I believe Optimus is going to be the greatest product ever created by humanity.
Elon Musk and his XAI startup have built the largest and most powerful artificial intelligence training supercomputer.
The world.
As far as I know, there's only one person in the world who could do that, you know?
This is an arms race of epic proportions.
He's a big thinker.
You guys went on Fox the other day with the Doge team.
You saw Elon's face nodding while they were speaking with a grin ear to ear.
He was proud.
He is proud.
XAI has acquired X in an all stock transaction.
Tesla's first robo taxis are officially on the road.
The company's board proposed a new compensation package for the CEO that could pay him just about a trillion dollars in stock.
He gets nothing if he doesn't hit the numbers.
SpaceX will buy wireless spectrum licenses from Echo Star for its Starlink satellite network for about 17 billion.
Three, two, one.
There's a building.
There's a building.
How do you have time?
I never understand you.
Yeah, well, I do work a lot.
Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Elon Musk.
All right.
Where are you?
Alto.
You're in Palo Alto and not Washington, D.C.
I'm at Tesla Global Engineering Headquarters in Palo Alto.
Yeah.
So no more Washington, D.C.
You're back at work.
You're focused.
Yeah?
Yeah.
I haven't been to D.C. since May.
Okay.
That was a hell of a side quest.
Any lessons from your time in Washington, D.C.?
The government is basically unfixable.
I applaud David's noble efforts.
It's good to have talented people in the administration.
But at the end of the day, if you look at our national debt, which is insanely high, the interest payments exceed the defense department.
I guess sorry, war department budget.
And they keep rising.
So if AI and robots don't solve our national debt, we're toast.
Which is a great segue.
Optimus is I think going to be the greatest product in the history of humanity.
What's the progress like and how many of your cycles are going specifically to Optimus?
What's the timeline?
I think you're on version three, maybe four.
Tell us everything.
Well, yeah.
Everything would take a long time.
We've got time.
We're finalizing the design of Optimus version 3.
And that really is going to be a very remarkable robot.
It will have Essentially the manual dexterity of a human, so meaning a very complex hand, an AI mind that can navigate and comprehend reality, and we made in very high volume.
Those are the three things that are missing.
Like if you see any other robotics company, they're missing those three things.
Those are the three really hard things.
And I spend actually at this point...
It might be more of my mental cycles than anything else, any other single thing on Optimus.
That's solving for real-world AI all of the electromechanical issues of Optimus, the supply chain and production challenges of it, because there is no supply chain that exists for humanoid robots.
So it has to be.
We have to recreate it from scratch, and which requires doing a lot of vertical integration.
None of the actuators in Optimus are available from an existing supply chain.
But I think it is accurate to say that if successful, Optimus will be the biggest product ever.
And the cost of it at scale 20000 30000, 40000 a robot.
What do you think the first wave of them will cost and when will we be able to buy one to work on the ranch?
I think that the marginal cost of production, once you hit a million units per year, is probably around the 20000 range.
It sort of depends on how much you spend on the AI chip in the robot.
You need to achieve a lot of efficiencies in the actuators.
Uh, there are um 26 actuators per arm, like 26 electric, like motors, gearboxes and power electronics.
Um so so, But the AI chip will be pretty expensive.
That might be like $5,000 or $6,000 of the build materials, maybe more.
But I think at volume, at a million units a year, The production cost is probably on the order of 20000, maybe 25000, something like that.
And the price will be as a function of demand.
Elon, can you maybe explain to everybody why the hand is so important to get right and why the actuator design is so unique?
You know why it's so difficult, why nobody makes it and why you have to start there almost to build the rest of the robot properly.
Well, it turns out, the human hands are incredibly.
They've evolved to be this incredibly sophisticated machine.
Like your hand is, actually a remarkable thing.
Look closely at your hands and think of all the things you can do with your hands, which is a lot.
I can think of many things.
Yeah, I was just thinking about something.
Your hands are a very versatile instrument.
Yeah.
You can give a high five.
Very versatile.
You can swing a baseball bat.
You can thread needles.
You can put thread in a needle.
You can play the piano with a violin.
You could disassemble or assemble a car.
The hands are incredibly versatile instruments.
And most of the muscles of the hand are actually in the forearm.
So your hand is kind of like a puppet.
It's mostly a puppet.
The muscles are coming from the forearm and they're pulling the tendons, which are, you know, also human tendon designing or human tendon evolution, is incredibly good, um.
