Mars has enough resources to be self sufficient, you would only need the starting resources which wouldn’t be that much. After the starting resources are in place, the colony would be self sufficient. There is pretty much 0 risk of running out of resources on Earth.

Elon doesn’t have any money. All his networth is stock which he doesn’t sell (with exception of paying off taxes). If anything, he is in debt.(from buying more of his own stock).

It wouldn’t be that hard actually, I mean his goal is to get the price down to 200k per seat. Considering say they pay 80k salary, and 30k is taken to pay off the debt every year, you’ll be paid off in 7 years.

Actually, sending someone back to earth is quite cheap. Mostly because they have to make return trips anyways to bring stuff from Earth to Mars. So the flights back would be pretty empty, adding a few people back isn’t an issue.

Pretty much almost every complaint under “suspension” that has a link in it is questionable.

Taking a quick look at the NHTSA reports, half of them look fake... this isn’t the first time.

Boeing outsourced their software to people working close to minimum wage.

I am willing to bet 99% of complaints are by 1 person or a few people who are shorts. Just like the suspension issue the shorts tried to make by finding salvaged car VIN numbers and making hundreds of fake reports.

1st gear - I call BS. There have been cases of Tesla shorts finding salvaged cars on the internet and making fake NHTSA reports on “behalf of the owners”. Of course they never even talked to the owners or know why the crash happened. But regardless they made dozens if not hundreds of fake NHTSA complaints. (at the…

Well the EQC is a big hint it wasn’t US, as it isn’t out in US yet. The other being this statement “The Tesla Model 3 went far enough to go “from greater London to Newcastle on Tyne” which if you don’t know UK geography, is far.”

They will probably make a smart/mini car for the chinese market.

For all the tech the jetsons have, the cars still have a driver’s wheel it seems.

Again, I’m not sure what that has to do with fuel economy standards for cars.

Well actually it is closer to 90%. The reason was they did not start the test at 100% but at around 96%.

The most notable trick for going around EPA test is to use a similar models test and use that as your result. For EVs, the EPA gave a simple way to lessen the test, you can do a simple 2 cycle test but have to present 70% of it. (Doing so your EV would have less range than what the test says but it saves time and…

Consider the MPGe has improved, probably improvements in efficiency. Of course its possible for it to have been both.

Sorry, what in the world are you talking about? What does uranium have to do with fuel economy?

Cause no one wanted to sit in those terrible seats for that long!

I think you are confused. They aren’t lying, they are simply giving the numbers that it scored on the test.

That is a Tesla Model 3 AWD, and it was before the software update unlocking more range. So 270 / 310 is 87%.