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.
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 
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 
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.
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.
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, 
imagine 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.
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.
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?
News
Elon Musk teases expectations for Tesla’s AI6 self-driving chip
This optimistic timeline for tape-out—the stage where chip design is finalized before manufacturing—signals Tesla’s push to rapidly advance its silicon capabilities.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk is outlining expectations for the AI6 self-driving chip, which is still two generations away. Despite this, it is already in the plans of the company and its serial entrepreneur CEO, who has high expectations for it.
Musk provided fresh details on the company’s aggressive AI hardware roadmap, spotlighting the upcoming AI6 chip designed to supercharge Tesla’s self-driving tech, humanoid robots, and data center operations.
In a post on X dated March 19, Musk stated, “With some luck and acceleration using AI, we might be able to tape out AI6 in December.”
With some luck and acceleration using AI, we might be able to tape out AI6 in December
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 19, 2026
This optimistic timeline for tape-out—the stage where chip design is finalized before manufacturing—signals Tesla’s push to rapidly advance its silicon capabilities.
The announcement builds on progress with the predecessor AI5. Earlier in January, Musk announced that the AI5 design was “in good shape” and “almost done,” describing it as an “existential” project for the company that demanded his personal attention on weekends.
He characterized AI5 as roughly equivalent to Nvidia’s Hopper class performance in a single system-on-chip (SoC) and Blackwell-level as a dual configuration, but at significantly lower cost and power usage.
Elon Musk is setting high expectations for Tesla AI5 and AI6 chips
Musk highlighted that AI5 “will punch far above its weight” thanks to Tesla’s co-designed AI software and hardware stack, making maximal use of every circuit. While capable of data center training tasks, it is primarily optimized for edge computing in Optimus robots and Robotaxi vehicles.
For AI6, Musk envisions substantial gains. “In the same half reticle and same process node, we think a single AI6 chip has the potential to match a dual SoC AI5,” he explained.
The company is targeting ambitious nine-month development cycles for future chips, allowing rapid iteration to AI7, AI8, and beyond. AI5/AI6 engineering remains Musk’s top time allocation at Tesla, with the CEO calling AI5 “good” and AI6 “great.”
Samsung is expected to manufacture the AI6 chips, following deals worth billions, while AI5 will leverage TSMC and Samsung production. These chips will form the backbone of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving system, enabling safer and more capable autonomy, alongside powering dexterous movements in Optimus bots and efficient inference in expanding data centers.
Tesla to discuss expansion of Samsung AI6 production plans: report
Musk has also restarted work on the Dojo 3 supercomputer project now that AI5 is progressing. Long-term plans include in-house manufacturing via the Terafab facility.
By accelerating chip development with AI tools, Tesla aims to reduce dependence on third-party GPUs and deliver high-performance, energy-efficient solutions tailored to its ecosystem. Success with AI6 could mark a major milestone in Tesla’s journey toward full autonomy and robotics leadership, though timelines remain subject to manufacturing realities.
Elon Musk
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Space Force drops ULA for SpaceX on GPS launch after Vulcan rocket anomaly investigation halts flights.
The U.S. Space Force announced today it is switching an upcoming GPS III satellite launch from United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan rocket to a SpaceX Falcon 9, a move that is as much a reflection of Vulcan’s mounting problems as it is a validation of SpaceX’s growing dominance in national security space launch. The GPS III Space Vehicle 09, originally contracted to fly on Vulcan this month, will now target a late April liftoff on Falcon 9, marking the fourth consecutive GPS III satellite the Space Force has moved to SpaceX after contracts were originally awarded to ULA.
The immediate trigger is a solid rocket motor anomaly that occurred on February 12 during Vulcan’s USSF-87 mission. Although the payloads reached orbit and ULA declared the mission successful, the company characterized the malfunction as a “significant performance anomaly” and has since paused all military launches on Vulcan pending a root cause investigation.
“With this change, we are answering the call for rapid delivery of advanced GPS capability while the Vulcan anomaly investigation continues,” said Systems Delta 81 Commander Col. Ryan Hiserote. “We are once again demonstrating our team’s flexibility and are fully committed to leverage all options available for responsive and reliable launch for the Nation.”
