Elon Musk’s SpaceX is seeking an early boost for shares after the rocket-and-satellite business makes its stock market debut later this year.
Advisers for the company, which recently merged with xAI, have reached out to major index providers, including Nasdaq, to discuss how SpaceX and this year’s other hot startups might join key indexes sooner than normal, according to people familiar with the matter.
Companies typically must wait several months or a year after their public debut before gaining inclusion in a major index such as the S&P 500 or the Nasdaq 100. Inclusion unlocks access to retail and institutional capital from funds, particularly those mimicking the performance of indexes that have to hold the companies in the index.
The traditional waiting period is intended to give the companies time to demonstrate that they are stable and liquid enough to handle extensive buying from index funds.
SpaceX hopes to skirt traditional rules in an effort to bring liquidity to its shareholders sooner as part of its planned IPO. SpaceX advisers have sought index policy changes that would fast-track its entry into major indexes for the company and benefit other highly-valued private companies, the people said.
Last valued at $800 billion, SpaceX is targeting a valuation of more than $1 trillion, a listing that would become the largest-ever U.S. IPO.
Investors and advisers to companies planning to go public this year are concerned not only about initial trading, but also that the standard six-month lockup period—which prevents early investors, executives and employees from selling their stock—might prompt significant selling that pressures shares. After Meta went public in 2012, shares sank when early investors unloaded all at once.
SpaceX is exploring ways to better balance supply and demand to avoid that outcome, some of the people said.
Advocates of index methodology changes have said that by allowing newly public companies earlier entry to key indexes, individual investors, who have famously missed out on the big gains in private markets, could secure earlier exposure via popular exchange-traded funds and index funds.
Earlier this week, the Nasdaq Stock Market shared proposals to update some of the Nasdaq 100 index methodology and asked for feedback from market participants.
Among the proposals is a potential “fast entry” process. Under this option, companies whose market capitalizations rank in the top 40 of the Nasdaq 100’s constituents could be added to the index after 15 trading days. Companies typically now must wait at least three months to be added to the index. At their current valuations, SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic would all qualify.
The S&P Total Market Index and MSCI indexes have fast-track options, which some advisers to SpaceX are also exploring in an effort to ensure the IPO trades well, some of the people familiar with the matter said.
The one index where there is now no fast-entry option is also one of the most important: The S&P 500. To join the index, a company must be U.S.-based, profitable and have a market capitalization of at least $22.7 billion. Joining gives it access to a steadier index-fund investor base.
OpenAI is laying the groundwork for a fourth-quarter IPO as it races rival Anthropic to list shares publicly. OpenAI is aiming to raise $100 billion before the IPO at a valuation of more than $800 billion, while Anthropic is raising billions more at a valuation of $350 billion.
On Monday, Elon Musk announced that he was merging two of his companies, SpaceX and xAI, in a deal said to be worth $1.25 trillion. The reason, Musk said in an announcement, was that in order for AI to grow, it needed to go to space.
AI relies on “large terrestrial data centers” that run on “immense amounts of power and cooling,” he said, which comes at great expense to the environment and community opposition. The solution: data centers in space. “In the long term, space-based AI is obviously the only way to scale,” Musk said.
Musk isn’t the only one looking to launch data centers into orbit. Google has Project Suncatcher to build solar-powered AI data centers in space. China is looking into space-based data centers, as is Europe. As we reported last year, space-based data centers — in the form of satellites with solar panels — are Big Tech’s latest fad and Silicon Valley’s newest investable venture.
On the surface, it sounds like a logical solution to the unique problem presented by power-hungry data centers. Local communities are rising up against data center projects over concerns about electricity demand, water usage, and rising utility rates. Launching those data centers into space means they are not taking up any space on Earth, and in a sun-synchronous orbit there is the availability of solar energy.
AI relies on “large terrestrial data centers” that run on “immense amounts of power and cooling,” Musk said, which comes at great expense to the environment
But there’s another, simpler way of looking at Musk’s merger: SpaceX is profitable, and xAI is not. Not only is xAI not profitable, it’s in the midst of a serious cash burn as it races to compete with well-financed rivals like Google and OpenAI. As Bloomberg recently reported, the AI company is burning about $1 billion a month as it spends heavily to build data centers, recruit talent, and run the social media platform X.
Meanwhile, SpaceX generated about $8 billion in profit on an estimated $16 billion of revenue last year, Reuters reported. The main revenue driver is Starlink, which accounts for up to 80 percent of the company’s revenue. Since 2019, SpaceX has launched over 9,500 satellites and boasts up to 9 million broadband internet users. The company is also a major government contractor, having secured over $20 billion in NASA and Defense Department deals since 2008. When it goes public later this year, SpaceX is expected to raise up to $50 billion in investment.
Meanwhile, xAI has it own government tie-ups. The Department of Defense is using Grok, in addition to other chatbots, to analyze information that flows through its military intelligence networks.
