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
Celebrating SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Tesla Roadster launch, seven years later (Op-Ed)
Seven years later, the question is no longer “What if this works?” It’s “How far does this go?”
When Falcon Heavy lifted off in February 2018 with Elon Musk’s personal Tesla Roadster as its payload, SpaceX was at a much different place. So was Tesla. It was unclear whether Falcon Heavy was feasible at all, and Tesla was in the depths of Model 3 production hell.
At the time, Tesla’s market capitalization hovered around $55–60 billion, an amount critics argued was already grossly overvalued. SpaceX, on the other hand, was an aggressive private launch provider known for taking risks that traditional aerospace companies avoided.
The Roadster launch was bold by design. Falcon Heavy’s maiden mission carried no paying payload, no government satellite, just a car drifting past Earth with David Bowie playing in the background. To many, it looked like a stunt. For Elon Musk and the SpaceX team, it was a bold statement: there should be some things in the world that simply inspire people.
Inspire it did, and seven years later, SpaceX and Tesla’s results speak for themselves.
Today, Tesla is the world’s most valuable automaker, with a market capitalization of roughly $1.54 trillion. The Model Y has become the best-selling car in the world by volume for three consecutive years, a scenario that would have sounded insane in 2018. Tesla has also pushed autonomy to a point where its vehicles can navigate complex real-world environments using vision alone.
And then there is Optimus. What began as a literal man in a suit has evolved into a humanoid robot program that Musk now describes as potential Von Neumann machines: systems capable of building civilizations beyond Earth. Whether that vision takes decades or less, one thing is evident: Tesla is no longer just a car company. It is positioning itself at the intersection of AI, robotics, and manufacturing.
SpaceX’s trajectory has been just as dramatic.
The Falcon 9 has become the undisputed workhorse of the global launch industry, having completed more than 600 missions to date. Of those, SpaceX has successfully landed a Falcon booster more than 560 times. The Falcon 9 flies more often than all other active launch vehicles combined, routinely lifting off multiple times per week.
Falcon 9 has ferried astronauts to and from the International Space Station via Crew Dragon, restored U.S. human spaceflight capability, and even stepped in to safely return NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams when circumstances demanded it.
Starlink, once a controversial idea, now dominates the satellite communications industry, providing broadband connectivity across the globe and reshaping how space-based networks are deployed. SpaceX itself, following its merger with xAI, is now valued at roughly $1.25 trillion and is widely expected to pursue what could become the largest IPO in history.
And then there is Starship, Elon Musk’s fully reusable launch system designed not just to reach orbit, but to make humans multiplanetary. In 2018, the idea was still aspirational. Today, it is under active development, flight-tested in public view, and central to NASA’s future lunar plans.
In hindsight, Falcon Heavy’s maiden flight with Elon Musk’s personal Tesla Roadster was never really about a car in space. It was a signal that SpaceX and Tesla were willing to think bigger, move faster, and accept risks others wouldn’t.
The Roadster is still out there, orbiting the Sun. Seven years later, the question is no longer “What if this works?” It’s “How far does this go?”
Energy
Tesla launches Cybertruck vehicle-to-grid program in Texas
The initiative was announced by the official Tesla Energy account on social media platform X.
Tesla has launched a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) program in Texas, allowing eligible Cybertruck owners to send energy back to the grid during high-demand events and receive compensation on their utility bills.
The initiative, dubbed Powershare Grid Support, was announced by the official Tesla Energy account on social media platform X.
Texas’ Cybertruck V2G program
In its post on X, Tesla Energy confirmed that vehicle-to-grid functionality is “coming soon,” starting with select Texas markets. Under the new Powershare Grid Support program, owners of the Cybertruck equipped with Powershare home backup hardware can opt in through the Tesla app and participate in short-notice grid stress events.
During these events, the Cybertruck automatically discharges excess energy back to the grid, supporting local utilities such as CenterPoint Energy and Oncor. In return, participants receive compensation in the form of bill credits. Tesla noted that the program is currently invitation-only as part of an early adopter rollout.
The launch builds on the Cybertruck’s existing Powershare capability, which allows the vehicle to provide up to 11.5 kW of power for home backup. Tesla added that the program is expected to expand to California next, with eligibility tied to utilities such as PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E.
Powershare Grid Support
To participate in Texas, Cybertruck owners must live in areas served by CenterPoint Energy or Oncor, have Powershare equipment installed, enroll in the Tesla Electric Drive plan, and opt in through the Tesla app. Once enrolled, vehicles would be able to contribute power during high-demand events, helping stabilize the grid.
Tesla noted that events may occur with little notice, so participants are encouraged to keep their Cybertrucks plugged in when at home and to manage their discharge limits based on personal needs. Compensation varies depending on the electricity plan, similar to how Powerwall owners in some regions have earned substantial credits by participating in Virtual Power Plant (VPP) programs.
News
Samsung nears Tesla AI chip ramp with early approval at TX factory
This marks a key step towards the tech giant’s production of Tesla’s next-generation AI5 chips in the United States.
Samsung has received temporary approval to begin limited operations at its semiconductor plant in Taylor, Texas.
This marks a key step towards the tech giant’s production of Tesla’s next-generation AI5 chips in the United States.
Samsung clears early operations hurdle
As noted in a report from Korea JoongAng Daily, Samsung Electronics has secured temporary certificates of occupancy (TCOs) for a portion of its semiconductor facility in Taylor. This should allow the facility to start operations ahead of full completion later this year.
City officials confirmed that approximately 88,000 square feet of Samsung’s Fab 1 building has received temporary approval, with additional areas expected to follow. The overall timeline for permitting the remaining sections has not yet been finalized.
Samsung’s Taylor facility is expected to manufacture Tesla’s AI5 chips once mass production begins in the second half of the year. The facility is also expected to produce Tesla’s upcoming AI6 chips.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk recently stated that the design for AI5 is nearly complete, and the development of AI6 is already underway. Musk has previously outlined an aggressive roadmap targeting nine-month design cycles for successive generations of its AI chips.
Samsung’s U.S. expansion
Construction at the Taylor site remains on schedule. Reports indicate Samsung plans to begin testing extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography equipment next month, a critical step for producing advanced 2-nanometer semiconductors.
Samsung is expected to complete 6 million square feet of floor space at the site by the end of this year, with an additional 1 million square feet planned by 2028. The full campus spans more than 1,200 acres.
Beyond Tesla, Samsung Foundry is also pursuing additional U.S. customers as demand for AI and high-performance computing chips accelerates. Company executives have stated that Samsung is looking to achieve more than 130% growth in 2-nanometer chip orders this year.
One of Samsung’s biggest rivals, TSMC, is also looking to expand its footprint in the United States, with reports suggesting that the company is considering expanding its Arizona facility to as many as 11 total plants. TSMC is also expected to produce Tesla’s AI5 chips.
Celebrating SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Tesla Roadster launch, seven years later (Op-Ed)
SpaceX’s xAI merger keeps legal liability and debt at arm’s length: report
