Have you ever wondered why so many self-driving cars are 'armed' almost to the teeth with sensors? Why they just use not only cameras, radar, lidar, and even eavesdrop on the area? Of course, they want as much information as possible and even cover the times of bad weather and the night.

But why does a manufacturer seem to break ranks, publicly proclaiming that you can do all of this with camera technology, when you can imagine how difficult it is for a camera, e.g. at night. Because infra-red is not mentioned at Tesla and radar is also not used in the future, although it has been installed in cars up to now.

Change of scene: These days, China is complaining bitterly about SpaceX. According to the Reuters news agency, an evasive maneuver had to be initiated with a space station twice this year in order to avoid colliding with a satellite of Elon Musk's Starlink fleet. Mind you, there were people aboard the space station.

Sorry that we are no longer concerned with these near misses, but we are concerned with the fact that SpaceX launched more than 1,700 satellites into space this summer and supposedly wants to do so with up to 30,000 in future. Hence the urgent need to reuse the missiles, or at least large parts of them.

We can't prove it, but actually the connection is obvious. Even now, a Tesla is clearly at a disadvantage when it comes to direct recognition of e.g. traffic signs or place-name signs. Hardly anyone notices it because you are relying on map data. Together with the technology of Over The Air-Updates, new map data can be loaded relatively often.

Obviously nobody knows what traffic data Tesla gets out of every car, hopefully only such in order to optimize its autopilot software (FSD). Is it too much of a presumption that behind the satellite concept there is a technology that relieves the individual vehicle of a significant part of the data collection?

If you think of this in the context of a cloud, the thought of a constant connection with it and the knowledge of every action in every street on this earth, which can be refreshed at incredible rates, is obvious, isn't it? Did someone think holistically again, as was the case with the installation of a charging network almost at the same time as the start of production of electric cars?

It would be a miracle if a new idea from Musk didn't collide with reality. In the earlier case with the mass production of the Model 3 ('is hell') and this time with the traffic in space. It is conceivable that he once again underestimated the effect of the large number.

But he seems to be a master at deceiving and camouflaging. Selling a concept to mankind, as if everyone had at least some day at least the chance to move to Mars and to praise these reusable missiles as a cost-cutting and greening program. If he had already said, we have in mind to shoot 30,000 into space, humanity would have revolted against it.

He also supposedly sells environmentally friendly cars that go at least 250 km/h, but does not resolve this apparent contradiction. But somehow his system gets scary to us, doesn't it? What can you do with it, the precise recording of all events in areas that can be recorded from space?

Things get a little more explosive when you know that Musk is an avowed supporter of nuclear energy and allegedly toying with operating his rockets or satellites with it. With this he could also refute the accusation that they shade the earth too much with their solar sails. Even 'geniuses' could be wrong, like Albert Einstein, who later bitterly regretted having ever advised the president to build the atom bomb.