So you've got this web of tendons you, you've got um, I think the human hand is something like, depending on how you count it, 27 or 28 degrees of freedom in the hand.
It's amazing.
So in order to create a robot that can be a generalized robot humanoid, you must solve the hands problem.
It's got hands, these hands.
And so is it like when you were first building Tesla, where the supply chain doesn't exist, and now you have to go out and find folks to work with and build all this vertical integration.
Get support.
Is it literally like it's just nowhere to be found and you're going to have to build all of this stuff up?
Yes we, we could not actually buy the actuators for any amount of money.
They simply didn't exist.
Even though there are, i don't know 10, 20 000 electric motors out there of various sizes and shapes um, we've had to design uh, every electric motor gearbox and the controlling electronics from scratch, basically from physics, first principles.
The good news is you've got a lot of experience with factories over the last couple of decades.
So how challenging is this versus Cybertruck or...
Model Y, Gigafactory, you know, the Faberge egg known as the Model X. Right.
It's hotter than any of those things.
Okay.
Yeah.
Much hotter?
Significantly, yeah.
Starship?
Harder than Starship?
Starship's harder.
So somewhere between a Model X and a Starship.
What's harder, the hardware or the software?
Right now we're struggling with the the final design of the hardware.
Like I said, it's really primarily the hand.
Not to just dismiss the rest of the robot.
The rest was also important, but the hands, inclusive of the forearm, are a majority of the engineering difficulty of the entire robot.
And then let's assume you get past the hardware challenges.
How much do you sort of get for free based on all the progress that's happening with LLMs?
Will consumers just be able to interact with this?
Talk to the robot, ask it to do things.
It'll understand.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, no problem.
You're spending a lot of time with Annie, I noticed, online.
Not that long.
Maybe I went a little over the top from Morning Rock Imagine.
Well, but in all seriousness, those characters and these robots, that seems to be...
You could get the embodiments of Annie, I suppose.
Why the human form factor, Elon?
You could make something that's maybe better than a human, or maybe simpler than a human to do specific tasks, and maybe better than a human to do more things than a human can do.
How do you decide to make it just like a human?
Well, if you wanted to do all the things that a human can do, it turns out you need a human-fired robot.
So if you wanted to do a subset, that's much easier.
But It turns out humans evolved to the shape and capabilities that we have for good reasons.
There's value to having four fingers and a thumb.
And even the pinky, actually, is quite useful.
Toes are much more a question mark, but the fingers...
Well, also, humans have designed the world as well, so we designed it for us.
If we can make a humanoid robot, it'll be immediately backwards, compatible with what we've built the world for.
Elon, there's another part of the robot.
So there's the LLMs, there's the actuation in the hands.
But also, there's the silicon that runs it.
And there was Dojo.
I think you posted on X.
AI5 and AI6, and it just seemed like you were incredibly excited about the direction in which the silicon layer was also going.
Can you tell us about that and what that is and what are we building here?
What is being built?
Is it a complement to everything that exists in the world?
Is it a potential long-term competitor?
What is it um?
Yeah, so at tesla we basically had two different chip programs, one dojo and one uh dojo on the training side, and then what we call, you know ai, for it's just our inference chip.
Um, The AI4 is currently shipping in all vehicles and we're finalizing the design of AI5, which will be an immense jump from AI4.
By some metrics, the improvement in AI5 will be 40 times better than AI4.
So 40%, 40 times.
And this is because we work so closely at a very fine-grained level on the AI software and the AI hardware.
So we know exactly where the limiting factors are.
And so effectively, the AI hardware and software teams are co-designing the chip.
So a 40x improvement in the silicon.
I think then, as everybody here in the audience experiences it, is that just almost like an order of magnitude increase in the quality of FSD and the safety that you experience as a Tesla driver, and then the quality of the robot.
Like where does it all manifest when you, you know, bring it up and actually get it into production?
Yeah, to be precise, the 40X is on.
If you say like, compared to the worst limitation on AI4, which is running the softmax operation.
We currently have to run softmax in around 40 steps in emulation mode, whereas that'll just be done in a few steps natively in AI5.
AI5 chip will also be easily handled, mixed precision, models.
So you don't have, it'll dynamically handle mixed precision.
There's a bunch of sort of technical stuff that AIFI will do a lot better.
In terms of nominal sort of raw compute it's eight times more compute, about nine times more memory, roughly five times more memory bandwidth.
