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.

Published

9 years ago

May 10, 2016

Dacia J. Ferris

Gemini 10 launches using a modified TItan ICBM motor.

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 Lawmakers cannot make the ICBM problem just go away through legislation. 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 Don't reinvent the wheel when ICBM engines are available. 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. Arguing against ICBM engines is 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.

The government is an ICBM retailer, not a competitor. 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, Quote_Elon10Percent 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.

Don't let ICBM engines be your excuse not to build a better engine. 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. Banning ICBM rocket engines doesn't help further space exploration.

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

Tesla Robotaxi deemed a total failure by media — even though it hasn’t been released

Nearly two weeks before it is even set for its planned rollout, Tesla Robotaxi has already been deemed a failure — even though it is not even publicly released.

Published

5 hours ago

May 19, 2025

Joey Klender

Credit: Tesla

Tesla Robotaxi is among the biggest tech developments of the year, and its June launch date has not yet arrived.

This does not matter to skeptics of the company, as they have already deemed the rollout a “failure,” “an enormous mess,” and plenty of other adjectives. No matter what, several outlets are already leaning on biased opinions and a lack of true evidence that points in any direction.

Futurism posted an article this morning claiming that Robotaxi is “already an enormous mess,” citing the opinions of Dan O’Dowd, perhaps Full Self-Driving’s biggest critic. There is no mention of any of the excitement or prosperity that would come from the opposite side of the argument.

Instead, it included that O’Dowd felt it was a failure in an 80-minute drive around Santa Barbara.

This is fair to include: Full Self-Driving is not perfect, which is why Tesla will implement safeguards like teleoperation at first. However, it’s not like it’s so awful it isn’t even remotely close. Personally, my experience with FSD was incredibly successful, responsible, and it was something I still wish I had on my car to this day. I wish the article would have included a quote from someone who is as equally passionate about FSD, just from the other side of the argument.

Credit: Tesla

There is no mention of Tesla’s most recent Vehicle Safety Report, which showed Autopilot-enabled cars are nearly 10x less likely to be involved in an accident compared to the national average. This might not be the same as Full Self-Driving, but it is still a testament to what Tesla has achieved with its driver assistance systems.

To be fair, Tesla has been a company that has missed timelines, especially when it comes to FSD. I used to roll my eyes a bit when CEO Elon Musk would say, “We’ll have Full Self-Driving finished by the end of the year,” or “We’ll have a million robotaxis on the road next year.” I was always skeptical.

However, Tesla has handled things differently this year. They’ve admitted the Robotaxi rollout will be controlled at first, including a fleet of only 10-20 Model Y vehicles. It will be private at launch, and only the lucky invited will have the opportunity to experience it in Austin in June.

It might be less than a public rollout, which of course, for people like you and me, is disappointing. But let’s be real: if Tesla launched a full-blown Robotaxi platform with no regulations or small-batch testing, there would be criticism of that, too.

Some media outlets are pointing to the recent NHTSA request for more information on how Tesla’s tech will “assess the ability of Tesla’s system to react appropriately to reduced roadway visibility conditions.” This seems more than reasonable as Robotaxi will be among the first driverless ridesharing programs in the United States.

Tesla gets new information request from NHTSA on Robotaxi rollout

It’s no more than a request for information on how things will be handled and how the tech works.

It is sad to see so many outlets already deem something that could be the next big thing as a failure, despite there being no real indication of it being that or a success. Let’s be fair and give Tesla an opportunity to meet its June target and Robotaxi some time to operate and prove to be a reliable ride-share option.

News

Tesla confirms annoying Full Self-Driving feature has been fixed

Tesla has changed one of its driver monitoring features in a request from several owners.

Published

9 hours ago

May 19, 2025

Joey Klender

Tesla has confirmed that an annoying Full Self-Driving feature has been fixed.

We reported last week that several owners reported changes in the feature, and now we have confirmation that it has been revised by Tesla.

Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised) does not require a driver’s hands to be on the steering wheel. However, eye movements and attentiveness are tracked through a cabin-facing camera, aiming to improve safety and limit loopholes in the system.

Tesla seems to have fixed one of Full Self-Driving’s most annoying features

If the system detects that your eyes are not on the road or you are not paying attention, FSD will nudge you to get them back on the road. Too many occurrences of the driver not paying attention will result in losing access to FSD for the remainder of the drive.

