 I have zero doubt that if the United States does not seek great innovations in space, it will be second in space, as sure as night follows day. There's no country more innovative and inventive than the United States, so it's just important to use that attribute. That's the ace card. I mean, I do think it's absolutely fundamental to achieve full reusability in access to space. This is the holy grail of space. At the point at which you have full reusability for orbital rockets, then you have a profound advantage over anyone else, or if you had multi-use planes that could be flown over and over again, like normal, and all your adversaries had single-use planes, that would be no contest. It's the same thing in space. This is extremely fundamental. Just like an aircraft, the rocket must be rapidly and completely reusable, and then you need lots of them. The massive thing that can be done is to make sure your incentive structure is such that innovation is rewarded, and lack of innovation is punished. There's got to be a carrot in the stick. If somebody is innovating and making good progress, then they should be promoted sooner. If somebody is completely failing to innovate, not every role requires innovation, but if they're in a role where innovation should be happening and it's not happening, then they should either not be promoted or exited. Let me tell you, you'll get innovation real fast. When trying different things, you've got to have some acceptance of failure as you were leading to earlier. Failure must be an option. If failure is not an option, it's going to result in extremely conservative choices, and you may get something even worse than lack of innovation. Things may go backwards. What I mean by the machine that builds the machine is that the designing the production system of a new product is, I think, at least in order of magnitude or to order of magnitude harder than designing the initial prototype. For sure, we were doing push in the beginning because people said there was no one telling us that they wanted an electric car. It was not out of like, there's like lots of people coming up to me saying, hey, I really want an electric car. I heard that zero times. It's like, man, we're going to make an electric car and show that these things can be good, and then people will want them. I think it's like Henry Ford said, we're talking about the Model T. It's like, if you ask the public what they wanted, they'd say a faster horse. It's like when it's a radically new product, people don't know that they want it because it's just not in their scope. Part of the most transformative, most fundamentally transformative will be AI. I mean, it's essentially information theory and physical theory. If you want to understand the nature of the universe, these have a very good predictive power, physics and pure science, okay? And I think that you could actually do point-to-point on Earth to go at long distances and be much better than aircraft. Because I mean, basically just think of like ICBM minus the nuke, add land. So it's just sort of in the option package, just uncheck nuke and then add landing system check. And that's definitely going to get you wherever you want to go the fastest. I think things are definitely going to go into kind of locally autonomous drone warfare is where the future will be. I'm just saying, I want the future to be this. This is what the future will be, is autonomous drone warfare. Yeah, well actually at Tesla, we just open sourced our patents some years ago. So anyone can use our patents. So we really have not been tried to protect intellectual property in that sense. We've tried to actually smooth the path because the overarching goal of Tesla is to accelerate the advent of sustainable energy. And so if we created a patent portfolio that discouraged other companies from making electric cars, they will be inconsistent with our mission. So we open sourced all the patents. In order to help anyone else who wants to make an electric car. So I guess that's the opposite of protecting the IP. Now the real way I think you actually achieve intellectual property protection is by innovating fast enough. If your rate of innovation is high, then you don't need to worry about protecting the IP because other companies will be copying something that you did years ago. And that's fine. Just make sure your rate of innovation is fast. Speed of innovation is what matters. The thing that will feel pretty strange is that the Chinese economy is going to be probably at least twice as big as the US economy. Maybe three times, but at least twice. So that assumes that GDP per capita is still less than the US. But since they have about four or five times the population, then it would only require getting to a GDP per capita of half the United States for their economy to be twice the size of ours. And as I'm sure people in this room know, the foundation of war is economics. Therefore, in order for the US to be competitive on military level, the innovation has to overcome a gigantic gap in economic output. So in the absence of radical innovation, the US will be militarily second. We've got to make Starfleet happen. So we want our real big spaceships that can go far places. Like just trying to make Starfleet happen as soon as humanly possible. And definitely while we're still alive. Yeah, so we're not sure about Wolf Drive, but other stuff I think can be done. Wolf Drive and teleportation, probably not. But big spaceships that can go far places, definitely that can be done.