But because we're addressing some core limitations in AI4.
You multiply that by that 8x compute improvement by another 5x improvement because of optimization at a very fine-grained silicon level of things that are currently suboptimal in AI4.
That's where you get the 4DX improvement.
You had, I'll keep going.
So now, that said, I am confident that the current chips, AI4 chips that are in the cars, will achieve self-driving safety that is at least two to three times that of human, and maybe even 10x.
And the software that will be released for that is coming out over the next few months.
So version 14 will be the biggest upgrade in Tesla software since version 12.
We are increasing the parameter count by an order of magnitude.
There's a lot of reinforcement learning that's been used.
You can think of AI as a way of compressing reality and some of those compression steps.
We're too lossy and we address the lossiness in the compression steps.
So these are all software updates that'll go out.
So just over there are updates.
Your car is going to feel like it is sentient by the end of the year.
It feels that way already, to be honest.
I saw in the trades that you spent about 17 billion on some spectrum, so some couch change to enable your satellites and the Starlink network to connect directly with phones.
What will that look like in a year or two?
Are we going to drop our Verizon account and just expand our Starlink account?
We're kind of hoping because Verizon kind of sucks.
How many of you want a Starlink phone?
Who wants a Starlink phone?
Is it technically possible?
I know you can't see it, but it's everyone.
So this is kind of a long-term thing.
It will allow SpaceX to deliver high-bandwidth connectivity directly from the satellites to the phones.
But there are hardware changes that need to happen in the phone.
So, since these frequencies are not supported in current phones, the chipset has to be modified to add these frequencies.
And that probably is a two year time frame.
So the phones that are able to use the spectrum that was acquired probably start shipping in around two years.
And then we also need to pull the satellites that are going to communicate on those frequencies.
So, in parallel with building the satellites and working with the handset makers to add these frequencies to the phones, and then the satellites and the phones will then handshake very well to achieve high bandwidth connectivity.
But the net effect is that you should be able to watch videos anywhere on your phone.
Wow.
That's going to be crazy.
Do these frequencies, would they work indoors inside buildings like your phone currently does?
Okay.
And so will you be able to have basically like, If you're in a building with a thick metal roof, then no, but.
No, the same types of... Yeah, normal homes, yes.
Elon, is your vision for this that, instead of having an ATT account and then roaming when you're in the UK or you're in India, it's just we could have one direct deal with Starlink?
It works all over the world.
Eventually, not today, but at some point.
Is that the end goal?
That basically we don't need a regional carrier, we have a global carrier and that would be you?
That would be one of the options.
To be clear, we're not going to put the other carriers out of business.
They're still going to be around because they own a lot of Spectrum.
So there's...
But yes, you should be able to have a Starlink, like you have an ATT or P-Mobile or Verizon or whatever.
You could have an account with Starlink that works with your Starlink antenna at home for your Wi-Fi as well as on your phone.
And yeah, it would be a comprehensive solution for high bandwidth at home and for high bandwidth direct to sell.
Could you buy some carriers to have more spectrum?
Maybe you could buy Verizon?
Not out of the question.
I suppose that may happen.
Let's talk about...
Let's talk about Starship.
You just had a really what appeared to be a phenomenal launch.
How close is it to being predictable and ready to go in a commercial setting?
I think we will... recover the ship next year.
We've got one more launch of the Starlink version 2 stack but there's only one booster and ship left.
That's in the version 2 design.
And then thereafter, it's version 3, which is a gigantic upgrade because that's got Raptor 3.
And pretty much everything changes on the rocket with version 3.
So version 3 might have some initial teaming pains because it's such a radical redesign.
But...
It's capable of over 100 tons to orbit, fully reusable.
And I think, unless we have some very major setbacks, SpaceX will demonstrate full reusability next year, catching both the booster and the ship and being able to deliver over 100 tons to a useful orbit.
What does the best rocket in the world do now in terms of tonnage to space?
Well, in terms of sort of commercial rockets, there's Falcon Heavy which we'll do in with side booster reuse.
We'll do about 40 tons.
So this is five times bigger, yeah.
Well, two and a half times bigger, but Starship would be full reusability.
Got it, okay.
So everything comes back.
Elon, after the explosion that happened with the failed launch, there was a lot of...
Sorry?
Which film?
Oh, the more recent one.
The more recent with the Starship.
The big boom.
The big boom on the base.