However, many drivers using FSD complained that the system was too quick to alert drivers of inattentiveness. Fixing things like the HVAC temperature or even Autopilot settings on the center touchscreen would get you a nudge, which seemed unreasonably fast. Many drivers said it was a seven-second limit, but it seemed faster than this.

🚨 This is really nice to hear. Tesla said they’d fix it! pic.twitter.com/lFIZGc6PQ5 https://t.co/JE4UFAWEZz
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 15, 2025

In my experience, FSD nudged me to pay attention to the road when I was adjusting the speed offset, which gives the vehicle permission to travel over the speed limit by a percentage. For example, a 10% offset in a 50 MPH zone would let the car travel 55 MPH.

The nudging seemed to be too fast and annoying, and many other Tesla drivers agreed. CEO Elon Musk had even noted that the nudge was too fast and drivers were right to be annoyed with it, especially considering that, in theory, it would be safer to adjust these settings on FSD and not while operating the car manually.

Tesla took the criticism drivers had and turned it into a much-needed and notable change that has now been confirmed by Ashok Elluswamy, Head of AI and Autopilot for the company:

Was much needed
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) May 16, 2025

The change seems to be initiated on vehicles with Hardware 4. It is certainly a welcome change as the nudge was just a tad sensitive and could have been much more reasonable.

The adjustment made by Tesla came just a week after owners truly started becoming more vocal about the issue.

Elon Musk

Tesla bull, ARK head Cathie Wood says brand damage is not long-term

Cathie Wood of ARK Invest does not believe Tesla brand damage is a long-term problem.

Published

10 hours ago

May 19, 2025

Joey Klender

Tesla bull and head of ARK Invest, Cathie Wood, admitted during an interview with Bloomberg that she does believe the company has experienced some brand damage due to CEO Elon Musk’s political involvement. However, she does not believe it is a long-term issue.

Over the past eight months, Musk’s involvement in the U.S. political landscape has swayed some to stop supporting Tesla, others to ditch their cars, and some to boycott the brand altogether. Inversely, others have started supporting Musk, Tesla, and its products as a nod of support for what he’s done for government efficiency.

The perspective on how Musk’s involvement has impacted Tesla truly varies. Its impact has been noticeable, especially in Europe, as some countries have seen some pretty drastic declines in deliveries since the start of the year.

However, some of this can be attributed to the company’s switchover to new production lines for the updated Model Y. Some can also be blamed on economic issues, as the cost of living is still relatively high. There is no denying that at least some of the impact has come from those who simply disagree with Musk and are choosing not to buy his companies’ products.

Wood is among Tesla’s most outspoken bulls and has tremendously high expectations for the stock moving into the late 2020s and into the 2030s. In a recent interview, she highlighted the brand’s exceptional potential moving forward, but did address some of the short-term concerns, especially regarding Tesla’s perception amongst the public:

“I think he feels he has a duty to the country to make sure we don’t ‘blow ourselves up’ with these deficits. Brand damage? Yes. I do not believe [it is long-term]. Tesla, we believe, will have a lock on the Robotaxi business in the U.S., and we believe they are going to proliferate through the United States, especially if we remove regulation from a state level to a federal level, which we believe will happen.”

🚨 ARK’s Cathie Wood: “Tesla Brand Damage Has Happened”@CathieDWood breaks down what Elon Musk’s moves mean for $TSLA — from tech updates to falling sales in Europe!
She’s still bullish on US Robotaxis but warns that rules in Europe and China could make things tricky. Big… pic.twitter.com/YzNnc8dUhi
— Herbert Ong (@herbertong) May 19, 2025

Musk announced during the company’s most recent Earnings Call that he would step back from his government duties and return to Tesla in a more consistent role, as his work with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) seemed to be winding down to a certain extent.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk confirms time spent with DOGE will drop ‘significantly’

It was a big win for Tesla investors, as many were interested in Musk returning his focus to the automaker, especially as 2025 is expected to be a year of many catalysts between the Robotaxi launch, affordable models coming into play, production of the Semi starting at the tail-end of the year, and the Optimus robot continuing consistent development.

Wood was quick to point out that Tesla is not the only car company that was suffering with lagging sales, as a macro-level perspective on the automotive industry proves that many automakers are looking for ways to avert disaster due to the ongoing tariff war.

Tesla is still the highest-valued automaker in the world, and it has plenty of bullish points to look forward to as the year nears the halfway point.