It’s not clear how investors will feel about merging the cash-burning xAI with the profitable SpaceX. But it’s important to note that Musk has done this before, when he merged the debt-ridden SolarCity with Tesla in 2016. Since Musk was the largest shareholder and chairman of both Tesla and SolarCity, shareholders sued to block the merger, alleging it was a $2.6 billion “bailout” of a cash-strapped, struggling company. Musk eventually won the lawsuit, with a judge ruling that he did not force Tesla to overpay for SolarCity.
Musk now faces a new lawsuit from Tesla shareholders over his creation of xAI. The lawsuit alleges that Musk breached his fiduciary duty to Tesla by forming xAI, which competes with the automaker for AI talent, resources, and Musk’s attention. The news that SpaceX is acquiring xAI certainly won’t settle those concerns; if anything, it makes it more chaotic and complex.
So where does this all leave Tesla? In the most recent earnings report, Tesla said it was investing $2 billion into xAI “to enhance Tesla’s ability to develop and deploy AI products and services into the physical world at scale.” Grok, xAI’s chatbot that’s currently under investigation in multiple countries for generating nonconsensual sexualized images of people, including children, was recently integrated into certain Tesla vehicles as a voice assistant. Grok also lags behind OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, Anthropic’s Claude, and other large language models in several key metrics.
Data centers in space is pure Musk futurism that has no guarantee of success. It’s not as simple as just strapping a GPU to a rocket and hitting “launch.” First off, GPUs are total power hogs. Unless you’ve got a nuclear reactor floating up there, you’re going to need a massive solar arrays to power it. Then there’s the communication situation; even if you’re hitching a ride on Starlink, you still have to figure out the budget for sending info back and forth to Earth. Eventually, the numbers start to look pretty scary.
Musk says merging SpaceX and xAI is the way to make it happen. And perhaps one day he’ll take the suggestion of bullish investors to combine all his companies, including Tesla, Neuralink, and the Boring Company, into one massive, Musk-run mega-corporation: Musk Inc., if you will. How will Tesla shareholders react?
“Tesla is Musk’s liquid piggy bank, since it’s publicly traded; his other companies are not,” Tesla investor James McRitchie said during a prevote presentation before the company’s 2024 shareholder meeting, according to The Wall Street Journal. “Either he sticks around long enough to use our shareholder capital to fund his other ventures, or he shifts his attention sooner if we reject his pay package and turn off the money tap.”
Tesla TSLA -2.85% ▼ shareholders approved a record-setting pay package for Chief Executive Elon Musk, a plan designed to motivate the world’s richest man with as much as $1 trillion in additional stock.
Flanked by dancing humanoid robots on a stage bathed in pink and blue light at the electric-vehicle maker’s Austin, Texas, headquarters, Musk thanked the crowd of shareholders who supported the pay package with more than 75% of the votes cast.
“What we’re about to embark upon is not merely a new chapter of the future of Tesla but a whole new book,” Musk said. “I guess what I’m saying is hang onto your Tesla stock,” he added later.
The measure was hotly debated, with some large shareholders taking opposing sides. The voting was largely seen as a referendum on the company’s longtime leader and his vision to shift Tesla’s focus to humanoid robots and artificial intelligence.
Musk, who is also CEO of SpaceX and xAI, had threatened on social media to leave Tesla if the measure had been rejected. He is already Tesla’s biggest shareholder, with a roughly 15% stake.
Musk had said he wanted a big enough ownership stake in Tesla to be comfortable that the “robot army” he was developing didn’t fall into the wrong hands, but not so large that he couldn’t be fired if he went “crazy.”
On another proposal that would authorize the Tesla board to invest in Musk’s artificial-intelligence company, xAI, Tesla General Counsel Brandon Ehrhart said more shares had been voted for the proposal than against, but there were many abstentions. He said the board would consider its next steps.
Musk had publicly endorsed the idea as he seeks to catch up in the AI race.
The new pay package, which includes 12 chunks of stock, could give Musk control over as much as 25% of Tesla if he hits a series of milestones and expands the company’s market capitalization to $8.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Its market cap is now around $1.5 trillion.
Tesla’s board described the package as pay for performance, designed to motivate Musk to transform the company with new products such as autonomous vehicles, robotaxis and humanoid robots.
“Having worked with him now for 11 years, I can say what motivates him is doing things that others can’t do or haven’t been able to do,” Tesla Chair Robyn Denholm said in an interview last week.
Tesla struggled to keep Musk’s attention earlier this year as he spent time in Washington running the Department of Government Efficiency. Tesla’s vehicle sales fell more than 13% in the first half of the year. After Musk left Washington in May, he turned his focus to his startup xAI and the development of its chatbot Grok, The Wall Street Journal reported.
The new pay package was opposed by several proxy advisers and institutional investors including the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, various New York City retirement systems, and Norges Bank Investment Management, which is the sixth-largest institutional shareholder with a 1.2% stake.
Institutional Shareholder Services, one of the proxy advisers that urged passive funds to vote down the compensation package, said it had concerns about the magnitude and design of the “astronomical” stock award.
Charles Schwab, which has a Tesla stake of about 0.6%, said Tuesday it would vote in favor of the package. “We firmly believe that supporting this proposal aligns both management and shareholder interests,” it said in a statement.
