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
SpaceX’s amended S-1 is sparking a major Tesla merger conversation
A single line in SpaceX’s amended S-1 just sent Tesla stock down 5% in one day.
A single line buried in SpaceX’s amended S-1 filing is doing more to move Tesla’s stock price than anything Tesla itself has announced in months. The clause, disclosed as SpaceX prepares for what could be the largest IPO in Wall Street history, states that the company “may issue a significant amount of equity in connection with future transactions.” While this may be seen as boilerplate language in S-1 filings, the historical ties between SpaceX and Tesla, and with Elon Musk reportedly discussing a possible merger with close colleagues, investors are interpreting it as something closer to a signal.
The concern among institutional investors like Gary Black, managing director of The Future Fund, pointed directly to the amended filing on X, saying it “strongly suggests more SPCX equity will be issued,” which could potentially be used to acquire Tesla. He estimated such a deal could be 28% dilutive to Tesla shareholders since SpaceX would likely command a significantly higher valuation multiple. Black added that institutional investors he knows hate the idea of a combination because they prefer pure plays over conglomerates, which he said “nearly always gravitate to the lowest common multiple.”
The Tesla and SpaceX merger everyone is talking about is quietly building
The bull case runs the math differently. Tesla influencer and retail shareholder advocate AleXandra Merz pushed back on what she called a widespread misunderstanding of how merger-of-equals deals actually work. Rather than simply splitting the difference between two market caps, a merger exchange ratio is negotiated based on relative fair market values, meaning the lower valued company typically sees its stock reprice upward toward the deal value.
Under her model, SpaceX enters at a $2.5 trillion valuation and Tesla at $1.6 trillion, producing a combined entity worth $4.1 trillion split evenly between both shareholder groups. That implies Tesla’s side of the deal would be valued at $2.05 trillion, a gain of roughly $450 billion from its current market cap. She cited Dow-DuPont and CBS-Viacom as historical examples of how markets reprice both companies toward the announced exchange ratio after a deal is unveiled.
What does a Merger of Equals mean to Elon’s compensation packages?
Well, it changes everything.
Enjoy https://t.co/uekCldyITw pic.twitter.com/kolq1C9qTu
— AleXandra Merz 🇺🇲 (@TeslaBoomerMama) June 1, 2026
The SpaceX S-1 amendments also revealed just how much financial infrastructure already binds the two companies together. As Teslarati has reported, SpaceX purchased $697 million in Tesla Megapacks, $131 million in Cybertrucks, and the two companies have shared supply chain resources, and semiconductor fabrication plans since well before any merger conversation became public. A retail poll by Tesla influencer Sawyer Merritt is finding that 36% of respondents do not plan to buy SpaceX shares at IPO and 15.3% saying their decision depends on the valuation.
Do you plan on buying @SpaceX stock at its IPO?
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 1, 2026
Whether the merger happens or not, the amended filing is seemingly moving markets and sharpened a debate that is no longer theoretical. SpaceX is weeks away from trading publicly, and Tesla shareholders are now watching every word of every filing for clues about what Musk plans to do next.
Tesla is staging a powerful rebound in Europe. New vehicle registrations surged dramatically across multiple key markets in May 2026, signaling a strong recovery from the challenges of 2025.
Data released this week show double- and triple-digit year-over-year gains in several countries, driven by refreshed Model Y production, supportive policies, high fuel prices, and renewed consumer interest in electric vehicles.
In France, registrations exploded 655 percent to 5,446 vehicles, marking Tesla’s best May performance ever in the country. Norway, a longtime EV stronghold, saw 3,345 new Teslas registered, up 29 percent from May 2025. The company even captured a commanding 21.5 percent market share there, according to Detroit News.
Growth extended to other markets as well. Sweden posted a 71 percent increase to 858 registrations. Denmark jumped 136 percent to 1,750 units, where the Model Y became the top-selling vehicle overall. Spain climbed 113 percent to 1,690 sales, while Portugal soared nearly 350 percent to 1,463.
RELATED:
Tesla Full Self-Driving expansion in Europe continues with new addition
The May results build on a broader turnaround for Tesla in Europe. The company’s sales on the continent had declined sharply in 2025, dropping between 27 and 28 percent amid production shifts, intense competition from Chinese rivals like BYD, and shifting consumer sentiment.
