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 officially confirmed plans to bring its all-electric Semi truck to Europe, with full specifications and market-launch details set for unveiling at the IAA Transportation trade fair in Hannover, Germany.
The event runs September 15–20, with a possible press preview on September 14. The announcement, shared via Tesla’s Semi account, marks a significant expansion beyond North America nearly nine years after the truck’s original 2017 reveal.
🚨 Tesla Semi is coming to Europe!
Sustainable logistics is a huge market internationally, and now Tesla is involved in it outside of the U.S. market! https://t.co/q3hjX6ybMv pic.twitter.com/mxTaVY3UsE
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 20, 2026
In the United States, the Semi’s path has been gradual. Limited pilot production and customer deliveries began in late 2022, primarily to fleets such as PepsiCo. After years of refinement, high-volume manufacturing started on April 29, 2026, at a dedicated facility adjacent to Gigafactory Nevada.
The plant targets an annual capacity of 50,000 units, though the ramp is expected to be gradual, with “many thousands” of trucks projected by the end of 2026.
Demand is building, with recent orders including 500 units for Einride (deliveries starting September 2026, serving Amazon and others) and hundreds more from operators such as WattEV. Pricing stands at approximately $260,000 for the Standard Range and $290,000 for the Long Range before incentives.
Tesla Semi pricing revealed after company uncovers trim levels
Earlier in 2026, Tesla finalized production specifications that incorporated substantial updates. In February, the company detailed two variants designed for a full 82,000-pound gross combination weight.
The Standard Range offers about 325 miles of range with a 548 kWh battery and curb weight under 20,000 pounds. The Long Range delivers roughly 500 miles with an 822 kWh pack and a 23,000-pound curb weight. Both use three independent rear-axle motors producing up to 800 kW (about 1,073 horsepower), achieve energy consumption of around 1.7 kWh per mile, and support megawatt-class charging at up to 1.2 MW—recovering about 60 percent of range in 30 minutes through the MCS standard.
Additional refinements include a roughly 1,000-pound weight reduction versus earlier prototypes, improved aerodynamics, a 48-volt electrical architecture, electric power take-off up to 25 kW for refrigerated trailers, and fleet management software with over-the-air updates.
These advances position the Semi as a competitive option against diesel trucks on operating costs and performance. For Europe, adaptations such as lighting, cab configurations (including potential sleeper options), and regulatory compliance are anticipated.
With series production underway in Nevada and major fleet commitments secured, the upcoming IAA reveal will clarify timelines, European-specific specs, and pricing, potentially accelerating electrification of heavy-duty freight on both continents.
Investor's Corner
Tesla Robotaxi gets a massive upgrade in Nevada
Nevada regulators just approved a massive expansion of Tesla’s robotaxi fleet across the entire county.
Tesla’s robotaxi footprint in Nevada just grew by roughly 500 times in a single regulatory vote.
The Nevada Transportation Authority approved Tesla’s full Autonomous Vehicle Network Company permit on Thursday, clearing the way for the company to deploy up to 5,000 driverless vehicles across Clark County over the next 12 months. The decision came during a four hour general session meeting that Tesla investor Sawyer Merritt watched live and reported on X, noting the vote replaces the interim order that had limited Tesla to just 10 robotaxis on a narrow stretch of the Las Vegas Strip.
EXCLUSIVE: Tesla has just officially received approval for its full Autonomous Vehicle Network Company permit in Nevada, clearing the way for Tesla to launch a paid public Robotaxi service in Las Vegas.
This officially allows @Tesla to deploy up to 5,000 robotaxis over the next… pic.twitter.com/DPs5UtUlrE
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) August 20, 2026
That earlier cap, covered here after it surfaced on August 13, came with restrictions that looked stricter than what Tesla runs in Austin: a 45 mph speed ceiling, no airport pickups, and a geofence confined to the Strip corridor. The new approval extends Tesla’s operating authority to all of Clark County, with room to request an even wider geofence across the state.
Tesla representatives at the meeting said they have no intention of putting 5,000 cars on the road right away. Commercial rides are expected to start within 30 days, pending vehicle inspections, insurance filings, and fare approval, the standard steps every robotaxi operator in Nevada has had to clear.
Tesla’s own Robotaxi account replied to the news with a short line, The golden future is upon us.
