Andrew Harnik/Getty Images - Jay Janner/The Austin American-Statesman via Getty Images
Tesla CEO Elon Musk famously thinks bots will drive us around.
On Wednesday, he took that long-running vision of autonomy a step further. During the automaker's earnings call, Musk predicted that Tesla itself would dominate how passengers get around — so long as pesky regulators don't get in the way.
"I think Tesla will end up doing a majority of all passenger miles on Earth in any country where it is allowed to operate freely," he said. "And you can come back and look at this prediction, but I feel confident about this prediction."
He said Tesla's biggest hurdle to world domination is foreign governments blocking autonomous tech "to protect a domestic industry."
That is a bolder statement than Musk's prior autonomy predictions.
During a January earnings call, he said the "vast majority of miles traveled" would eventually be autonomous and guessed that people would manually drive fewer than 5% of miles. That prediction left other autonomous competitors — Waymo, Zoox, Ford, GM, Rivian, etc. — in the fray.
Vehicle autonomy is core to Tesla's valuation story. The company says its future lineup will include only one vehicle that drivers can operate manually: the high-priced Roadster.
In September, the company started rolling out the steering-wheel-less Cybercab for ride-hailing in Texas.
That rollout has had its fits and starts. While Tesla says it's ramping production and preparing to launch Cybercab rides in Florida, the NHTSA issued an audit inquiry hours after the car's public release to probe the automaker's self-certification.
Musk, who has described his predictions as his "best guesses," has missed several recent timelines for Tesla's autonomy rollout — including a prediction that unsupervised autonomy would ramp across the US in 2025.
Now, Tesla has a new target date for the consumer launch of its full self-driving software. On Wednesday, Ashok Elluswamy, the company's VP of AI, said unsupervised FSD is coming "somewhere around Q2 next year."
Tesla didn't immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.
Natalie Becerra
I'm a veteran traveler who has booked more long-haul flights than I can count. But earlier this year, I made a very expensive rookie mistake.
While planning a trip, I came across a deal I couldn't pass up: a $317 one-way flight on Icelandair to Ireland with a multi-day layover in Reykjavik. It was essentially a way to take a trip within a trip without paying extra airfare.
The catch? The flight departed from New York, not our home airport in Florida. I'd be in New York a few days early, but my family would need to fly up to meet me. Booking separate itineraries was far from ideal, but I figured a five-hour buffer would be enough.
It wasn't.
A storm in New York canceled my family's JetBlue flight from Florida, and their replacement flight then couldn't land and was diverted to Virginia. Their Icelandair flight to Europe was automatically canceled after they were marked as no-shows.
On the night we were supposed to fly together to Iceland, my family was stuck states away, and I was scrambling to find a solution.
With my family's original flight gone, we had to spend nearly $3,000 to get them back on track and navigate the complicated credit card trip insurance process. Here are 4 lessons I learned the hard way.
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Arriving in the city of your next flight at least 24 hours before may feel a bit extreme, but it's the minimum safety net you need.
Being already in the right location for your flight can be a huge weight off your shoulders. It also allows sufficient time for rebooking should something go wrong with your flight.
My last-minute whim to visit a few friends upstate turned out to be key. Those extra two nights in New York meant I was able to make the flight to Iceland. If I had booked my family of three on a flight the day before our long-haul flight, they would have made it too.
My family made it to New York the next morning and ended up taking a replacement flight to Iceland that evening, getting in about 24 hours later than originally planned. I bought two basic economy tickets for $734 each, and one standard economy ticket with extra baggage allowance for $1,105. In total, I spent $2,573 on new tickets.
The costly mistake made me realize that although an extra hotel night is an added expense and may mean using more PTO, it's a cheap investment compared to the cost of new international flights — and the cost of missed events — if things don't go to plan.
This is especially worth it if you have definite plans right after your arrival, such as a cruise or a concert.
Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty Images
When you book connecting flights on a single itinerary, the airline is responsible for getting you to your destination. If you miss that connection through no fault of your own, then the airline will put you on another available flight at no additional cost.
When you book flights separately, you're responsible for making each connection — or buying new tickets if you miss one. And generally, regardless of reason, the airline operating your next flight isn't obligated to accommodate you if you miss it because of a problem with your previous airline.
Our tickets to New York and Iceland were separate, so despite numerous calls to each airline, none were responsible for the missed connection. If you do miss a connection on a single booking, look up alternatives yourself and discuss them with the agent. It's not guaranteed, but they may be able to accommodate you on a partner airline at a more convenient time.
And remember, it's not the staff's fault for the disruption. You get more bees with honey.
Michael Nigro/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images
I didn't book the cheapest fare, but I didn't read the fine print either.
When things started to go wrong, I was shocked to see there was a $250 change fee per person on my original flight and no refunds. Changing the tickets would have cost nearly as much as the original flight, plus the fare difference.
At the time, it was uncertain when my family would actually arrive in New York and feasibly be able to catch the next flight to Iceland, so we didn't change the tickets. Missing the first flight on this stopover itinerary meant my family was marked a no-show and their onward leg to Dublin was canceled, which is standard airline policy.
