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?
Elon Musk
Elon Musk calls out $2 trillion SpaceX IPO valuation as ‘BS’
In a swift rebuke on X, Elon Musk dismissed reports claiming SpaceX had confidentially filed for an initial public offering targeting a valuation above $2 trillion, labeling the information as unreliable.
Elon Musk is quick to call out any false information regarding him or his companies on his social media platform, known as X.
A recent report that claimed SpaceX was aiming to go public with an IPO in the coming weeks at a massive valuation of $2 trillion was called out by Musk, who referred to it as “BS.”
In a swift rebuke on X, Elon Musk dismissed reports claiming SpaceX had confidentially filed for an initial public offering targeting a valuation above $2 trillion, labeling the information as unreliable.
The exchange highlights ongoing media speculation about the rocket company’s future and Musk’s frustration with what he views as inaccurate financial reporting. The report came from Bloomberg.
Don’t believe everything you read.
Bloomberg publishes bs.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 3, 2026
The controversy erupted on April 2, 2026, when influencer Mario Nawfal amplified claims from Bloomberg.
The outlet posted that SpaceX had boosted its IPO target valuation above $2 trillion, describing it as potentially one of the largest public offerings in history. Musk challenged the story.
It echoes past instances where Musk has corrected valuation rumors about his companies, emphasizing that speculation often outpaces reality.
Background context adds nuance.
Earlier reports indicated SpaceX had filed confidential IPO paperwork with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, potentially positioning it for a record-breaking debut that could eclipse Saudi Aramco’s 2019 listing.
Initial estimates pegged a possible valuation north of $1.75 trillion, building on a post-merger figure around $1.25 trillion after SpaceX absorbed xAI. A subsequent Bloomberg update claimed advisers were floating figures above $2 trillion to investors, with the offering potentially raising up to $75 billion.
SpaceX remains a private powerhouse. Its achievements include thousands of Starlink satellites providing global broadband, routine Falcon 9 rocket reusability, and a mission to slash launch costs, along with ambitions for Starship to enable Mars colonization.
The company also benefits from government contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. A public listing could democratize access for retail investors while subjecting SpaceX to greater scrutiny and quarterly reporting pressures.
Critics of the reports point to the confidential nature of filings, which limits verifiable details. Musk has previously downplayed inflated valuations, once calling an $800 billion figure for SpaceX “too high.”
Supporters argue that hype around mega-IPOs, especially amid the ongoing AI fervor, fuels premature narratives that distract from core technical milestones, such as full Starship reusability and Starlink constellation expansion.
The incident reflects broader tensions in tech finance. Anonymous sourcing in valuation stories can drive market chatter and betting activity, yet it risks misinformation.
Bloomberg defended its reporting through multiple articles citing “people familiar with the matter,” but Musk’s blunt dismissal resonated widely on X, with users piling on to question media reliability.
Whether SpaceX ultimately goes public remains uncertain. Musk has teased an IPO tied to Starlink maturity, but priorities center on engineering breakthroughs over Wall Street timelines. For now, the $2 trillion figure joins a list of rumored milestones that Musk insists should be taken with skepticism.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk reveals date of SpaceX Starship v3’s maiden voyage
The announcement arrives after Flight 11 on October 13 of last year, which concluded a busy 2025 testing campaign. Since then, SpaceX has focused on ground testing, including cryoproofing of Ship 39 and preparations for Booster 19, the first V3 Super Heavy.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has revealed the timeline for the next Starship launch. It will be the first launch using SpaceX’s revamped design for Starship, as its v3 rocket will take its maiden voyage sooner than many might expect.
Musk announced on April 3 on X that the next Starship flight test, and the first flight of the upgraded v3 ship and booster, is 4 to 6 weeks away. The update signals the end of a nearly six-month hiatus since the program’s last launch.
Elon says the first V3 Starship launch will occur in 4-6 weeks
It will be the first Starship launch since Flight 11 on October 13, 2025 https://t.co/QnnYPTdbUu
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 3, 2026
The upcoming mission, designated as Starship’s 12 integrated flight test (IFT-12), marks a significant milestone. It will be the debut of the v3 configuration, featuring a taller Super Heavy Booster and Starship upper stage. The changes SpaceX has made with the v3 rocket and booster are an increased propellant capacity and the more powerful Raptor 3 engines.
