Apparently @funwithnumberz didn't read my post

I've been chewing on a question lately. Has any single business leader ever put this much capital to work at once? I ran the numbers on the companies Elon leads, and the answer is pretty remarkable. This year SpaceX, which now includes xAI and X, is on pace to spend about $65 billion on capital projects, and Tesla has guided to more than $25 billion. That's roughly $90 billion in one year. On top of that sit the announced megaprojects. Starbase Louisiana is up to $100 billion, and Terafab in Grimes County is up to $119 billion across all phases. There's a $10 billion solar cell plant planned for Fort Bend County, a $20 billion-plus xAI data center in Southaven, and a growing cluster of factories in Bastrop. Hold today's pace flat and you get about $450 billion through 2030. Add the big projects and it's closer to $680 billion. If JPMorgan is right that SpaceX alone heads toward $200 billion a year, the total approaches a trillion. To get a sense of scale I compared it to the size of the economy. The Musk companies are now investing about 0.28% of US GDP every year. Apollo averaged about 0.21% over its life, and so did the Manhattan Project. Those were run by the federal government. This is a handful of companies steered by one man. And the money on his own books is only the first ring. People who learned their trade at SpaceX and Tesla have gone on to build companies of their own. Tom Mueller founded Impulse Space, Will Bruey co-founded Varda, the Kunjur brothers started K2 Space, and JB Straubel built Redwood Materials. Beyond them is a wider ring of competitors that exist because SpaceX and Tesla proved these things could be done. That includes every rocket company now chasing reusability, China's answers to Starlink, the global EV industry, and a whole field racing to build humanoid robots. Put all of that together and I think Elon has become something close to a one-man re-industrialization of America. In fairness, Alphabet and Meta spend more in raw dollars, and Alphabet may still outspend everyone through 2030. What sets Elon apart is the range: rockets, launch sites, satellites, AI compute, chip fabs, solar, cars and robots, all at the same time, and much of it hardware nobody has ever built at this scale. I can't find anyone in history who has put so many $100 billion-scale physical projects in motion at once. Not investment advice. It's just a fascinating moment to be watching.

The numbers are just crazy...but they add up. Can SpaceX get to $10T? That may be a stretch, but even 10% of that would make them the largest company on the planet!

TL/DR: Mass America will only buy the miles it can afford. @RZ_GreatLakes answered my Blockbusted piece (below) with real data that most people miss - or misunderstand. Uber may currrently dominate US ride-share on revenue and profit but is still a rounding error on how America drives. @ARKInvest puts Uber under one percent of US urban miles. National VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) aligns with that number. Ride-hail will remain tiny until the price of a mile falls from about three dollars toward personal-car cost, roughly seventy-seven cents on AAA’s number. Human ride-hail - cars with drivers - cannot achieve that at scale. High-cost robotaxis may win a city but currently Tesla is the only credible path to profitable national scale at - or even under - that price.

On with Randy to explain my post about the upcoming Tesla year catalysts...he presses me for a share price target... piped.video/VFWvZQKsb3Q?is=ZOP0…

This post in Linkedin says it so well, I thought to repost here: lnkd.in/p/eq-7wbbP