The timing lines up with Tesla’s broader robotaxi push this month. The company is preparing to open Cybercab rides to the public in Austin as soon as this month, and it opened a sweepstakes for riders to win a seat at the launch event. Tesla filed its original application for a 5,000 vehicle Nevada fleet back in June, a request regulators trimmed to 10 vehicles when they issued the interim order in July. Thursday’s vote effectively grants the number Tesla asked for from the start.
Zoox, the Amazon owned robotaxi operator, has run in Nevada since 2025 and was capped at 100 vehicles before Thursday’s decision. Tesla’s new ceiling puts it well ahead of that comparison on paper, though the company has said its actual fleet size will depend on how quickly FSD v15 rolls out, the software update executives have called the gateway to scaling unsupervised robotaxi operations nationwide.
Tesla welcomed JPMorgan analysts to one of its factories earlier this month, with the Wall Street firm highlighting its findings in a new note to investors. One of the more pertinent pieces of information is that Tesla admitted to slowly integrating Model Y vehicles into its Robotaxi fleet, but it has a good reason.
JPMorgan analysts recently toured Tesla’s Fremont Factory and met with the company’s investor relations team, emerging with a clearer picture of the automaker’s Robotaxi strategy. According to the bank’s note, Tesla is intentionally limiting the addition of Model Y vehicles to its existing Robotaxi fleet.
The firm’s analysts said:
“Tesla indicated it is intentionally holding back on adding Model Y units to the robotaxi fleet, expressing confidence in its ability to scale Cybercab in the near-term. On FSD V15, Tesla views this release as a step-change in performance, comparable to the leap from V13 to V14. The V15 upgrade encompasses seven core technologies, with ~40% of those currently being tested in the robotaxi fleet, where initial feedback has been encouraging.”
JPMorgan after meeting with Tesla recently in Fremont:
“Tesla indicated it is intentionally holding back on adding Model Y units to the robotaxi fleet, expressing confidence in its ability to scale Cybercab in the near-term. On FSD V15, Tesla views this release as a step-change… pic.twitter.com/W9yGCWRT3C
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) August 20, 2026
Far from signaling delays or doubts about autonomy, the move reflects strong management confidence in the near-term scalability of the purpose-built Cybercab.
Tesla has operated its Robotaxi service primarily with modified Model Ys since launching in Austin and expanding to other markets. Yet the company is now deliberately holding back further Model Y conversions. The rationale is straightforward: leadership believes the Cybercab, a two-seat, steering-wheel- and pedal-free vehicle optimized for high utilization, can ramp production and deployment more efficiently in the coming months.
This dedicated form factor promises better unit economics for the majority of rides, which typically involve one or two passengers, while freeing consumer Model Y inventory for retail sales.
Supporting this pivot is Full Self-Driving (FSD) software version 15, which Tesla describes as a genuine step-change in performance, comparable to the leap from V13 to V14. The update incorporates seven core technologies; roughly 40 percent are already undergoing real-world testing in the current Robotaxi fleet, with early feedback described as encouraging.
Tesla is carefully managing software development to minimize regressions in core driving functions as new capabilities are added. Management positions V15 as the primary gateway to scaling unsupervised FSD. Importantly, the existing AI and Hardware 4 stack is already capable of running V15 and supporting unsupervised operation.
Cybercab itself is only the first vehicle on the platform. Tesla reiterated that additional form factors will follow, pointing to concepts such as the earlier “Robovan” demonstration as examples of how the architecture can evolve.
Tesla’s mysterious Robovan makes a sneak peek with Optimus in Terafab video
Parallel progress continues on the Optimus humanoid robot, which remains on track for start of production in the coming months, with commercial sales possible as early as the second half of 2027. Generation 3 details will be revealed closer to production to preserve competitive advantages, while Generation 4 scope will draw on real-world Gen 3 experience.
JPMorgan left the meeting with a deeper appreciation for Tesla’s manufacturing automation and maintained its $475 price target. The decision to slow Model Y Robotaxi integration is therefore not a setback but a calculated prioritization of a more efficient, purpose-built solution that management believes is ready to scale.
Tesla Semi is officially headed to Europe
Tesla Robotaxi gets a massive upgrade in Nevada