Huge stock awards tied to ambitious targets—sometimes called “moonshot” pay packages—are cast by proponents as a high-octane incentive for outstanding performance. Critics say they are often doubly flawed: overly expensive if targets prove easier than predicted; and counterproductive if the targets become unattainable and executives see little reason to stick around.
Musk’s new package is divided into 12 tranches. He could reach the first tranche if Tesla’s market cap grows to $2 trillion from around $1.5 trillion today, combined with an operational goal such as selling 11.5 million new vehicles, on top of the 8.5 million vehicles on the road.
More challenging milestones include selling one million robots to paying customers and maintaining an adjusted Ebitda of $400 billion. Last year, Tesla posted an adjusted Ebitda of $16 billion.
For each tranche he unlocks, Musk would receive equity equivalent to about 1% of Tesla’s current shares. Once he earns a tranche, he could vote those shares but wouldn’t be able to sell them until they vest, in either 7.5 years or 10 years.
Musk’s 2018 pay package, the most valuable on record before the 2025 package, is tied up in a dispute at the Delaware Supreme Court. Tesla is appealing a lower-court decision to rescind the 2018 pay package after a judge ruled in January 2024 that Tesla’s directors were beholden to Musk and the approval process for that package was tainted and lacked transparency.
Here is a breakdown of Musk’s current Tesla ownership:
The swift hammer of accountability is falling hard on left-wing radicals who dared to celebrate the cold-blooded assassination of Charlie Kirk, as dozens of American workers—from pilots and teachers to media hacks and corporate drones—face the consequences of their vile social media rants. In a nation reeling from the murder of the 31-year-old conservative icon, employers are finally drawing a line in the sand against the toxic hatred that fueled Tyler James Robinson’s execution-style shooting of Kirk last Wednesday at Utah Valley University.
This isn’t cancel culture run amok; it’s righteous pushback against an assassination culture cultivated by the left, and it’s reshaping workplaces by forcing bosses to choose between decency and defending the indefensible.
Kirk, the dynamic co-founder of Turning Point USA and a relentless warrior for American exceptionalism, youth empowerment, and traditional values, was gunned down mid-sentence during his “American Comeback Tour” in Orem, Utah. The graphic video of the attack—Robinson firing point-blank while Kirk discussed mass shootings—spread like wildfire, but so did the depraved glee from anti-conservative corners. Robinson’s manifesto, railing against “right-wing fascists,” exposed the deadly fruits of years of leftist incitement, from campus radicals to MSNBC echo chambers.
President Trump, who lowered flags to half-staff and decried the “evil” behind the killing, has vowed to eradicate such threats, and the grassroots response is proving his America First spirit alive and kicking.
The firings have been nothing short of a purge, triggered by a coordinated conservative campaign that’s doxxing these hatemongers and flooding their employers with evidence. A site called “Expose Charlie’s Murderers”—anonymously registered and boasting nearly 30,000 submissions by Saturday—has become the digital guillotine, archiving posts that revel in Kirk’s death as a “victory” or quip that he “spoke his fate into existence.” Though the site went dark Monday, its impact lingers, with Canadian journalist Rachel Gilmore publicly terrified of “far-right fans” after her neutral post drew threats— a stark reminder that even mild criticism now invites scrutiny in this post-assassination climate.
Far from vigilantism, this is community justice against those who normalized violence against conservatives, a far cry from the unchecked leftist mobs that targeted Trump supporters for years.
Aviation took the first hits, with Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy blasting American Airlines pilots “caught celebrating” the murder. “Immediately grounded and removed from service,” Duffy posted, demanding firings because “glorifying political violence is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE!” American Airlines confirmed it had “initiated action,” stressing that “hate-related or hostile behavior runs contrary to our purpose.” Delta Air Lines suspended multiple employees for posts “well beyond healthy, respectful debate,” with the carrier warning that social media breaches could end careers.
Microsoft, under fire from Tesla CEO Elon Musk for Blizzard employees “trashing” Kirk, announced Friday it’s reviewing “negative remarks” by staff, a nod to the tech giant’s need to clean house amid conservative pressure.
Schools and universities, long bastions of leftist indoctrination, are crumbling under the weight of their own hypocrisy. Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn called out a Middle Tennessee State University staffer for her “ZERO sympathy” post, leading to an “effective immediately” termination.
GOP Rep. Nancy Mace targeted a South Carolina public school teacher, who was quietly shown the door by her district. Idaho’s West Ada School District fired an employee over an “inappropriate video,” vowing to “address harmful actions thoughtfully.” In Oregon, a middle school science teacher resigned after boasting on Facebook that Kirk’s death “brightened up” his day. Clemson University suspended a worker pending investigation for undisclosed posts, while nationwide, over a dozen educators—from California to New York—have been axed or sidelined for gloating like “Another one bites the dust.”
Healthcare providers aren’t sparing the rod either. The University of Miami Health System canned an employee for “unacceptable public commentary,” affirming that while “freedom of speech is a fundamental right,” endorsements of violence violate core values.
Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta fired a staffer for “inappropriate comments,” declaring such rhetoric a breach of social media policy. Even law firm Perkins Coie—infamous for its ties to George Soros and anti-Trump ops—booted a lawyer for Kirk-bashing posts, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.
Media and entertainment faced their own reckonings. MSNBC’s Matthew Dowd was unceremoniously dumped after implying on-air that Kirk’s “awful words” invited “awful actions.” Network president Rebecca Kutler labeled it “inappropriate, insensitive, and unacceptable,” despite Dowd’s whiny Substack defense claiming a “right-wing media mob” forced the decision. DC Comics yanked its new “Red Hood” series after author Gretch Felker-Martin snarked, “Hope the bullet’s OK,” in deleted tweets—a rare win against Hollywood’s woke brigade.
Corporate cleanups abound: Nasdaq fired a staffer for posts “condoning or celebrating violence.” Office Depot terminated a Michigan employee who refused to print Kirk flyers, calling it “completely unacceptable.” The Carolina Panthers axed a PR flack for his remarks, insisting employee views don’t reflect the team. Freddy’s Frozen Custard & Steakburgers condemned a worker’s Satanic Temple donation plea and “Another one bites the dust” post, confirming the individual is gone. As one HR consultant told NPR, “This is very different from past political controversies at work”—no more kid gloves for anti-conservative venom while right-leaners got the boot.
This wave of terminations—over 50 confirmed cases and counting—is a seismic shift, proving that in Trump’s resurgent America, tolerance for leftist assassination cheerleading has zero runway. The left’s cries of “doxxing” and “retaliation” ring hollow after years of silencing conservatives; now, the mob they unleashed is turning inward. Kirk’s legacy endures not just in policy but in this cultural firewall against hate. Employers who act aren’t caving—they’re leading, ensuring workplaces prioritize patriotism over poison.
In a stark display of government heavy-handedness, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has declared that the British flag will not be hijacked as a “symbol of violence” following a massive rally organized by anti-establishment activist Tommy Robinson. The event, billed as “Unite the Kingdom,” drew up to 150,000 fed-up citizens to London’s streets on Saturday, highlighting growing public frustration with Labour’s handling of immigration, crime, and free speech erosion. But what Starmer and his Downing Street spin doctors are framing as “far-right thuggery” looks more like a legitimate outcry against a regime that’s turned a blind eye to real threats like grooming gangs while cracking down on patriotic dissent.
The Prime Minister’s comments came after Elon Musk, the billionaire innovator and free speech champion, delivered a fiery video message to the protesters, urging them to “fight back” against what he sees as a tyrannical drift in British politics. Addressing the crowd via live link, Musk warned that “violence is coming” if urgent changes aren’t made, a stark prediction that resonates with many who feel the establishment is pushing ordinary Britons to the brink. Downing Street wasted no time in piling on, with the PM’s official spokesman accusing the Tesla CEO of promoting “violence and intimidation on our streets.” “The UK is a fair, tolerant and decent country,” the spokesman huffed. “The last thing the British people want is this sort of dangerous and inflammatory language.”
Yet, from a right-leaning perspective, Musk’s intervention isn’t meddling—it’s a much-needed wake-up call from an outsider who’s unafraid to call out the failures of a Labour government that’s prioritized virtue-signaling over public safety. This isn’t Musk’s first rodeo in British affairs; earlier this year, he used his platform X (formerly Twitter) to ignite a national debate on the scandal of grooming gangs, exposing how authorities have failed vulnerable communities for years. That “war of words” with the government only underscores Musk’s role as a bulwark against censorship and cover-ups.
Saturday’s march, far from the chaotic riot Starmer’s allies are painting it as, started as a peaceful assembly of everyday people waving Union Jacks and demanding accountability. Violence did erupt, with 26 police officers injured—four seriously—and 24 arrests for offenses including affray, violent disorder, assault, and criminal damage. But let’s be clear: in a nation where protests against lockdowns or net zero policies often pass without a whimper from the left, this event’s scale (initial estimates pegged it at 110,000, later revised to 150,000) speaks to deep-seated anger over issues like unchecked migration and the two-tier policing that favors certain groups.
Starmer, ever the lawyer-turned-leader, issued a weekend statement condemning the “use of the flag as a symbol of violence, fear and division.” He insisted that “the right to peaceful protest was core to British values,” but drew a line at “assaults on police officers doing their job or for people feeling intimidated on our streets because of their background or the colour of their skin.” “Britain is a nation proudly built on tolerance, diversity and respect,” he proclaimed. “Our flag represents our diverse country and we will never surrender it to those that use it as a symbol of violence, fear and division.”
This rhetoric, while polished, smacks of the same divisive tactics the left has used to delegitimize conservative voices. By equating the Union Jack with “far-right” extremism, Starmer risks alienating the very working-class voters who propelled Reform UK to gains in recent elections. It’s a classic Labour move: smear patriots as thugs while ignoring the root causes—like the grooming scandals Musk highlighted—that fuel these gatherings.
