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 has slimmed its Cybertruck offerings to offer only its most expensive trim: the Cyberbeast.
After announcing that the Cybertruck would no longer be produced and the company would wind down manufacturing sometime in the middle of 2027, Tesla started to eliminate some of the configurations offered to customers.
Tesla has stopped taking orders for the Cybertruck Premium AWD.
The Cyberbeast is now the only trim you can order, and its price went up $7,500 to $109,990.
Estimated deliveries have also slipped to March–June 2027 as the Giga Texas line heads toward its mid-2027 wind-down. https://t.co/o28epA0ZQl
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 10, 2026
Now, only one remains: the $109,990 Cyberbeast. This is truly what seems like Tesla’s last effort to deter any remaining orders from coming in: eliminate the cheap trims and leave only the high-dollar vehicle within the lineup of Cybertruck options.
Those who want to take advantage of this last-ditch opportunity to own Tesla’s symbolic pickup have to pay to play.
Tesla says the reason for the wind down is truly because of Cybercab and its importance to the future.
Despite cries for Tesla to continue production of the pickup, Musk says it is too difficult to ramp a high-volume line instead of ending the truck altogether. He also says Cybercab is what will take passengers around for the “majority of all miles in any jurisdiction where it is not prohibited by law.”
@PalmerLuckey @carlhancock Cybercab will do a majority of all passenger miles in any jurisdiction where it is not prohibited by law.
Obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 10, 2026
Tesla is going all in on autonomy, and that’s never been a secret. But the commitment to a two-door, two-seat Cybercab truly limits people from having options for labor or hobbies. It also limits people from having their entire family in a single car.
Parents with even a single child will be required to take multiple vehicles if Cybercab is truly the only option Tesla plans to have.
Elon Musk keeps justifying Tesla Cybertruck’s cancelation, but it’s confusing
Tesla has stated the Robovan will also be in production eventually, but it still does not seem like the most ideal vehicle to own. It seems like it is geared more toward commercial uses, but Tesla might have something in the pipeline for families.
News
Tesla exec hints at a wild fix for Robotaxi’s biggest weather problem
Tesla VP Lars Moravy says focused lasers could keep robotaxi cameras clear instead of wipers.
Tesla may one day use lasers instead of wiper blades to keep its robotaxi cameras clear. Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, floated the idea in a new episode of Jay Leno’s Garage released Monday, where he and design chief Franz von Holzhausen walked Leno through the Model Y L.
“If you fire them in a focused area, you can clean the sheet of water and create a barrier,” Moravy said. “When you think about autonomy, it might be a good solution to only clean the area where the camera is.” He added that clearing an entire windshield would take too many lasers to be practical.
🚨 Jay Leno has released a new episode breaking down the Model Y L. You can watch it here: https://t.co/umMp85UEaB — TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 9, 2026
The comment brings back one of Tesla’s stranger patents. The company filed for “Pulsed Laser Cleaning of Debris Accumulated on Glass Articles in Vehicles and Photovoltaic Assemblies” in May 2019, and the U.S. Patent Office granted it in September 2021. An updated divisional version was granted on March 31, 2026. The system detects debris on the glass, identifies what it is, and pulses the laser at a calibrated rate so the beam never penetrates deeper than the glass itself. The filing names windshields, side windows, camera lenses and solar panels as possible targets.
Lasers were once rumored for the Cybertruck, which appeared at its November 2019 unveiling with no wipers at all. Tesla eventually settled on a single oversized blade, and Elon Musk admitted the wiper was the part of the truck that troubled him the most. That production line is now scheduled to shut down around mid 2027 to make room for more Cybercab output.
What has changed since then is who is in the vehicle. A privately owned car has a driver who can notice a smeared windshield and do something about it. A Cybercab heading to its next pickup has nobody on board to check. Tesla has been chipping away at that problem with conventional hardware. Model Y Robotaxis in Austin were spotted with washers on their side repeater cameras in January, and a lens cleaning patent granted in May describes a fluid and wiper assembly for vehicle cameras and Optimus’ eyes. A laser would remove the fluid and the blades, both of which need regular replacement across a fleet.
The same episode gave Leno his first ride on Full Self-Driving (Supervised). The Model Y L pulled over on its own when an ambulance approached with its sirens on. “We got it on self-driving mode! I’m not touching anything,” Leno said. Moravy and von Holzhausen also explained that owners remain responsible while using FSD (Supervised), while Tesla takes responsibility for Robotaxi rides because it acts as the operator. Tesla launched the Model Y L in the U.S. in July at $61,990.
Moravy gave no timeline, and he described the laser setup as something Tesla is considering rather than a confirmed feature. The fleet it would serve keeps getting bigger, though. Tesla launched unsupervised Robotaxi service in San Antonio on Monday, its eighth city, and expanded its Austin service area to roughly 443 square miles on the same day. Several of those markets, including Houston, Miami and Tampa, see heavy seasonal rain.
Tesla launched unsupervised Robotaxi service in San Antonio, Texas, on November 9, 2026, with the first rides beginning at 5 a.m. local time.
The company’s official Robotaxi account on X posted the announcement just after midnight, sharing a map that outlines a large operational zone covering much of the city. The geofence is roughly 274 to 275 square miles, making it Tesla’s largest day-one Robotaxi service area to date.
🚨 Tesla just announced that Robotaxi is available in San Antonio, TX
First rides at 5am local time! https://t.co/azck6NlD8H
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 9, 2026
The zone centers on downtown, covers nearly everything inside Loop 410, and extends north to Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 and U.S. 281, with further reach west past State Highway 151, east beyond I-35, and south toward I-37. This area encompasses about one million residents and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
San Antonio International Airport lies inside the geofence, though Tesla is not currently offering airport pickups or drop-offs. This hopefully will happen soon, as ride-sharing to and from the airport can be expensive.
The launch makes San Antonio Tesla’s eighth unsupervised Robotaxi city and its fifth in Texas, joining Austin, Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth. Florida markets in Miami, Orlando, and Tampa are also live.
🚨 Here’s every active geofence, by size (not including the Bay Area geofence):
• Austin: 435 sq mi (first ride Jun 22, 2025) · Cybercabs live, expanded today • San Antonio: ~275 sq mi (first ride Nov 9, 2026) • Houston: 254 sq mi (Apr 18, 2026) • Fort Worth: 143 sq mi (Nov 2, 2026) • Dallas: 81 sq mi (Apr 18, 2026) • Miami: 31 sq mi (Jul 3, 2026) • Orlando: 26 sq mi (Jul 21, 2026) • Tampa: 24 sq mi (Jul 21, 2026)
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 9, 2026
Service uses modified Model Y vehicles operating without a safety driver in the vehicle, consistent with recent unsupervised expansions. Cybercab two-seaters remain limited primarily to Austin for now. It’s worth noting that Dept. of Transportation officials in Texas have already ok’d the Cybercab’s operation in Austin, and one official called it “a tangible example of how quickly our transportation system is evolving.”
San Antonio was previously listed among near-term targets in Tesla’s October 2026 Robotaxi safety materials, alongside Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Jacksonville. The rapid Texas rollout follows Fort Worth’s unsupervised debut on November 2 and builds on Austin’s original launch in June 2025.
The 274-square-mile debut remains substantially larger than Waymo’s local footprint and marks continued progress in Tesla’s unsupervised autonomy efforts after starting the year with no such rides. The company has stated ambitions for broader 24/7 operations by the end of 2026 as vehicle counts and software reliability improve.
Tesla slims Cybertruck offerings to only its most expensive trim
Tesla exec hints at a wild fix for Robotaxi’s biggest weather problem
