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
Xiaomi CEO congratulates Tesla on first FSD delivery: “We have to continue learning!”
Xiaomi has become one of Tesla’s strongest rivals in China.

Just days after unveiling the Xiaomi YU7, a vehicle that is considered as the Model Y’s strongest competitor yet, Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun gave a nod of respect to Tesla and its Full Self-Driving (FSD) program.
In a post on Weibo, Lei Jun highlighted the remarkable nature of Tesla’s first autonomous delivery. He also acknowledged that Xiaomi still has much to learn in the electric vehicle industry.
Xiaomi CEO’s Nod of Respect
Lei Jun’s comments about Tesla’s FSD delivery were shared as a response to Tesla VP Grace Tao’s post about the recent feat. The Tesla VP shared several key aspects of the delivery, from the fact that there was no driver in the Model Y to the vehicle reaching over 70 mph as it drove to its owner.
“For the first time in history, the vehicle was delivered to the owner by itself. There was no driver or remote control throughout the journey, and the maximum speed reached 115 kilometers per hour, and it arrived safely at the customer’s door. This is a brand new Model Y. Tesla always surpasses imagination with disruptive innovation. A new era, exciting!” Tao wrote in her post.
In his response, the Xiaomi CEO acknowledged Tesla’s incredible feat. “Tesla is indeed amazing, leading the industry trends in many areas, especially FSD. We still have to continue learning!” he wrote.


Xiaomi’s Recent Tesla Competitor
The Xiaomi CEO’s comments show that Tesla’s projects and leadership garner a lot of respect in the global electric vehicle sector. While Tesla and Elon Musk tend to be media punching bags in the United States and Europe, the company and its CEO seem to be taken very seriously in China. This was despite China being the world’s most competitive electric vehicle market.
Xiaomi itself has become one of Tesla’s strongest rivals in China, with its first car, the SU7, bringing the fight to the Tesla Model 3. Its most recent vehicle, the YU7, could very well be the Model Y’s most legitimate rival yet, as it is more affordable, bigger, and more feature-laden than Tesla’s best-selling crossover. The YU7 has garnered quite a lot of attention, with Xiaomi receiving 200,000 firm orders for the vehicle within the first three minutes of its launch.
News
Tesla silences FSD critics by posting full video of Model Y delivering itself to customer
When Elon Musk posted that the first Tesla had delivered itself to its owner, critics were quick to question his statement.

It is no secret that Tesla still has ardent critics today, many of whom remain convinced that the company and its leadership are lying about Full Self-Driving (FSD) and its capabilities. It was then no surprise that when Elon Musk announced that the first Tesla had successfully delivered itself to its owner, critics were quick to question the CEO’s statement.
Videos of the all-electric crossover’s solo drive to its owner soon silenced Tesla critics and their claims.
Tesla Posts FSD Video Proof—Twice
While Musk’s post on X about a Tesla delivering itself to a consumer was a notable update, his claims were not accompanied by any video. This was taken by some Tesla critics as a hint that the CEO’s claims were false, and that the feat probably did not happen. Musk, for his part, noted that Tesla would soon be posting a video of the self-driving car’s drive to its owner.
The electric vehicle community did not have to wait very long. Tesla later posted a video of its first autonomous vehicle delivery ever on X, much to the shock of social media users. As could be seen in the video, a Tesla Model Y was able to travel about 30 minutes on its own, from the end of Giga Texas’ production line to the home of its owner, several miles away. Tesla even posted the vehicle’s full 30-minute drive on its official X account later on.
Critics Are Still Skeptical, But It’s Cope at this Point
Of course, Tesla skeptics remained unconvinced that the feat was legitimate, with some pointing out that the Model Y customer seems to have had an X account for years but never posted, at least until his car was delivered. Others also claimed that the whole setup seemed suspicious since the Model Y looked like it had manufacturer plates as it navigated Austin’s streets.
These concerns, however, do not seem like very strong arguments, especially at this point. Based on the evidence, it seems like Tesla really has figured out autonomous driving, and its cars are now able to operate safely on real-world roads on their own. Many have also become silent in their criticisms of Tesla’s FSD feat, especially after the company posted the full video of the Model Y’s autonomous drive. Overall, Tesla critics may remain doubtful about the company and Musk’s claims, but these concerns seem to have become forced at best.
News
Ford CEO favors Waymo’s LiDAR approach over Tesla’s vision-only self-driving
Farley stated that Waymo’s LiDAR-based approach made “more sense.”

Ford CEO Jim Farley shared some skepticism about Tesla’s camera-only approach to self-driving during a recent appearance at the Aspen Ideas Festival. When asked to compare Waymo and Tesla’s autonomous driving systems, Farley stated that Waymo’s LiDAR-based approach made “more sense,” citing safety, consumer trust, and the limitations of camera-based models.
Waymo’s LiDAR vs. Tesla’s Vision-Only Approach
Farley was speaking with author Walter Isaacson when he made his comments about Tesla and Waymo’s self-driving systems. As they were conversing about autonomous cars, Isaacson asked Farley which approach to self-driving he preferred.
“To us, Waymo,” Farley said, though he also stated that both Tesla and Waymo have “ made a lot of of progress” on self-driving, as noted in a Fortune report. He also confirmed that he has had conversations about the matter with Tesla CEO Elon Musk. Despite this, he said that Ford still considers LiDAR as a pivotal part of autonomous driving.
“When you have a brand like Ford, when there’s a new technology, you have to be really careful. We really believe that LiDAR is mission critical… Where the camera will be completely blinded, the LiDAR system will see exactly what’s in front of you,” the Ford CEO stated.
Tesla and Ford’s self-driving plans
Tesla recently launched a limited Robotaxi service in Austin, which uses autonomous cars with safety monitors in the front passenger seat. While controversial, Musk has maintained that Tesla’s vision-only approach will ultimately prove safer and more cost-effective in the long term. Tesla seems to be making headway towards this goal, with Musk stating recently that the first Model Y has been delivered autonomously to a customer in Austin.
Ford, for his part, is not pursuing its own fully autonomous, urban-driving system anymore. Instead, the company is focusing on “high-speed, eyes-off” experiences like BlueCruise. Ford does plan to partner with a company that has achieved true autonomous driving in the future, as soon as the technology is available.
-
News5 days ago
Tesla Robotaxi’s biggest challenge seems to be this one thing
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla confirms massive hardware change for autonomy improvement
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Elon Musk slams Bloomberg’s shocking xAI cash burn claims
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla features used to flunk 16-year-old’s driver license test
-
News2 weeks ago
Texas lawmakers urge Tesla to delay Austin robotaxi launch to September
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla China roars back with highest vehicle registrations this Q2 so far
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla dominates Cars.com’s Made in America Index with clean sweep
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla’s Grok integration will be more realistic with this cool feature