Connect with us

News

ICBM rocket shopping: Elon Musk did it in Russia, so why not do it in the United States?

The ultimate goal of launching rockets is to get us exploring and building in space, not picking winners and losers. Simply put, if you can’t compete with the mousetraps on the market, you haven’t actually built a better mousetrap. Repurposed ICBM motors for rocket engines are not the problem.

Published

on

Gemini 10 launches using a modified TItan ICBM motor.
Gemini 10 launches using a modified TItan ICBM motor.

Gemini 10 launches on a modified Titan ICBM motor. Credit: NASA on The Commons.

A Disagreement Among Star Travelers

There’s a debate going on among the government “powers that be” and commercial space companies over the use of excess intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) motors to launch rockets. Currently, these motors are banned from being used for commercial purposes, although military and civil launches are okay.

One side argues that the ban should be lifted because

  • the missile parts provide a reliable, cost-effective means for space access; and
  • it benefits taxpayers through recouped monies from private sales.

The other side wants the ban maintained because

  • flooding the market with cheaper, “off-the-shelf” rocket parts could hinder the innovation and development of new rocket technologies by lowering demand for them; and
  • larger companies will take away their market share through easy access to cheaper motors.

This same debate created the ban in the 1990s, and it should be mentioned that the main proponent of lifting the ban was a big part of passing it in the first place. It is also only fair to mention that this main proponent is a very large, established rocket company while the opponents are mostly smaller competitors.

Putting It All Into Perspective

First, it’s important to consider a reality-based context before taking a position on this. Absent another world war, globalization is here to stay, meaning that if a company in the United States cannot offer launch services at a Lawmakers cannot make the ICBM problem just go away through legislation. competitive price point, their potential customers will go elsewhere. Since these customers are not exclusively American companies, U.S. lawmakers cannot simply make the problem go away through legislation by restricting the nationality of launch providers.

Second, it’s important to frame this issue using marketplace case studies relevant to the situation found here. Old technology is constantly giving way to updated and new technology, demonstrating that innovation is driven by a variety of factors, not just the pure need for a technology to exist.

Finally, it’s important to fully understand the motives of all parties involved. The commercial space industry is, by definition, business-oriented. At a fundamental level, all parties involved are concerned primarily with their own best interest, i.e., their ability to make a profit.

Space Access Should Be More Affordable

In my opinion, the ban should be lifted, as my position on issues like this will always tend towards expanding access rather than restricting it. Achieving democratized space travel will require affordable accessibility to space, and one of the best ways to drive costs down is to not spend valuable resources “reinventing the wheel” if existing resources work well for current needs. This isn’t to say that innovation isn’t necessary, but rather that different Don't reinvent the wheel when ICBM engines are available.missions have different needs, and the existence of one option doesn’t preclude the need for other options.

The car industry is a good case study to compare to. The fact that older cars
exist does not prevent newer, generally improved cars from being developed and sold each year. Gasoline is a proven standard to fuel vehicles, but the demand for electric vehicles is getting louder. It’s the demand for better technology that moves this process of innovation forward.

The companies involved in this debate are profit-driven. What would motivate a company to keep inexpensive, proven technology out of a market they were competing in? In my opinion, the question itself contains the answer. Competition is a proven way to drive development, and the argument that a market flooded with competition would hurt competition has somewhat circular logic.Arguing against ICBM engines is circular logic.

I do think it is fair to be concerned that the nature of competing against government for a product undermines the concept of a fair market; however, the global nature of launch services and the expanding need for more innovative solutions, i.e., more powerful rocket engines for the upcoming long-distance space missions, mitigate this concern.

Advertisement

The government is an ICBM retailer, not a competitor.In the current environment, American launch providers are losing business to non-American launch providers, most of which are either heavily subsidized by their governments or are the governments themselves. In order for American launch providers to afford the costs of innovation and development, they need to be able to fairly compete in the global market for a customer base. It is also important to note that the rocket motor is only one part of the process of providing launch services. In that light, opening the ICBM market to American launch providers doesn’t make the American government the competitor as much as it is a retailer selling certain parts which make up a whole rocket product.

Elon Musk, Russians, and ICBM Engines (Oh, my!)