And there was a lot of...
There was a lot of proclamations that there's going to be environmental and FAA and all these other sorts.
The recovery back to the launch pad again was incredibly fast.
How did you get back so fast, not just technically and work-wise, but just like regulatory clearance-wise, because they said there were going to be all these questions and reviews and so on?
How did you guys manage that?
Well, there were a lot of questions and reviews.
We got through them all.
And credit to the SpaceX team.
They worked incredibly hard and they got the next driven booster tested and on the pad and flown, and huge credit to the SpaceX team.
Very proud of them for doing such a job, a great job recovering.
I mean, creating a fully reusable orbital rocket is one of the hottest engineering problems ever.
It's certainly, you know, a candidate for most difficult engineering project ever.
You know, it's on the podium at least.
So that's been the goal of SpaceX from the beginning, from 2002.
And here we are 23 years later.
So it's a long journey and um with, with a super talent like by far the, i think, the most talented group of rocket engineers that's ever been assembled.
Um and uh and we're finally next year i think we'll be able to achieve full reusability.
Elon, what are the big technical blockers that you're focused on there between now and that full reusability?
Are there some showstoppers where you're just kind of literally just obsessing over trying to figure out still, or is it more about getting through a laundry list of your learnings and just integrating it into the next launch?
Well, for full reusability of the ship, there's still a lot of work that remains on the heat shield.
So no one's ever made a fully reusable orbital heat shield.
Like the shuttle heat shield had to go through nine months of repair after every flight.
Right.
So no one has ever made a fully reusable orbital heat shield.
And is that a material science problem or is that an engineering problem or both?
Yeah, I mean, it's a material science engineering problem.
But we really are looking at the fundamental physics here.
Again, physics post-principles and trying to figure out how do we make something that is...
It can withstand the heat.
It's very light.
It doesn't transmit the heat to the primary structure.
But then whose integrity is intact?
All the tiles stay on.
They don't crack.
And then as you ascend, if you hit some rain, the tiles don't dissolve in rain.
There's a lot of different issues.
And then you really need to know that these tiles are working.
You know, go through this laborious inspection.
So it really needs to be.
You know, these tens of thousands of tiles all work and don't need to be refurbished or checked one by one.
That was the case with the shuttle.
Can we maybe switch now?
I mean, who else where you talked about Tesla, then you go to SpaceX?
Yeah.
Now, I'd like to ask you some questions about Grok and XAI.
You want to just give us an update?
I think you kind of talked about where the next gen model is.
And you said something incredible.
I still don't think people really understand it, which is there's going to be a next training run where you expect not to start from the common web and common crawl, where you expected an enormous amount of synthetic data.
Just tell us about how the evolution of Grok is going and this innovation and why it's so important.
Yeah, so we're running a lot of using a lot of inference, compute and and reasoning to look at all of the source data, which is really the corpus of human knowledge, and then thinking about each piece of information and then adding what's missing and correcting mistakes and removing falsehoods from that training data.
Grok is using heavy amounts of inference compute to look at as an example, a Wikipedia page and say what is true, partially true or false or missing in this page.
Now rewrite the page to correct, remove the falsehoods, correct the half-truths and add the missing context.
Elon, by the way, could you just publish that?
Could we create like a Grokopedia?
Yeah, especially for our bio pages, which are a disaster.
Wikipedia is so biased and it's a constant war.
If something gets corrected, five minutes later there'll be an army of people trying to.
I mean, it's become hyper-partisan and there's activists all over it.
So if you do fix, for example, Wikipedia as a source of truth, it'd be great to publish that just so the world has it.
All right, I'll talk to you about that soon.
So talk to the team about that, like Grokpedia or whatever.
Here's the Grokpedia version.
It'd be interesting, yeah.
And then just have it out there for us.
In terms of people here like it.
In terms of training Grok 5, you're scaling up your super cluster in Colossus and Memphis.
Colossus 2, yeah.
We have a second one.
Yeah, could you give us an update on that?
And then also as part of that, where are we in the scaling laws?
If you scale a bigger cluster, do you get a more powerful AI model?
Is there a point of diminishing returns?
If you throw twice as much compute at it, do you get a 10% better model?
Do you get 100% better model?
Is it log linear? how much more juice is there left in scaling hardware do you think?
I think, I think there's a natural logarithmic function associated with the amount of compute.
So, uh, then like say for argument's sake, like 10 X more compute will double the intelligence.