Earlier predictions from Musk in March had pointed to an April timeframe, but the latest timeline now targets a launch window in early to mid-May 2026.
The V3 iteration represents a substantial evolution from previous Starship prototypes. Engineers have optimized the design for improved manufacturability, higher thrust, and greater efficiency. Raptor 3 engines deliver significantly more power while reducing weight and production costs compared to earlier variants.
With these enhancements, SpaceX aims to boost payload capacity toward 200 metric tons to low Earth orbit in a fully reusable configuration — a dramatic leap from the roughly 35-ton target of prior versions. Such capabilities are critical for ambitious goals, including NASA’s Artemis lunar missions and eventual crewed flights to Mars.
The announcement arrives after Flight 11 on October 13 of last year, which concluded a busy 2025 testing campaign. Since then, SpaceX has focused on ground testing, including cryoproofing of Ship 39 and preparations for Booster 19, the first V3 Super Heavy.
Recent activities have involved static fires, activation of the new Pad 2 at Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and integration of Raptor 3 engines.
A prior incident with an early V3 booster on the test stand in late 2025 contributed to the delay, necessitating additional assembly and qualification work.
Musk’s timeline updates have become a hallmark of the Starship program, often described with characteristic optimism.
SpaceX’s Starship V3 is almost ready and it will change space travel forever
While past targets have occasionally shifted by weeks, the rapid iteration pace remains impressive. However, don’t be surprised if this timeline shifts again, as Musk has been overly optimistic in the past with not only launches, but products under his other companies, too.
SpaceX continues to refine launch infrastructure, including new propellant loading systems and tower mechanisms designed to support higher cadence operations. A successful V3 flight could pave the way for more frequent tests, tower catches of both booster and ship, and progression toward operational reusability.
The v3 debut is viewed as a transition point for Starship, moving beyond experimental flights toward a system capable of supporting large-scale deployment of Starlink satellites, lunar landers, and interplanetary transport.
Success on IFT-12 would demonstrate not only the new hardware’s performance but also SpaceX’s ability to recover from setbacks and maintain momentum.
As the 4-to-6-week countdown begins, anticipation builds at Starbase. Teams are finalizing vehicle stacking, conducting final pre-flight checks, and preparing for regulatory approvals. The world will be watching to see if Starship V3 can deliver on its promise of transforming humanity’s access to space.
Elon Musk
SpaceX to launch military missile tracking satellites through new Space Force contract
SpaceX wins a $178.5M Space Force contract to launch missile tracking satellites starting in 2027.
The U.S. Space Force awarded SpaceX a $178.5 million task order on April 1, 2026 to launch missile tracking satellites for the Space Development Agency. The contract, designated SDA-4, covers two Falcon 9 launches beginning in Q3 2027, one from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida and one from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. The satellites, built by Sierra Space, are designed to bolster the nation’s ability to detect and track missile threats from orbit.
The award falls under the National Security Space Launch Phase 3 Lane 1 program, which Space Force uses to move payloads to orbit on faster timelines and at more competitive prices. “Our Lane 1 contract affords us the flexibility to deliver satellites for our customers, like SDA, more easily and faster than ever before to all the orbits our satellites need to reach,” said Col. Matt Flahive, SSC’s system program director for Launch Acquisition, in the official press release.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
The SDA-4 contract is the latest in a long string of national security wins for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported last month, the Space Force recently shifted a GPS III satellite launch from ULA’s Vulcan rocket to SpaceX’s Falcon 9 after a significant Vulcan booster anomaly grounded ULA’s military missions indefinitely. That move made it four consecutive GPS III satellites transferred to SpaceX after contracts were originally awarded to its competitor.
This didn’t come without a fight and dates back years. SpaceX originally had to sue the Air Force in 2014 for the right to compete for national security launches, at a time when United Launch Alliance held a near monopoly on the market. Since then, the company has steadily displaced ULA as the dominant provider, and last year the Space Force confirmed SpaceX would handle approximately 60 percent of all Phase 3 launches through 2032, worth close to $6 billion.
With missile defense satellites now part of its launch manifest alongside GPS, communications, and reconnaissance payloads, SpaceX is giving hungry investors something to chew on before its imminent IPO.
Elon Musk calls out $2 trillion SpaceX IPO valuation as ‘BS’
Elon Musk reveals date of SpaceX Starship v3’s maiden voyage
