of attributes of those who forego car ownership today. They will, on average, have student loan debt to tackle and plenty of familiarity with smart phones.
TARGET: TWO ADULT HOUSEHOLD WITH NO KIDS. ANSWER: MAYBE.
This group of folks may be willing to forego one car in the household. Depending on their age and familiarity with today’s ride-sharing offerings, they could be the perfect target to give up one car. This demographic is the one I belong to. Having jobs in opposite directions makes owning two cars the most convenient option, but outside of the work commute, the second car never moves.
TARGET: TWO PARENT FAMILY. ANSWER: PROBABLY NOT.
Children are required to ride in car seats for quite a few years these days. For that reason alone, I would imagine ride-sharing to be more trouble than it’s worth. If, like the two-adult household with no kids one car is solely used as a commuter, that one could probably be given up. But the way I understand today’s modern family to work, either parent has to be ready to spring into action with little notice if daycare gets shut down due to snow or Junior gets sick in school.
TARGET: MATURE ADULTS. ANSWER: HOPEFULLY.
This is where I’d really like to see ride-sharing take off. If you are fortunate enough to make it to old age, your eyes or reflexes may not join you in their youthful form. The mature adults I’ve been close with have all wanted to continue driving beyond the point that in their individual circumstances, was probably wise. I get it. Freedom. When you’re a feisty octogenarian with an old habit of going to the grocery store daily (a holdover for the decades when you hid your smoking habit from everyone) it must be impossible to imagine yourself sans keys. If we can invent these cars, surely we can also invent easy ways of calling one up for a customer who isn’t particularly interested in owning or operating a smart device. (A telephone dialing service, perhaps – especially helpful for those with vision problems.)
AS FOR ME?
I just got done telling my better half that due to his short commute and our never using our second car outside of the work day, we could easily ditch car number two and have him Uber to work. The conversation was short-lived, as I have the longer commute and he has no interest in handing over the Model S fob to me on a permanent basis. In theory though, might it work? Yes. Would I end up doing it? Probably no. I’d be more inclined to owning an autonomous Tesla and letting it work for me such that the overall cost of owning and operating it was comparable to using a ride-sharing service in place of owning one.
The why is simple: freedom.
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