Maybe that might be a rough rule of thumb.
But that still means that you go from 100 IQ to 200 IQ.
It's still a pretty big deal.
And I think we'll see intelligence continue to scale all the way up to where you know most of the power of the sun is honest for compute and then ultimately most of the power of the galaxy.
You know sort of quadrashev to quadrashev three scale uh compute, um.
Human intelligence has also scaled as the population has increased.
And we've been able to store more and more information.
Human intelligence has scaled.
Now, because of population declines and low growth rate, human intelligence is somewhat plateauing and will actually decline.
And my guess is that I think that we might have AI smarter than any single human at anything as soon as next year.
And then probably within five, like say 2030, probably AI is smarter than the sum of all humans.
Do you think Do you think humans are on the decline because the AI is evolving?
Do you think there's this evolution of the ecosystem on Earth that's underway, that we don't really understand the structure of what's going on?
Maybe we implicitly know that it's coming.
I hope the birth rates turn around.
I'm a big proponent of increased birth rate, obviously.
Well, you doing anything about it or no?
Yeah, I'm trying to set a good example.
You know, we had a big conversation at this conference.
We didn't expect which is suicidal, empathy the West, this declining birth rate.
I notice you've been pretty active about it.
And open borders.
And open borders.
Which is like let the invaders in.
Tucker talked about it.
Could all three of those be the same thing?
It seems like there's a number of symptoms of the West being suicidal.
The most obvious one being the birth rate is not a replacement level.
So obviously, if that continues indefinitely, then the West will literally not reproduced enough to replace itself.
But there's other things too.
There's the fact that the borders were totally opened, to the point where Western culture, the social fabric, started to come apart.
And you see this especially in Europe, where they're um, you know, the indigenous cultures of the UK or France or Germany are starting to potentially be taken over by cultures of people who are brought in and aren't assimilating.
You have crime where you know.
We have this case on social media right now this young woman Irina, who's just killed in a senseless way on a subway.
The elite media just, for whatever reason, just refused to cover it like it didn't exist.
So you have this issue of crime that's not being addressed or even acknowledged.
And no acknowledgement of this.
It's almost like we're trying to deny the reality of the spiral and this...
So you have all these data points that seem to suggest that the West is suicidal or doesn't seem to want to defend itself or propagate itself.
Look, I think everyone in this room thinks that life is awesome, right?
It's pretty great.
It's worth living.
Yeah.
And when Alex Karp was here earlier today defending the West, they got some of the loudest applause at the conference.
I guess we probably don't really understand what's going on.
What's your take, Elon?
What's your take on the suicide of the West?
I'm very worried about it.
I'm very worried about it.
I think there's...
Let's just say that the actions of the West are indistinguishable from suicide.
At least in America, there's generally a sense of optimism.
But when's the last time you talked to someone from Europe who lives in Europe who's optimistic?
Not for a while.
Decades.
Like even one.
It's rare.
So I think, unless people have a sense of optimism and purpose about the future, suicide might be just what happens.
Like having a child is an act of optimism about the future.
So if you're not optimistic, yeah.
So I think we need to maybe give people a sense of optimism and excitement about the future.
And I believe that the future will be better than the past.
And they'll be more interested in having kids.
Did religion play a role in the past, Elon, to kind of placate and make folks feel that way?
Yeah, I think so.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
And if you take away a religion, then I think you actually you you, you get something in his place which is actually worse than what was there before.
I mean, it's like destructive.
Basically, you get.
You get like the white work mind virus filling, filling the hole that religion used to have, taking the place of religion.
You get these dystopian de facto religions that are very self-destructive.
So I think perhaps some sort of revival of religion, or at least what we need is some coherent philosophy that people can get excited about.
I mean, for me, it's a philosophy of curiosity.
I'm curious about the nature of the universe and I want to go out there and I want humanity to be out there exploring the stars, maybe meeting alien civilizations.
Maybe in some cases we see the ruins of a long dead alien civilization, but they were.
They were very strong for 10 million years.
You know the kind of stuff that you see in Star Trek and in a non dystopian sci fi book or movie or show.
And so I'm just I have a philosophy of curiosity of like, I just want to know what's going on.
And in order to know what's going on, we must have and increase in the scope and scale of consciousness, we must expand consciousness, we must grow humanity and we must extend humanity in order to comprehend, to understand the universe, or even what questions we should ask about the answer that is, the universe.