Across the aisle, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey called Musk’s words “totally inappropriate,” whining that Britain’s democracy is “too precious to be a plaything for foreign tech barons.” In a letter to Starmer, Tory leadership hopeful Kemi Badenoch, and Reform’s Nigel Farage, Davey demanded they all condemn the “dangerous” remarks. Badenoch has yet to respond publicly, but her track record suggests she’d view Musk as an ally in pushing back against woke overreach.
Farage, never one to shy from controversy, offered a nuanced take on Monday: “The context in which the words had been used left a degree of ambiguity.” He added, “If the fight that Musk was talking about was about standing up for our rights and free speech, if it was about fighting in elections to overcome the established parties, then that absolutely is the fight that we’re in.” Farage’s measured words cut through the hysteria, reminding us that Musk’s call to “fight back or die” could just as easily apply to the ballot box as the streets—especially with Labour’s approval ratings plummeting amid economic woes and border chaos.
As Britain grapples with these tensions, one thing is clear: Starmer’s attempt to “reclaim” the flag won’t silence the growing chorus of discontent. If anything, Musk’s bold stand has amplified it, proving that even from across the Atlantic, truth-tellers like him can shake the foundations of a government more interested in control than common sense.
Tesla’s TSLA -4.75% ▼ 2025 has been forgettable, to say the least.
Deliveries dropped hard in Q2, tanking nearly 14% year-over-year, marking Tesla’s worst quarterly sales drop in over a decade.
Also, the U.S. EV market share dropped to 38% in August, the first time it has fallen below 40% since 2017, with legacy automakers and new players closing in.
Moreover, the stock has been on a rollercoaster.
After its market cap peaked near $1.24 trillion in February, Tesla’s market cap plunged to $916 billion by March, erasing a whopping $300 billion in value before clawing back. Also, shares remain flat year-to-date, lagging broader market gains in the tech space.
Then there’s the incredible reputational damage. Political firestorms, product delays, and a stream of high-level exits continue to test investor patience.
Now, another senior executive is out, and his exit has been far from quiet. His blunt criticism of leadership sharpens concerns that Tesla’s challenges aren’t just cyclical, but also structural.
Senior engineer’s exit adds to Tesla leadership strain
Tesla’s leadership churn just had another spotlight moment.
Senior engineer Giorgio Balestrieri, who joined the EV pioneer in 2017 and was involved in its Autobidder energy-trading platform, announced his departure on LinkedIn this week, putting Elon Musk squarely at the center of it.
Balestrieri wrote on LinkedIn:
“All this being said, I do need to address the elephant in the room: The main reason I’m leaving is that I think Elon has dealt huge damage to Tesla’s mission (and to the health of democratic institutions in several countries).
“Beyond that, Elon’s leadership and decision making seem seriously compromised. Given his huge (and growing, inexplicably) stake in Tesla, I can’t convince myself anymore that this is the right place to be.”
For context, after his stake dipped to 12.7% to 13% post-Twitter sales, Tesla’s August stock award of a whopping $29 billion could lift his holding to over 15%.
Additionally, the board also floated a “$1 trillion” performance package, which could potentially boost his voting power toward 25% over time.
Tesla’s stock has weathered a ton of criticism from Musk, but steady departures of long-tenured engineers raise a ton of questions for investors.
Leadership credibility matters critically in advanced energy platforms, and when insiders question it, the cost of capital and talent retention become major long-term issues.
More exits pile up as the Tesla brand takes a hit
The Balestrieri departure isn’t an isolated event.
Over the past year, we’ve seen at least eight senior leaders walk, spanning sales, software, robotics, and service.
Some of the recent high-profile exits over the past 12 months include:
Troy Jones, VP sales/service/delivery (North America): Left July 15, 2025
Piero Landolfi, director of service (North America): Departed Aug. 11, 2025
Omead Afshar, head of sales & manufacturing (NA/EU): Exited late June 2025
Milan Kovac, head of Optimus (humanoid robot): Announced his exit on June 6, 2025
David Lau, VP of software engineering: Stepped down in April 2025
Also notable in 2025 were key exits of personnel such as Vineet Mehta in batteries, David Imai in design, and Pete Bannon, who led Tesla’s Dojo supercomputer project.
These developments should be troubling for Tesla investors, as this isn’t just about swapping nameplates. It involves losing institutional memory across sales, service, and next-gen platforms.
In markets where talent and trust are paramount, frequent senior departures slow recruiting flywheels, denting a company’s reputation in the process.
These effects rarely show up in a single quarter, but are likely to compound over time in valuation multiples.
Elon Musk’s Optimus robots greeted hungry fans as the mogul’s long-awaited Tesla Diner finally opened its “retro-futuristic” doors along the famed Hollywood strip.
The all-night drive-in offers “80 V4 Supercharger stalls” and two giant entertainment screens — where Tesla’s humanoid Optimus robots handed out popcorn to customers who showed up for Monday’s debut.
The location opened up for orders at 4:20 p.m. local time Monday – Musk’s favorite marijuana-themed reference.
The Tesla CEO shared a number of posts touting the Tesla Diner’s features and urged customers to “try it out.”
“Aiming to be a fun experience for all, whether Tesla owners or not. Will keep improving,” Musk wrote on X.