To frame this debate in another light, recall that Elon Musk’s initial space dreams involved purchasing ICBM motors from Russia to send dehydrated plant seeds to Mars. He wanted to accomplish something inspirational without diving head first into the business of building rockets. Fortunately for us, SpaceX was born through that process; however, Quote_Elon10Percentimagine a future, space-inspired millionaire looking to make a similar contribution except the purpose would ultimately be commercial. Why deny the option of a rocket built with “off-the-shelf” parts? There aren’t many Elon Musk types out there willing to invest most of their own personal fortune for a ten percent chance of success at building a rocket engine from scratch, but every time technology is sent into space, it moves us forward.

Elon Musk’s ICBM story isn’t the only thing worth noting in this debate. Unfortunately for supporters of the ban, SpaceX essentially renders their argument moot because SpaceX’s innovation and resulting lower launch price tag are what’s making Russian space authorities somewhat cranky about the business they’re usurping from them. Clearly, innovation is still possible even with other ICBM-based rockets on the market.

In Summary

The ultimate goal of launching rockets is to get us exploring and building in space, and this is hindered when the regulatory environment has the effect of hand picking winners and losers. Restricting ICBM motors from being on the commercial market does exactly that. This doesn’t advance the long term goals of space exploration. It only interferes with getting technology into orbit and beyond by restricting the capital available to develop better technology.

Don't let ICBM engines be your excuse not to build a better engine.The argument that innovation is hurt by a market full of ICBM motors is one based on a desire to control market forces in an unfair way. Simply put, if you can’t compete with the mousetraps on the market, you haven’t actually built a better mousetrap, and there’s nothing to prevent you from selling existing mousetraps in service packages while you develop better ones.Banning ICBM rocket engines doesn't help further space exploration.

Granted, as Elon Musk has reminded us in several interviews, rockets are hard, making the business of rockets even harder. Imagine, however, if the government banned access to all major highways, an existing tax-funded resource, because there was a need for a surface material that was resistant to pot holes and existing asphalt mixes hindered its development. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see what a bad idea that would be and what type of impact it would have on those needing the highways to conduct their business, especially while other countries still had their road systems up and running.

Autobahn, anyone?

Advertisement

Accidental computer geek, fascinated by most history and the multiplanetary future on its way. Quite keen on the democratization of space. | It's pronounced day-sha, but I answer to almost any variation thereof.

Advertisement
Comments

Investor's Corner

Shareholder group urges Nasdaq probe into Elon Musk’s Tesla 2025 CEO Interim Award

The SOC Investment Group represents pension funds tied to more than two million union members, many of whom hold shares in TSLA.

Published

on

Credit: xAI/X

An investment group is urging Nasdaq to investigate Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) over its recent $29 billion equity award for CEO Elon Musk. 

The SOC Investment Group, which represents pension funds tied to more than two million union members—many of whom hold shares in TSLA—sent a letter to the exchange citing “serious concerns” that the package sidestepped shareholder approval and violated compensation rules.

Concerns over Tesla’s 2025 CEO Interim Award

In its August 19 letter to Nasdaq enforcement chief Erik Wittman, SOC alleged that Tesla’s board improperly granted Musk a “2025 CEO Interim Award” under the company’s 2019 Equity Incentive Plan. That plan, the group noted, explicitly excluded Musk when it was approved by shareholders. SOC argued that the new equity grant effectively expanded the plan to cover Musk, a material change that should have required a shareholder vote under Nasdaq rules.

The $29 billion package was designed to replace Musk’s overturned $56 billion award from 2018, which the Delaware Chancery Court struck down, prompting Tesla to file an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. The interim award contains restrictions: Musk must remain in a leadership role until August 2027, and vested shares cannot be sold until 2030, as per a Yahoo Finance report.

Even so, critics such as SOC have argued that the plan does not have of performance targets, calling it a “fog-the-mirror” award. This means that “If you’re around and have enough breath left in you to fog the mirror, you get them,” stated Brian Dunn, the director of the Institute for Comprehension Studies at Cornell University.

Advertisement

SOC’s Tesla concerns beyond Elon Musk

SOC’s concerns extend beyond the mechanics of Musk’s pay. The group has long questioned the independence of Tesla’s board, opposing the reelection of directors such as Kimbal Musk and James Murdoch. It has also urged regulators to review Tesla’s governance practices, including past proposals to shrink the board. 