While there were other ways to get to Iceland, there were few nonstop flights from Iceland to Ireland — a one-stop meant at least four extra hours of travel — so the best option was to book a new stopover ticket with Icelandair.
When I started booking the new tickets, I noticed that almost every fare class had punitive cancellation and change policies — and this time I was sure to be familiar with the terms of my booking.
OGI75/Getty Images
Premium credit cards can have your back when flight plans go wrong, but they don't cover everything.
We used the Chase Sapphire Reserve for Business' trip cancellation and interruption protection for the original Icelandair tickets and were reimbursed $952. The coverage typically reimburses covered unused, prepaid expenses — but not the cost of buying new airline tickets.
Trip delay coverage doesn't either, but it can cover other expenses for covered trips. However, credit card policies vary — and this is where I went wrong.
We booked the flights to New York on an American Express Business Platinum Card but used a different card for the return flights. That meant the Amex trip-delay protection did not apply: its terms require the full round-trip fare to be charged to the eligible card.
I had split the flights across cards to preserve Chase's bag-delay protection, but I didn't realize I was giving up the Amex protection in the process, so the $103 spent on dinner after the diversion wasn't covered. For future trips, I'll use only one credit card with good travel protections for all my trip expenses to reduce complications.
Airlines may also provide some compensation for flight disruptions. In our case, my family was reimbursed for a hotel stay ($185) on the night they were diverted. When delayed, I always keep receipts of all my added expenses to submit to the appropriate parties.
Overall, although our vacation had a rocky start and cost more than we planned, we had a great trip and are glad we pushed through it.
Missing a flight always seems avoidable in hindsight, and some things are beyond anyone's control, but with a few precautions, we can travel more confidently. Next time, I'm booking the extra hotel night.
Marco Bello / AFP via Getty Images
SpaceX's plans to retire its most popular rocket could jeopardize the United States' ability to launch military satellites — a plight compounded by the Pentagon's dependence on Elon Musk's company.
SpaceX is by far the dominant player in the rocket business and indispensable to the military, dwarfing competitors and accounting for 85% of US launches in 2025. The company is phasing out its Falcon 9 rocket to make way for Starship, a massive new vehicle that SpaceX says will be more efficient and profitable, but which many military satellites aren't designed to fit.
The situation leaves the Space Force in a launch crunch that could affect the military's ability to put its advanced satellites in orbit — and on time. The Pentagon has few alternatives to ferry its equipment, and SpaceX's competitors are likely years away from being able to offer comparable services, reports POLITICO, which — like Business Insider — is part of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network.
"Everybody's having problems, so the Space Force is freaking out a little bit about launch," one former Space Force official, who, like others, was granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive issue.
It also highlights the scale of Musk's company's footprint and the way its business decisions can affect the security of countries including the United States. From the battlefield in Ukraine, where Kyiv is dependent on his Starlink satellite internet service, to cutting-edge artificial intelligence and SpaceX's stranglehold over the pathways to orbit, the world's first trillionaire has a direct hand in the technology that will shape the future.
The Space Force recently tried to book rides for three future satellite missions, but SpaceX declined to offer its services, according to two people familiar with the missions. No other rocket companies offered to take them either, the people said.
A top official at the Space Force downplayed the problem about finding rockets to launch military satellites.
"I wouldn't say there [are] missions I'm worried about being able to fly; I would say we're working through the right way to support those customers," said Brig. Gen. Eric Zarybnisky, the Space Force's acting portfolio acquisition executive for space access.
But Zarybnisky acknowledged growing pains for the government and space industry as demand for rockets increases. "Temporarily, there are some things we'll need to work through, again, as we get new providers flying," he said.
SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment.
The three Space Force missions that didn't find a ride were listed through the National Security Space Launch initiative, or NSSL — the program the service uses to buy rocket launches for its satellites.
Two of the missions were for the Space Development Agency, according to the people. The agency is a branch of the Space Force that's building a network of hundreds of military satellites in low-Earth orbit to provide expanded data services, and missile warning and tracking capabilities.
Details about the third Space Force mission or the precise date for when the Space Force hoped to launch the missions are unclear.
The Space Force has set up a two-lane system for buying its launches, one for less demanding efforts and another for more challenging missions. The hope was that new competitors, such as Rocket Lab, Stoke Space and Relativity, would have an easier time winning contracts for the lower-risk missions. But SpaceX has dominated both lanes with its Falcon rocket, and other providers have been slow to scale up.
The Space Force hopes to use two large rockets from SpaceX competitors to ferry key military satellites into orbit: United Launch Alliance's Vulcan and Blue Origin's New Glenn.
But the Vulcan rocket has struggled to launch consistently and was grounded earlier this year after problems with its solid rocket boosters. Space Force officials have been frustrated by ULA's delays and have moved missions slated for a Vulcan to a SpaceX Falcon.