The menu features a number of classic options with locally sourced ingredients, including fried chicken and waffles, a Tesla burger and a Diner club sandwich.
Some diners received their food in “Cybertruck”-themed boxes resembling Tesla’s stainless steel pickup trick. Cups and cartons of fries featured a distinctive Tesla lightning bolt logo.
If the original diner concept is successful, Musk said in separate post that Tesla would “establish these in major cities around the world, as well as Supercharger sites on long distance routes.”
Musk has teased his diner concept online for several years.
The two had a public falling-out over the president’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” with Musk even declaring plans to launch his own political party.
Meanwhile, Tesla is looking to reverse a recent vehicle sales slump.
Musk has touted the long-term prospects of the company’s technology, especially its Optimus robots and self-driving Robotaxi fleet, which recently debuted in Austin, Texas.
Mumbai, India – Tesla Inc. is set to make its long-awaited debut in India next week, officially entering the world’s third-largest automobile market with the opening of its first showroom in Mumbai.
The U.S. electric vehicle (EV) pioneer will unveil its new Tesla Experience Center on July 15, located at the upscale Maker Maxity Mall in the Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC), Mumbai’s premier business district. According to an event invitation obtained by The NY Budgets, the launch event will run for approximately 90 minutes, marking a significant milestone for the company and Indian EV enthusiasts alike.
The new Experience Center will showcase Tesla’s flagship EVs, including the Model 3 and Model Y, and serve as a hub for direct sales, test drives, and customer engagement. Tesla is expected to begin direct sales in India immediately following the launch, offering a fully digital ordering process through its official website and showroom network.
This is Tesla’s first official presence in India after years of anticipation, regulatory hurdles, and discussions about tariffs and factory investments.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has long expressed interest in the Indian market. The company’s momentum picked up after a high-profile virtual meeting between Musk and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in April. The two reportedly discussed cooperation in technology, renewable energy, and innovation.
During the same month, Tesla’s Chief Financial Officer noted the company had been “very careful” in timing its India entry, signaling strategic caution given India’s complex regulatory and competitive landscape.
Despite India’s population of over 1.4 billion and growing middle class, EV adoption has been slow due to infrastructure challenges, high upfront costs, and limited availability of premium EVs.
Tesla will not manufacture locally in India, at least initially. Vehicles sold in India will be imported from its Shanghai Gigafactory in China and the Gigafactory Berlin-Brandenburg in Germany. This means Indian buyers may face import duties of up to 70%, making Tesla’s cars significantly more expensive compared to domestic EVs.
India has offered incentives to reduce the import duty to 15% — but only for companies that invest $500 million or more in local manufacturing. However, according to Indian Minister of Heavy Industries, H.D. Kumaraswamy, Tesla currently has “no interest” in setting up a local plant.
This stance may evolve if demand in India proves strong enough to justify local assembly or a full-scale Gigafactory.
Tesla’s entry into India will put it in direct competition with major players in the local EV scene:
BYD (Build Your Dreams), the Chinese EV giant, already operates in India with its Atto 3 electric SUV and E6 MPV. Tata Motors, a dominant domestic automaker, leads the Indian EV market with its affordable and widely accepted models like the Nexon EV and Tigor EV. Mahindra Electric and MG Motor India are also expanding their EV portfolios aggressively.
While Tesla brings brand prestige and advanced software like Autopilot, its premium pricing may be a hurdle in a price-sensitive market.
Tesla is already staffing up in India. According to LinkedIn job postings, Tesla is hiring in Mumbai for positions such as:
India’s EV market is growing rapidly. According to industry estimates, EV sales in India surged 160% year-over-year in 2024, reaching over 1.5 million units. However, premium EVs make up less than 5% of total EV sales, indicating Tesla will initially be playing to a niche demographic.
Still, India’s push for clean energy, rapid urbanization, and growing affluence in metro cities make it a potentially lucrative long-term market. Government-backed incentives under the FAME II scheme (Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of Electric Vehicles in India) have also been expanded to encourage adoption.
If Tesla successfully navigates India’s tariff structure, infrastructure limitations, and price sensitivity, it could unlock a vast market with significant upside in the coming years.
Omead Afshar, a veteran Tesla executive long known as Elon Musk’s personal “fixer,” has quietly exited the company, marking a notable shift in the automaker’s leadership structure.
Afshar—who joined Tesla in 2017 and rose to prominence by overseeing the Texas Gigafactory construction and serving in the Office of the CEO—had recently been appointed vice president of sales and manufacturing for North America and Europe back in October 2024. However, he has now left amid one of the most challenging periods in Tesla’s recent history: global vehicle deliveries fell by 13% in Q1 2025, European deliveries plunged ~40% in May, and profitability dropped sharply by 71%.
According to reports, Afshar’s name disappeared from Tesla’s internal directory, and he has ceased all corporate communication channels. The Wall Street Journal and Reuters attribute his departure to the broader struggles Tesla is facing—especially increased competition from Chinese EV makers and scrutiny over Elon Musk’s political entanglements. His exit aligns with other high-profile resignations, including that of North America HR head Jenna Ferrua and Milan Kovac, former VP of Optimus robotics.