This is not investment advice. It is how I am thinking about the timing of Tesla’s near-to-mid-term catalysts, and what that might mean for earnings models and the forward stock if the pieces land. When I am asked on YouTube shows about the Tesla stock price in 2027 (now that we are in late 2026), I keep coming back to a simple framing. Cars and energy are still carrying the P&L while the company spends hard on the next stack. Capex can keep trailing EPS noisy for a while. What the forward stock cares about is whether several of those next trajectories are visible at the same time. Start with FSD, because this is the high-weight piece. Subscription growth is already a tangible catalyst you can put into models as Tesla reports rising attach rates and we see ARPU climb. Unsupervised FSD, which I fully expect in the mid-to-late 2027 window, would be a step-change: it would accelerate attach and paid adoption. My working assumption is unsupervised roughly by Q3 2027, because Tesla will have very large numbers of miles completed on V15 by then. Getting it done under the current administration matters for how the timing can play out. High-margin software can show up in earnings models earlier than Optimus hardware ever will. Robotaxi sits right on top of that unsupervised path. We already have live service in multiple U.S. metros, and Cybercab production has started at Giga Texas even as the volume language got softer in the Q2 2026 letter. Think of 2026 as proof and footprint: cities, utilization, dollars per mile, and a real sense of the Cybercab ramp. By mid-2027 the economics should be modelable enough that the street can stop treating Robotaxi as pure narrative. Optimus I keep deliberately conservative. I am not banking on material external unit sales in 2027. The win condition for that year is multiple client-site proofs of concept by year-end, plus ongoing internal factory use where the robots actually earn their keep. Those PoCs can still move the stock if FSD, Robotaxi, Energy, and Semi are delivering, because the market will price the optionality even when GAAP EPS from Optimus is still small. Narrative can outrun the income statement on this one for a while, and that is fine if you are clear about what you are counting. Semi is the steadier industrial cousin. Nevada production was guided to start in 2026, fleet customers are the natural next proof, and the path toward autonomy sits on the same software stack that is unlocking Robotaxi. This is the kind of business that can put more reliable earnings into the model while Optimus is still mostly story and site visits. Energy remains a real 2026–27 earnings lever through Megapack and Megablock storage products, with Megafactory Texas coming online in that window. The solar cell plant is a later chapter; the filings point more toward commercial operations around the end of the decade, closer to ~2029 than to anything you should force into a 2027 EPS bridge. Do not confuse a strategic build with a near-term earnings driver. Terafab and packaging are mostly about constraint relief and vertical integration rather than 2027 revenue. Packaging alone is not a needle-mover in this window. You can note that something meaningful may be shipping on roughly a three-year horizon without pretending it rewrites the 2027 income statement. Put the stack together and the mid- to late-2027 stock story gets clearer. Unsupervised FSD plus a Robotaxi curve you can actually model, Semi and Energy delivering into earnings, and Optimus showing real client PoCs even without big external volume. That combination is enough for forward multiple expansion, even while Optimus revenue is still small and elevated capex keeps trailing EPS a bit messy. The market pays when the curves look real. I am happy to be wrong on the dates. Push back on Q3 2027 for unsupervised if you think the regulatory or technical path is slower, and push back on how much client PoCs alone are worth if Optimus volume is still tiny. The thesis is that several visible trajectories by then can re-rate the forward stock. All told, I expect an inflection in the stock price during the course of that year; the earlier Robotaxi begins rapid expansion, or Tesla declares FSD unsupervised, the earlier that inflection lands. Either way, I fully anticipate a significant re-rating of the stock sometime in 2027. The open question is which pieces land on time and how much weight you give the ones that are still early.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Orbital Data Center cost takes by Street analysts making the rounds: Wood Mac ~$170B/GW, BofA $160B to 180B, Futurum ~$72B (infrastructure alone), BNP >$100B just for launch to loft 1 GW. This is all the same spreadsheet genre that “proved” Starlink couldn’t work in comparison to classical Data Centers at $40B-$60 on the ground. However, we now know that Starlink worked because: (a) SpaceX’s real Falcon 9 cost was nowhere near list price, and (b) V2/V3 satellites blew past the bandwidth per satellite that those early models assumed. Starlink satellites kept outrunning the forecast and internal launch costs ran way below analysts estimates. AI satellites will rhyme. Gen-1 is what the cost models price. Gen-2 and Gen-3 (better chips, power, and thermal per kg) are where we once again pull away from the spreadsheet. Starship does the launch cost side slide in short order. @Mach33 is the most comprehensive analysis on Data Centers in the sky. Here are their estimates: Starship AI launches, with booster reuse and ship expendable cost at ~$300/kg. That would give us: ~$46B per GW for SpaceX, then toward ~$24B/GW over the next decade with Ship reuse. Bull case with full reuse and better chips goes lower. In summary: actual cost likely to start at $46B per GW (and the falling to half that) vs $160B+ headlines from "analysts". Add to that less permitting delays and less political pushback than a GW on the ground. Starlink redux. Bears beware.

How can analysts be this wrong, when they can fact check with Grok? Catalyst after catalyst the next two weeks. Larry @TeslaLarry says both Tesla and Space X are undervalued. The current ratio sits well with him for a merger.

Oh my gosh! It just keeps getting better and better. Can you imagine what this means for the data center satellites...energy efficiency, bandwidth, energy use...

EVEN CRAZIER...though Starship is only carrying a fraction of it's intended total payload, it'll still be the LARGEST COMMERCIAL PAYLOAD ever launched to orbit. When it eventually carries 60 Starlink V3s to orbit (possibly still this year), that will be the LARGEST EVER PAYLOAD to orbit.

It's time...passed time...to do the deed!

Nic gives 1,000/26 for the number of flights required to reach the functioning level of v3 satellites (~37 flights). This is incorrect. Once Starship production, it is expected to launch 60 Starlink v3 sats per flight; the correct calculation is therefore 1,000/60 (~17 flights).