Douglas Adams' book The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is actually a deep book on philosophy disguised as humor.
And the point he was trying to make in that book was that The questions are the really hard part.
The answer is the universe.
The answer is everything you see around you.
But what are the questions that we don't know to ask?
Now, some of the questions I guess I do know.
I'd like to know, is the standard model of physics correct about the origins of the universe?
Are we actually 13.8 billion years old?
How does the universe end?
Does it end in a heat death or in some other way?
Are we in a black hole?
We might be.
Elon, can you talk about... Is this the whole sort of simulation question?
Are we in a simulation?
Maybe.
Where do you think we find the answer first? in AI or in the stars?
Because you're pursuing both, obviously.
Yeah.
I hope more people can get behind a philosophy of curiosity.
Because I think it's very exciting and inherently optimistic.
Because there's this amazing sense of wonder about the nature of the universe.
And when you uncover some secret to the universe, That's amazing.
And you're like a whole world of understanding has opened up.
I mean, we used to not even know where all the continents were.
Um, You know, it used to be like just the map would be there would be dragons.
And, like, all we know is that when they sailed in that direction, they didn't come back.
I mean, the moon base.
That's all they knew.
I kind of feel like the moon base or just going to the moon for real this time would be a big step in the right direction.
You still have the moon planned?
What's the status of that?
Is that still on the agenda?
Yeah, I think we want to try to reach new heights as a civilization.
So I think it's fine to go to the moon, but we should go to the moon in order to establish a lunar base, like a lunar research base.
Yeah.
I mean, there are parts of the moon that are perhaps older than parts of Earth.
And we might understand more about the nature of the universe if we had a science base on the moon.
That would be very cool.
And then we obviously want to go beyond the moon to Mars. of a self-sustaining city on Mars.
Does Mars continue to prosper or does it die out?
At the point at which Mars is able to prosper and grow on its own.
The probable lifespan of consciousness is dramatically greater because we are no longer dependent on everything going right on Earth.
You know, there's always some possibility of self-annihilation on Earth with the World War III or a super virus or a meteor that destroyed the dinosaurs.
We know from the fossil record that there have been many mass extinction events.
So the question that I sort of always wondering about is will the civilizational arc continue to ascend such that we can make Mars self-sustaining before the civilizational arc descends?
Because the window of opportunity to make life multi-planetary exists now for the first time in the four and a half billion year history of earth.
Yeah elon, let's assume that we get there and you're there.
Um, you know, you'd be the elder statesman, you'd have the moral authority of mars.
How do you run mars?
But there's this point that I think I want to just emphasize again, that it's more important than the form of governance on Mars or who's there in the early days.
What really matters is that Mars is self-sustaining, that we are truly a multi-planet species and such that we've achieved planetary redundancy, so that if, if something and obviously we should do everything possible to make sure life on earth is great, but there's always some risk that of an annihilation event on earth.
Yeah um, like self-annihilation or some natural disaster.
And so the probable lifespan of consciousness increases dramatically as soon as we are multi-planet species, with the key test being can Mars survive if the resupply ships stop coming?
So it's like the first missions to Mars are not that important.
What matters is can you get sufficient tonnage to Mars such that Mars can prosper on its own, And that means it has to have all of the ingredients of civilization.
It's not just that you need to build, for example, a chip factory on Mars or ship fab on Mars, but you need the ability to build chip fabs.
Do you have a sense of the timescale?
Let's assume Starship is at a state starting in you know, 2026.
Then there's gonna be a bunch of testing obviously.
There's gonna be a bunch of early testing.
We only have certain launch windows.
So there's a bunch of time constraints Is this a 50-year thing in your mind?
Is it a 150-year thing?
Is it something that is for our generation or is it our children's generation?
Where do you see that point if it's optimally possible, if things go and break our way?
I think it can be done in 30 years.
Wow.
Provided.
There's an exponential increase in the tonnage to Mars with each success of Mars transfer windows, which is every two years.
So every two years the planets align and you can transfer to Mars.
So I think in... roughly 15, but maybe as few as 10, but 10 to 15-ish Mars transfer windows.
If you're seeing exponential increases in the tonnage to Mars with each Mars transfer window, then it should be possible to make Mars self-sustaining in about quote roughly 25 years.
Amazing.
That's incredible.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, Elon Musk.
We'll see you when we're back in town.
We miss you.
We'll see you in person next time.
Thank you, brother.