Notably, his departure comes just days after he posted praise for the Austin robotaxi pilot on X: “Absolutely historic day for Tesla… Thank you, Elon, for pushing us all!”.
Tesla shares, which have fallen roughly 19% year‑to‑date, saw a brief dip following news of Afshar’s exit but stabilized shortly thereafter. Analysts say the move is likely meant to reassure investors that Tesla’s board is taking concrete action to arrest the operational slide.
Second-quarter delivery results, due next week, will be under intense scrutiny. Equity analysts project a further 10% drop in deliveries—potentially to around 392,800 vehicles globally for Q2—compared to 443,956 units last year.
Benchmark analyst remarks suggest longer-term confidence remains tied to Tesla’s ambitious pivot toward AI and autonomy, such as the robotaxi program and Optimus humanoid initiative—even as traditional sales sag.
Tom Zhu, Tesla’s global automotive head, is expected to temporarily absorb Afshar’s duties for North America and Europe—he already heads the Asia‑Pacific operations, reported WSJ.
Industry watchers view Afshar’s exit as part of a broader restructuring effort that aligns with Tesla’s shift toward AI and robotics.
With aging legacy models and mounting competition from both Western and Chinese automakers, Tesla is under pressure to roll out new products or aggressive pricing to regain market share.
Omead Afshar’s departure represents more than a personnel change—it reflects Tesla’s accelerating pivot away from conventional automotive dominance to a future defined by autonomy, robotics, and AI. Whether this signals a rejuvenation or further fragmentation remains to be seen. Q2 delivery results will be a key indicator.
The explosion of a SpaceX Starship vehicle during a routine ground test Wednesday sent out a shock wave of fire and smoke that appeared to engulf the company’s testing facilities in Starbase, Texas. The mishap raised questions about the company’s ability to hash out significant design and engineering challenges on a vehicle considered crucial to SpaceX’s founding goal of eventually carrying convoys of people to Mars.
When SpaceX CEO Elon Musk spoke to employees in South Texas in late May, aiming to once again stoke support for his Mars ambitions, he emphasized the metric by which he would gauge success: “Progress is measured by the timeline to establishing a self-sustaining civilization on Mars.”
Later in his speech — which Musk gave two days after the company’s most recently launched Starship prototype failed upon reentry, marking the third premature ending for a test flight this year — he spelled out the exact timeline SpaceX would chase. The road map hinges on specific deadlines dictated by the laws of physics, thanks to just how far Earth is from the red planet.
The distance between Earth and Mars can range from about 35 million miles to 250 million miles (56 million kilometers to 400 million kilometers), depending on where each planet lies in its orbital path around the sun. To save time and fuel costs, missions aiming to visit the red planet must wait until it’s at its ideal point relative to Earth — prime alignment opportunities, otherwise known as a “Mars transfer windows,” that span a few weeks and occur only about every 26 months.
Missions save time and fuel costs by launching when Mars is at its ideal point relative to Earth. (SpaceX)
The next window, during which the travel time to Mars is cut down from over a year to just six to nine months, is coming up in late 2026. Musk’s road map suggests SpaceX hopes to send up to five uncrewed Starship vehicles loaded with cargo to Mars during that time. But there are several major concerns that SpaceX will need to address before its first cargo ship sets out for the red planet, and Wednesday’s explosion — Starship’s fourth so far this year — may be evidence of that.
Anticipated upgrade for Starship
Musk spoke to the feasibility of reaching Mars in 2026 during that May speech, saying that he imagined there was only a “50/50 chance” SpaceX could get a Starship spacecraft to Mars next year.
Before the 2026 Mars transfer window opens, SpaceX plans to debut another upgraded version of the Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy rocket booster — which together make up the most powerful launch system ever constructed.
On the new Starship system, both the first-stage booster and upper-stage ship will be slightly larger and together will be able to carry 661,387 pounds (300 metric tons) of propellant.
The SpaceX Starship rocket launches on its ninth uncrewed test flight from Starbase, Texas, on May 27. (Sergio Flores/AFP/Getty Images)
It’s a substantial upgrade similar to the one SpaceX debuted earlier this year, Starship Version 2, which added 25% more propellant capacity compared with earlier test flight models.
And SpaceX has struggled to get Version 2 to perform as expected: The first two test flights, carried out in January and March, each failed minutes after takeoff, raining debris near populated islands east of Florida.
The last test flight in May made it farther into flight, but the Starship spacecraft lost control before reentry, leading to a nail-biting, uncontrolled descent into the Indian Ocean.
And Wednesday’s explosion during a routine ground test raises even more concerns about how long it will take SpaceX to fine-tune Starship’s design and guarantee it can transport cargo or humans safely. The company hasn’t revealed how much of a setback it might be for the vehicle or its launch facilities.
Preliminary data suggested the explosion was caused by a gas tank that exploded, Musk said in a social media post. The tank “failed below its proof pressure,” he said, meaning that prior stress tests and the known properties of the tank suggested it should have survived the scenario. It’s potentially a unique problem that has never been observed before.