Early 2026 showed signs of life, with registrations rising about 45 percent across Europe in the first quarter and continuing upward momentum through April, up over 46 percent region-wide.
Europe’s overall electrified vehicle market (including BEVs, PHEVs, and hybrids) grew about 21 percent in May, providing a favorable tailwind. Tesla’s gains align with this trend, boosted by government incentives and high fuel costs that make EVs more attractive.
Earlier data from March and April already hinted at strength in Germany, where registrations had surged dramatically in prior months.
Analysts note that while competition remains fierce, Tesla’s refreshed lineup and Europe’s policy support for EVs are helping the company regain ground. The May surge suggests the worst of the 2025 downturn may be behind it, positioning Tesla for stronger performance in the second half of 2026.
This rebound is welcome news for the EV pioneer, demonstrating resilience in a competitive and evolving market. As more data rolls in, investors and industry watchers will be closely monitoring whether this momentum can sustain through the summer and beyond.
Tesla is planning to improve one of the best features on its lineup of cars, a new patent shows. Tesla’s massive glass roof on its premium models is among the coolest additions to the all-electric vehicles, but the design certainly has its complaints, especially from those who live in even slightly warm climates.
Tesla has published a new patent that promises to transform cabin comfort in its electric vehicles, particularly those equipped with the expansive glass roofs.
The document, identified as US20260091643A1 and titled “Airflow Optimization for Cabin Comfort“, addresses that common complaint. Sunlight streaming through windshields and panoramic roofs creates localized hot air pockets near the dashboard and headliner. These pockets generate significant temperature gradients that conventional heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems struggle to manage evenly.
The exposure to direct sunlight can make the cabin extremely warm, and even after cooling down the interior temperature, combating the continuous stream of sunlight and heat is a challenge. It uses precious energy that is especially pertinent to range and efficiency.
The patent explains how standard dashboard vents push cool air upward, only to entrain warmer air from these stagnant zones and distribute it throughout the occupied cabin space. This process forces the blower to operate at higher speeds, increasing energy consumption and reducing overall efficiency.
In electric vehicles, where every watt impacts driving range, such inefficiencies prove costly.
🚨 THE MODEL Y L IS THE MOST WATCHED EV LAUNCH OF 2026. ITS GLASS ROOF HAS ONE WEAKNESS — AND A PATENT PUBLISHED THIS WEEK SHOWS @TESLA BUILT THE FIX
The Model Y L launched in China and is now arriving in Korea, Japan, and across Asia-Pacific. It also has a glass roof. So does… https://t.co/wr6XnBn1Oc pic.twitter.com/5sYpniXJbU
— SETI Park (@seti_park) April 5, 2026
Research from AAA indicates that air conditioning can diminish range by up to 17 percent under hot conditions. Tesla’s innovation shifts the approach by extracting heat at its source rather than attempting to dilute it after mixing occurs.
Engineers describe a suction HVAC unit connected to dedicated intakes positioned strategically on the upper dashboard surface and within the headliner.
These intakes link to a hot air pocket extraction duct that channels the warmest air directly into the system’s plenum for conditioning. As the blower activates, it simultaneously draws recirculated cabin air and targeted hot pocket air through filters and cooling coils before redistributing conditioned airflow.
It seems somewhat reminiscent of the Tesla heat pump, which aims to combat colder temperatures.
Tesla highlights Model Y’s heat pump innovations in new promotional video
This method reduces entrainment, lowers peak temperatures, and achieves more uniform comfort levels. Testing data reveals that facial temperature gradients drop from 21 degrees Celsius, or 69.8 degrees Fahrenheit, in conventional setups to just 12 degrees Celsius (53.6 degrees F) with the new system. Blower speeds and compressor power requirements decrease appreciably as a result.
The design incorporates smart controls that monitor sunlight intensity and internal temperature distributions in real time. Suction activates selectively only where needed, optimizing energy use without constant high demand. Furthermore, the extraction duct serves a dual purpose.
In the summer months, it pulls hot air inward for cooling; in winter, it reverses to direct warm air outward for rapid windshield defrosting. This versatility allows the reuse of existing hardware with minimal modifications, potentially enabling retrofits in current Tesla fleets.
SpaceX’s amended S-1 is sparking a major Tesla merger conversation
Tesla’s European Comeback: Registrations soar in May as recovery gains momentum
