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 dreams of operating a fully autonomous ride-hailing platform just took a massive step toward reality, as two separate events have indicated the company is perhaps closer than ever to achieving self-driving as a product.
On Thursday, Tesla was granted authorization by the State of Texas to operate driverless vehicles in a commercial manner. On May 28, Senate Bill 2807, passed by the 89th Texas Legislature, took effect after being passed back on September 1, 2025.
The bill establishes a statewide regulatory framework requiring authorization from the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles for companies to operate automated vehicles commercially on Texas roads.
This covers driverless, or SAE Level 4+, operations for passenger transport, meaning Robotaxi, or freight.
Tesla and other companies can self-certify their vehicles and tech as long as they:
- Operate in compliance with Texas traffic laws
- Maintain proper registration, title, and insurance
- Use compliant automated driving systems
- Record onboard activity and handle system failures and glitches safely.
The new authorization, which was first reported by James Stephenson on X, allows companies to utilize their own processes to determine if their vehicles are ready to operate without drivers.
🚨BREAKING:
Tesla has been authorized by the State of Texas to operate driverless vehicles commercially under the new law that took effect today, May 28th, 2026. Tesla has officially self-certified the software running on its robotaxis as Level 4. $TSLA pic.twitter.com/KSJdsvlaW5— James Stephenson (@ICannot_Enough) May 28, 2026
It is a rule that expedites the entire approval process, keeping agencies out of a usually long, lengthy, and frustrating task that is essential to technological advancements.
On the very same day, Tesla continued the momentum as CEO Elon Musk shared a video of Cybercab units autonomously driving off the property at Gigafactory Texas. This is a major step in the story of the Cybercab.
Mass production of the Cybercab started at Giga Texas in April, and it is already heading out of the factory on its own.
Cybercab driving itself out of the GigaTexas factory pic.twitter.com/EwAMVVDjYy
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 28, 2026
These two major events mark a drastic step forward in Tesla’s progress toward Cybercab and the permissions it needs to operate a self-driving ride-hailing service. Tesla is now able to operate autonomously under Texas law by self-certifying, and with the potentially imminent rollout of Cybercab, Tesla’s autonomous dreams are starting to take serious shape.
Elon Musk
The Tesla and SpaceX merger everyone is talking about is quietly building
Tesla and SpaceX may be closer to merging than Wall Street or either company is admitting.
Elon Musk has reportedly discussed merging Tesla and SpaceX with people close to him, according to CNBC, which cited sources familiar with the conversation. Tesla employees have long expected such a transaction and the topic is openly discussed internally, according to internal sources. With SpaceX is days away from kicking off its Wall Street roadshow for what could be the largest IPO in market history, this would be the first time the company will have public market currency to execute a stock-for-stock deal with Tesla.
The financial logic for a merger would make sense. A combined SpaceX and Tesla would create a conglomerate spanning rockets, satellites, electric vehicles, AI infrastructure, and energy storage valued at roughly $3.35 trillion to $3.6 trillion based on SpaceX’s IPO target range and Tesla’s current market capitalization. The two companies are already more intertwined than most people realize. SpaceX bought $697 million worth of Tesla Megapack systems for xAI data centers and $131 million worth of Cybertrucks. Tesla invested $2 billion in xAI, which subsequently merged with SpaceX. Past transactions also include Tesla selling solar equipment and parts to SpaceX, and SpaceX helping with Cybertruck materials.
Will Tesla join the fold? Predicting a triple merger with SpaceX and xAI
Musk himself signaled where this was heading in November 2025 when he posted on X, “My companies are, surprisingly in some ways, trending towards convergence.” Tesla and SpaceX announced a joint semiconductor fabrication facility in Austin called Terafab on the Gigafactory Texas campus, covering two advanced chip factories, with one serving Tesla’s AI needs for vehicles and Optimus robots, the other targeting space-based data centers under SpaceX’s infrastructure vision.
Wedbush analyst Dan Ives places the probability of a merger at 80% to 90% with a target completion in the first half of 2027. The mechanics of a deal became possible the moment SpaceX filed its S-1. Legal experts said a merger likely would not spark antitrust issues but would raise concerns among shareholders in each company, with questions around which company would be the parent, how a stock swap would take place, and who determines the appropriate price. Musk holds about 20% of Tesla’s equity but controls 85.1% of SpaceX’s voting power through a super-voting share class, meaning he would largely be negotiating the terms with himself.
Not everyone is convinced the timing is imminent. Traders on Kalshi place only 33% odds that a merger will happen before May 2027. The more immediate concern for Tesla shareholders is whether the SpaceX IPO pulls capital and Musk’s attention away from Tesla before any merger consolidates the upside for both.
What is clear is that the structural groundwork is already being laid. The Terafab announcement, the xAI merger, the shared supply chain, the cross-company balance sheet transactions, and now the IPO all point in the same direction. Whether the merger follows in 2027 or later, the two companies are already operating more like divisions of a single entity than independent competitors.
Elon Musk
SpaceX to become America’s Military data backbone for missiles, drones, and warfighters
The Space Force just handed SpaceX $2.29 billion to build the military’s space internet backbone.
The U.S. Space Force awarded SpaceX a $2.29 billion contract on May 26, 2026 to build the backbone of its Space Data Network, a satellite-based communications system designed to keep American military forces connected anywhere on Earth in real time. The contract is firm-fixed-price and requires SpaceX to deliver a fully operational prototype by the end of 2027.
In plain terms, the SDN Backbone is the plumbing behind the military’s space-based internet. It functions as a low Earth orbit satellite constellation providing robust, high-capacity, and low-latency data transport for the Joint Force, connecting sensors and weapons systems continuously, globally, and securely. Think of it as a private, hardened version of Starlink built specifically for battlefield communications, one that soldiers, ships, and aircraft can rely on even in contested environments where ground-based networks have been disrupted.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
The Space Force was direct about why SpaceX was selected. “The SDN Backbone leverages the best of commercial innovation and delivers a strong foundation for the SDN mission set — a huge benefit and enabler for our warfighters,” said USSF Col. Ryan Frazier.
“We aren’t trading speed for scale; we are demanding both. By using rapid prototyping and Other Transaction Authorities, we are ensuring our advanced solutions are integrated and delivered to the warfighter as fast as possible,” added USSF Lt. Col. Fry, SDN Backbone system program manager.
The SDN Backbone will work alongside the Space Development Agency’s Transport Layer, with the two systems forming a unified open architecture to provide critical data transport for current and future Department of War missions.
As Teslarati has reported, this is not SpaceX’s first Space Force contract of 2026. In April, the Space Force awarded SpaceX $178.5 million to launch missile tracking satellites, and SpaceX is already embedded in the Golden Dome missile defense software group. The $2.29 billion SDN Backbone award puts SpaceX at the center of how the American military communicates in space, a position with direct implications for its reported $1.75 trillion IPO valuation as the company heads toward a public offering as early as June 2026.
Tesla’s Robotaxi dreams just took a massive step toward reality
The Tesla and SpaceX merger everyone is talking about is quietly building