The broader reality is that SpaceX’s reliability record and launch cadence have made it the path of least resistance for the Pentagon, and bodes well with Elon Musk’s plans to IPO SpaceX sometime this year. Its Falcon 9 is the most flight-proven rocket in history, and the Space Force’s Rapid Response Trailblazer program was specifically designed to enable exactly this kind of provider swap for GPS missions, and effectively building SpaceX’s flexibility into the national security launch architecture by design.
For ULA, the stakes are existential. The company entered 2026 with aspirations of finally turning a corner after years of Vulcan delays, with interim CEO John Elbon pointing to a backlog of over 80 missions as reason for optimism. Meanwhile, SpaceX’s contracts with the Space Force have given it a formal pathway to take on even more national security launches going forward.
The significance of today’s announcement extends beyond one satellite swap. It reinforces that America’s most critical space infrastructure, including GPS, missile warning, and beyond, is increasingly dependent on a single commercial provider.
News
Tesla Full Self-Driving gets huge breakthrough on European expansion
All documentation for UN R-171 approval and Article 39 exemptions has been submitted, with RDW now conducting its internal review. Approval in the Netherlands is expected on April 10, shifted from the original March 20 target, following 18 months of rigorous collaboration.
Tesla Full Self-Driving has gotten a huge breakthrough as the company is still planning big things for its European expansion, hoping to bring the impressive platform into the continent after years of attempts.
Tesla Europe has announced a major breakthrough: the company has officially completed the final vehicle testing phase for Full Self-Driving (Supervised) in partnership with the Dutch vehicle authority RDW.
All documentation for UN R-171 approval and Article 39 exemptions has been submitted, with RDW now conducting its internal review. Approval in the Netherlands is expected on April 10, shifted from the original March 20 target, following 18 months of rigorous collaboration.
Together with RDW, we have officially completed the final vehicle testing phase for Full Self-Driving (Supervised) and have submitted all documentation required for the UN R-171 approval + Article 39 exemptions. The RDW team is now reviewing the documentation and test results…
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) March 20, 2026
The process has been exhaustive. Tesla said it has logged more than 1.6 million kilometers of FSD (Supervised) testing on European roads, conducted over 13,000 customer ride-alongs, executed 4,500+ track test scenarios, produced thousands of pages of documentation covering 400+ compliance requirements, and completed dozens of independent safety studies.
The company expressed pride in the partnership and anticipation of bringing the feature to “patient EU customers” soon after approval.
Europe’s regulatory landscape has presented steep challenges for Tesla’s advanced driver-assistance systems. The EU enforces some of the world’s strictest safety standards under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe framework, particularly UN Regulation 171 on Driver Control Assistance Systems.
Unlike the more permissive U.S. environment, European rules historically limited system-initiated maneuvers, required constant driver supervision, and demanded country-by-country or bloc-wide exemptions. Tesla faced repeated delays, with initial February 2026 targets pushed back amid RDW’s insistence that safety, not public or corporate pressure, would govern timelines.
Tesla Europe builds momentum with expanding FSD demos and regional launches
A former Tesla executive warned in 2024 that certain regulatory elements could slip to 2028, highlighting bureaucratic hurdles, extensive audits, and the need for harmonized data privacy and liability frameworks across fragmented member states.
Yet progress is accelerating. Amendments to UN R-171 adopted in 2025 now permit hands-free highway lane changes and other automated features, clearing technical barriers. Once the Netherlands grants national approval, mutual recognition allows other EU countries to adopt it immediately, potentially leading to an EU-wide rollout by summer 2026.
This European breakthrough is part of Tesla’s broader push into foreign markets. Full Self-Driving (Supervised) is already live in the United States and expanding rapidly.
In China, where partial approvals exist, CEO Elon Musk has targeted full rollout around the same February–March 2026 window, despite lingering data-security reviews.
Additional markets, including the UAE, are slated for early 2026 launches. These expansions are critical as Tesla seeks to monetize software amid softening EV demand globally.
For European Tesla owners, the wait appears nearly over. Approval would unlock advanced autonomy features that have long been available elsewhere, marking a pivotal step in Tesla’s global autonomy ambitions and reinforcing its commitment to navigating complex international regulations.
Elon Musk teases expectations for Tesla’s AI6 self-driving chip
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