During his May 29 speech, Musk emphasized that introducing even more upgrades and further stretching Starship’s size is crucial to long-term success.
“It takes three major iterations of any major new technology to have it really work well,” Musk told employees during his Starship update.
An unprecedented challenge
Musk has said he hopes the updated Starship will make its flight debut by the end of the year.
But even if the new version pulls off a pristine test flight along the same suborbital route where SpaceX has carried out previous Starship test missions, it won’t guarantee the vehicle is ready for an interplanetary excursion.
That’s because, even with added fuel capacity, Starship must be topped off with more propellant after it reaches space to make the long trip to Mars.
SpaceX plans to do this by launching a series of tankers, or Starship vehicles designed to carry batches of fuel and oxidizer. Those tankers would rendezvous with the Starship while it idles in Earth’s orbit, transferring thousands of pounds of propellant and delivering the fuel the vehicle needs to continue its journey deeper into the solar system.
Notably, transferring fuel between two vehicles in space has never been done before.
“We’ve never done that. Nobody’s done that — transferring fuel from one spacecraft to another in orbit autonomously,” said Bruce Jakosky, a professor emeritus of geological sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics.
“That’s difficult,” Jakosky added, especially considering the Starship vehicle runs on cryogenic fuels — essentially oxygen and methane that are kept at temperatures so cold they liquify. And in the microgravity environment of orbit, that fuel can float about in its tank rather than settling in one place. So, among myriad other technical difficulties, SpaceX will likely have to devise pumps or motors that can effectively funnel the fuel from one ship to another.
Currently, it’s not even clear how many tankers SpaceX would need to launch to give one Starship vehicle enough gas for a trip to Mars. (In prior estimates, NASA personnel and third-party experts projected it may take roughly one dozen Starship tankers for a moon mission.)
In his speech, Musk said that he believed in-space fuel transfer would be “technically feasible.”
SpaceX will not attempt to carry out its first tanker flight test before next year, Musk added.
Barriers to reentry
Even after SpaceX sorts out the propellant transfer problem, they’ll face another significant technological question: How will Starship survive the trip down to the surface of Mars?
Musk last month called this issue “one of the toughest problems to solve.”
“No one has ever developed a truly reusable orbital heat shield so that is extremely difficult to do,” he said. “This will be something that we’ll be working on for a few years, I think, to keep honing.”
Vehicles that need to safely land on planetary bodies while traveling at orbital speeds must have a component called a heat shield — a special coating on the vehicle’s exterior that serves as a buffer to the scorching temperatures generated by the process of entering a planet’s atmosphere.
Workers survey the SpaceX Starship rocket on March 3 ahead of its eighth uncrewed test flight. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
On Mars, one crucial problem is the air: It’s almost entirely made up of carbon dioxide.
When Starship slams into Mars’ atmosphere, it will violently compress the air in front of it and create searing temperatures. And the conditions of reentry are so intense that the process literally rips electrons away from atoms and splits molecules, turning the carbon dioxide into carbon and oxygen — the latter of which may start to “oxidize” or essentially incinerate the spacecraft’s heat shield, Musk said.
Reentry on Mars will actually produce more heat–shield-destroying oxygen than the process of returning to Earth, Musk noted. Starship’s heat shield will ultimately need to be durable enough to survive both types of reentry, potentially multiple times.
The human problem
While the odds of SpaceX solving all the necessary technical quandaries in time to send a cargo-filled Starship to Mars at the end of next year are likely small, even larger problems must be solved later down the road.
If SpaceX wants to send humans to the red planet, for example, the company must figure out how to ensure Starship’s exterior can keep people safe from the deadly radiation that will shower down throughout the six-month journey. Life support systems with plenty of breathable air would need to be on board.
As Musk put it, every single human need must be accounted for. “You can’t be missing even, like, the equivalent of vitamin C,” he said.
Once a Starship vehicle reaches its destination, it would likely need to top off its fuel at a Martian depot before returning home — another feat that presents enormous technological challenges.
Starship’s heat shield will need to be durable enough to survive a trip to the surface of Mars. (NASA/JPL/Cornell)
The idea that enough infrastructure will exist on Mars by 2029 — or 2031, as Musk has said in prior social media posts — to make such a crewed mission possible is outlandish.
Still, industry experts say SpaceX’s bold ambitions spark both excitement and skepticism.
“I am a fan of what SpaceX is trying to do. I totally subscribe to this vision of a multi-planetary society,” said Olivier de Weck, the Apollo Program Professor of Astronautics and Engineering Systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “But it’s a logistical problem first and foremost. And what’s lacking to me is the thought about the cycling, the fuel production — and the return to Earth.”
But Phil Metzger, a planetary physicist with the Florida Space Institute, emphasized that SpaceX does tend to deliver on its promises, even if it’s a few years behind schedule.
“I feel like they got unlucky on some of their (Starship test flight failures), having the types of failures they had the last three in a row,” Metzger said. “Considering their design and development philosophy, I think they’re still within the window of expected outcomes.”
But, Metzger added, “we’re reaching the point where you start to worry.”