SOC has also joined initiatives calling for Tesla to adopt comprehensive labor rights policies, including noninterference with worker organizing and compliance with global labor standards. The investment group has also been involved in webinars and resolutions highlighting the risks related to Tesla’s approach to unions, as well as labor issues across several countries.

Tesla has not yet publicly responded to SOC’s latest letter, nor to requests for comment.

The SOC’s letter can be viewed below.

Nasdaq+Letter Tsla Socig Final by Simon Alvarez

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla Model Y L has two distinct features for luxurious comfort

This is not to say the other interior additions are not factors in the Model Y becoming a more luxurious and premium vehicle, but the two mentioned in this article are particularly pertinent in that conversation.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla’s new Model Y L has two distinct features that are geared toward giving occupants a taste of luxury with guaranteed comfort.

These two features should definitely be part of the company’s future lineup, and they could prove to be massive upgrades to the Model Y’s interior, which is certainly premium but is missing some things that truly tailor to a “luxury” feel of an automobile.

This is not to say the other interior additions are not factors in the Model Y becoming a more luxurious and premium vehicle, but the two mentioned in this article are particularly pertinent in that conversation.

Tesla Model Y L might not come to the U.S., and it’s a missed opportunity

Power-Adjustable Thigh Supports

In the front seats of the Model Y L, there are power-adjustable thigh supports that will enable some additional comfort on the legs:

Most might think that these thigh supports are simply a feature that makes the ride more comfortable, which is true. However, they have benefits for the ride and after you exit the car.

Providing proper lift on the legs and thighs can be beneficial for people with back problems or posture issues. The lower back takes an increased amount of stress during long car rides, especially as the legs are fixed in the chosen seating position.

Tesla Model Y L officially launched: price, features, and more

Adding some support to the thighs can help reduce pressure on the lower back and hips, and distribute weight more evenly, taking stress off pressure points.

It can also contribute to better spinal alignment. They also have safety benefits, as some riders could have an improved seatbelt position thanks to the thighs being in this position.

Second-Row Mechanical Armrest

Tesla also added mechanical, one-touch armrests to the Model Y L’s second row, a nice and premium touch for the riders in the middle of the vehicle:

Add the additional space the Model Y L provides to riders, and it already gets more comfortable. However, the addition of the mechanical armrests gives a good option of comfort for those who are seated in the second row.

They can also be retracted with the touch of a button, allowing for those in the third row to exit the vehicle easily.

One con to the mechanical portion of these armrests is that it is another moving part, and, of course, that puts it at risk of having issues.

However, it is certainly more premium than a manual armrest, and the flashy carbuyers will appreciate this small but mighty addition.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla’s NHTSA probe is already on its way to being resolved

The problem the NHTSA had with Tesla’s reporting is already on its way to being resolved, as the agency and the company have been in communication.

Published

on

tesla showroom
Credit: Tesla

Tesla is being probed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for not reporting accidents in a timely manner, the agency said on Thursday.

It is already well on its way to being resolved, the agency said.

The agency’s Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) identified numerous instances in which Tesla reported crashes that “occurred several months or more before the dates of the reports.”

The Standing General Order in place by the agency requires crash reports to be submitted within five days of Tesla receiving the notice of an accident.

The investigation states Tesla submitted crashes in one of two ways:

“Many of the reports were submitted as part of a single batch, while others were submitted on a rolling basis.”

The problem the NHTSA had with Tesla’s reporting is already on its way to being resolved, as the agency and the company have been in communication.

Tesla has already been in contact with the agency’s ODI and stated that the timing of the reports was an issue with its data collection. The issue has been resolved, Tesla told them.

The NHTSA said the initiation of the probe against Tesla is a “standard process for reviewing compliance with legal requirements, to evaluate the cause of potential delays in reporting, the scope of any such delays, and the mitigations that Tesla has developed to address them.”

It is the latest NHTSA probe into Tesla, as it has also been investigating the company for accidents during Full Self-Driving operation in reduced visibility conditions.

The agency also sought information on the rollout of Robotaxi a few months ago, and how Tesla planned to handle low-visibility conditions in its driverless ride-hailing service.

The NHTSA was interested in knowing how Tesla planned to assess the ability of FSD’s engineering controls, whether any other similar FSD crashes had occurred in low visibility, and if modifications to FSD software would impact its performance in these conditions.

Continue Reading

Trending