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?
Tesla’s dedicated factory for building up to ten million Optimus units is officially under construction at Gigafactory Texas.
Drone footage released on May 27 by Giga Texas observer Joe Tegtmeyer captures the significant milestone of the first steel structure officially standing at Tesla’s new Optimus factory on the North Campus of the facility.
Phase two of land reclamation is advancing steadily, and the progress will let the new building extend nearly the full length of the main Giga Texas factory, potentially exceeding 4,000 feet, while measuring somewhere between 50 and 70 meters narrower. Extensive foundation work is proceeding as well.
Big news at the new Optimus 10m/y factory construction site today! The 1st steel structure has been erected & as expected the second phase of land reclamation is underway.
This will allow this new factory to grow to nearly the same length as the main Giga Texas factory,… pic.twitter.com/FidRLV6XpU
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) May 27, 2026
This facility forms a central element of Tesla’s broader North Campus expansion at Giga Texas. The project will add more than 5.2 million square feet of new industrial space. It sits alongside other advanced developments, including a Terafab for next-gen AI chips. The scale reflects Tesla’s commitment to transforming humanoid robotics into a core pillar of the company’s future.
Musk has said that Optimus will be the biggest product in the world on several occasions. He believes it will be Tesla’s biggest valuation contributor.
Tesla prepares to expand Giga Texas with new Optimus production plant
Tesla plans to build about 10 million robots at the site annually once it is completed, which would be about 27,000 units each day.
The Optimus plant at Giga Texas is part of Tesla’s phased strategy for Optimus manufacturing. In an effort to start production of the robot well before the Giga Texas plant is complete, Tesla ended production of the Model S and Model X vehicles, which were built in Fremont, California, to make way for initial Optimus manufacturing efforts.
Production there will start in either July or August of this year, and early units will support internal factory tasks while the team gathers real-world data to refine processes. The Gigafactory Texas facility will house a second-gen production line. It targets high-volume output starting in Summer 2027.
Musk has repeatedly described Optimus as potentially more valuable than Tesla’s entire vehicle business. Current versions are already completing minor tasks around various facilities, while Tesla continues to refine its abilities and add new features.
Tesla’s total investment could reach several billion dollars. Significant challenges lie ahead, including the creation of an entirely new manufacturing ecosystem, the refinement of AI systems for dependable autonomy, and the development of reliable supply chains for actuators, sensors, and other components.
Nevertheless, the visible progress at Giga Texas highlights Tesla’s capacity to translate ambitious concepts into physical reality.
Tesla’s Optimus factory stands as much more than a simple expansion project, as it is quite literally the second phase of what could potentially be the biggest product ever. With construction beginning, 2027 is poised to become a transformative year for Tesla, as it evolves even further from an electric vehicle leader into a pioneer of intelligent, general-purpose machines.
Tesla Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, Lars Moravy, recently revealed the company has thought about introducing a Plaid powertrain on the Model 3, but there could be some challenges involved.
On the Ride the Lightning podcast, Moravy revealed that he thinks about a Plaid Model 3 “all the time,” and it certainly has a place in Tesla’s potential lineup of future vehicles.
Now that the Plaid powertrain is technically defunct due to the newfound absence of the Model S and Model X, Tesla could find a way to reintroduce the lightning-quick trim level to its mass-market vehicles.
But there are going to be some challenges with it. Moravy said that the Model 3 Plaid would likely adopt the carbon-sleeved motors that the Model S Plaid had. However, packaging would be a major challenge, as Moravy said on the podcast, it would be a “tight engineering squeeze.”
It’s important to note that there are no active production plans for the Model 3 Plaid at this point, but it’s also worth noting that with the Model S and Model X Plaid no longer available, Tesla would likely be willing to introduce something that is even more white-knuckle than the Model 3 Performance, which already boasts a 2.9-second 0-60 MPH acceleration rate and a top speed of 163 MPH.
Of course, there is the Roadster, but we don’t know when that will exactly make it to market, and we know that, for sure, it will not be accessible to many.
Tesla unveils juicy new detail on the Roadster and hints at new unveil timeline
Tesla has prided itself in building some of the best cars out there, but they’re also interested in building cars that are simply fun to be in.
A Plaid Model 3 could truly push the limits and could end up being one of the best cars Tesla will ever build, especially if it can shave off at least half of a second from its 0-60 MPH time and increase its top speed slightly.
More than anything, the real changes will be in the ride and aerodynamics. Tesla improving things like the suspension, handling, and downforce will be the true trademarks of its Plaid powertrain; putting it in the Model 3 could be a great move for the company and for customers interested in high-end performance.
Elon Musk
NASA’s first human outpost on the Moon starts now – SpaceX on deck
NASA named the rovers, landers, and vendors that will build America’s first Moon Base.
NASA has laid out its most detailed Moon Base plan to date, describing a permanent outpost near the Moon’s south pole that the agency intends to build over the coming decade as a direct stepping stone to Mars. “The Moon Base will be America’s and humanity’s first outpost on another celestial world,” NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said, adding that every mission crewed and uncrewed “will be a learning opportunity as we return to the lunar surface, build the infrastructure to stay, and master the skills required to live and operate in one of the most demanding and dangerous environments imaginable.”
The plan is structured in three phases involving both uncrewed and crewed missions to deliver equipment, vehicles, and infrastructure to the surface, with the first three moon base missions targeted to launch before the end of 2026.
Moon Base I, targeting fall 2026, will use Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Mark 1 lander to deliver scientific instruments to the Shackleton Connecting Ridge, the same region where Artemis astronauts will land. Moon Base II will send Astrobotic’s Griffin lander carrying more than 1,100 pounds of cargo including Astrolab’s FLIP rover to begin developing mobility systems on the surface. Moon Base III will carry the Lunar Vertex science mission on Intuitive Machines’ Nova-C Trinity lander to study lunar swirls near the south pole, with ESA and Korean science payloads aboard.
On the rover side, NASA awarded Astrolab $219 million and Lunar Outpost $220 million to build the first phase of Lunar Terrain Vehicles, with both rovers targeted for deployment to the lunar surface by 2028. Astrolab’s crewed rover weighs roughly 2,000 pounds and can reach over 6 mph. Lunar Outpost’s Pegasus rover can operate autonomously or via remote control at over 9 mph. Blue Origin separately received $188 million with an option worth $280.4 million to deliver cargo landers for rover transport.
NASA also confirmed that MoonFall, a mission deploying four survey drones to scout Artemis landing sites, has selected Firefly Aerospace to build the transport spacecraft, with a 2028 launch target.
SpaceX sits at the center of that commercial layer. SpaceX holds the NASA Human Landing System contract for the Starship-derived lander that will put astronauts on the surface under Artemis IV, currently targeting 2028. Before that can happen, SpaceX must demonstrate in-orbit propellant transfer at scale, a process requiring multiple Starship tanker launches to fuel a single mission. Water ice at the lunar south pole is central to the base’s long-term viability, as it can be converted into drinking water, breathable oxygen, and rocket fuel, directly reducing dependence on Earth resupply. That resource loop becomes far more practical if Starship can land and be refueled on or near the Moon itself.
Elon Musk has publicly stated that Starship V3, which recently completed its first flight, should be capable enough for initial Mars missions. The Moon Base plan announced Tuesday is the infrastructure layer that connects everything between those two ambitions, and SpaceX is the only American company currently contracted to build the rocket that gets humans to either destination.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory construction officially underway at Giga Texas
Tesla teases going Plaid Mode with the Model 3