Meanwhile, Blue Origin's New Glenn program had a devastating setback in May when a rocket exploded on the company's only launchpad in Florida — putting the rocket out of commission likely until next year.
The Space Force has said it's open to eventually using SpaceX's Starship. But there are engineering challenges to overcome because Starship is designed for "flat stack" satellites such as Starlink, while most military satellites are designed for a larger cargo bay. And it's unclear when SpaceX will have the capacity to meet the Pentagon's needs, given its plans to use Starship to build out orbital data-centers and other company priorities.
Other newer companies may have some solutions. Stoke Space, Relativity and Rocket Lab are all working on medium-lift rockets that could help meet the military's needs. But none of those companies has flown successful test flights of their new vehicles, meaning it could take years for them to start launching reliably and frequently.
Zarybnisky remained optimistic that Blue Origin and ULA will work through their technical problems and that new competitors will get up and running in time.
"We're excited to see where those new providers come on board and are able to support the national security base launches that we need," he said.
It's not just the Pentagon feeling the pinch. The move to decommission the Falcon 9 rocket and focus on Starship has sent the entire space industry into panic — especially commercial satellite builders. Some of those firms have been unable to secure Falcon 9 flights after 2028.
The Space Force didn't disclose a set date for when it will fly its last Falcon mission, but Zarybnisky said the service is "actively talking to SpaceX and understanding where the spacecraft programs are, where they are in their build and test cycle. The end date will really be driven by the spacecraft customers that we have launch service contracts for already."
It's unclear what happens after the Space Force runs through that batch of missions. An industry representative warned that the service is unprepared to deal with the crisis coming its way as demand for rockets increases across the space industry.
New rocket companies can't bid on a Space Force launch until they've demonstrated the ability to successfully fly, part of an effort to keep vaporware companies from winning government business. But commercial satellite companies are not restricted in the same way and have been buying up early launches on rockets that haven't even flown yet. This puts more pressure on the Space Force to find future launches.
The launch crunch "probably requires the Space Force to get creative and figure out a way to start buying capacity now before it's too late," the representative said.
Another person familiar with the issue said that Space Force officials need to work with Congress to "fundamentally rethink" how the military acquires launch.
"The Space Force needs to be allowed to reserve multiple launches at a time, much further out into the 2030s, for vehicles that have yet to fly," the person said. "Yes, it's taking on more risk … [but] if it waits for new rockets to prove themselves, it may find they're already sold out."
This story originally appeared on POLITICO and is courtesy of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network, which harnesses the resources of the company's newsrooms to publish ambitious scoops, investigations, interviews, opinion pieces, and analysis. It allows journalists — including those from POLITICO, Business Insider, WELT, BILD, Onet, and Fakt — to collaborate on major stories for an international audience of hundreds of millions across platforms.
Harald Tittel/picture alliance via Getty Images
When I reviewed Tesla's Full Self-Driving software in January, I hailed it as an "impressive" driver-assistance feature that left me wanting more.
I dreamed of being able to flip the autonomous driving system on whenever I make my routine 400-mile trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles — kick my feet up, listen to music, and ideally fall asleep without having to supervise the road.
That's been part of Tesla's ultimate pitch for the future. "With autonomy, you get your time back," Elon Musk has said.
And the pitch may soon come true. Just don't expect to make long self-driven road trips quite yet.
On Wednesday, during Tesla's Q3 earnings call, Ashok Elluswamy, the company's VP of AI, painted a more modest picture of what FSD unsupervised will look like for a personal car — at least at first.
Elluswamy said unsupervised FSD is coming "somewhere around Q2 next year" for privately owned Teslas, with the rollout of FSD V15.
The caveat is that it will only be operable in areas where Tesla already operates its Robotaxi service, which represents a small fraction of square miles for the total number of Teslas on US roads.
The Robotaxi platform is available in parts of seven metropolitan regions: Austin, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Orlando, Tampa, and the San Francisco Bay Area. In the Bay Area, all Tesla robotaxis are supervised by a human operator.
"The only additional requirement is to make sure that, for example, the customer Model Ys can be part of the geofences and the fleet management that Tesla has for it to be fully autonomous," Elluswamy said.
In other words, your Tesla may be able to drive itself, but only if you're within the zones where Tesla Robotaxi is operating. If you're in Austin, that could cover about 260 square miles of the city, excluding high-speed roadways.
That's similar to what other aspiring self-driving car companies have pitched.
Tensor, a San Jose-based automaker, aims to sell a luxury sedan that it says can drive itself. However, the self-driving feature will only operate within restricted geofences, the company told Business Insider.
Tesla didn't say why it needs to limit the release of unsupervised FSD to geofences at first, although there are likely questions about liability that the company will have to address once it declares, Yes, our technology now lets you take your eyes off the road.
Autonomy is a difficult problem to solve after all. During the call, Elluswamy shut down the idea that competitors could catch up to Tesla's FSD.
"When they get in the long tail of this problem — it's so long that people don't realize — anyone with a sane mind should not attempt to solve this problem," he said. "It's so difficult."
Login