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?
News
Tesla hints it could see ‘a few more vehicles’ released soon
Denholm said on CNBC yesterday that “we do have a few other vehicles coming out.”
Tesla Board Chair Robyn Denholm hinted the company could see “a few more vehicles” coming out and being released soon, although there is no indication of what could be on the way based on her comments.
However, Tesla has hinted toward several potential releases in the coming years, as other executives, including Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen, have talked briefly about what could be on the way.
Denholm said on CNBC yesterday that “we do have a few other vehicles coming out.”
BREAKING: $TSLA BOARD CHAIR ROBYN SAYS — “WE HAVE NEW VEHICLES COMING OUT” 👀
It’s happening ! pic.twitter.com/f8UuZWGLuP
— TheSonOfWalkley (@TheSonOfWalkley) October 27, 2025
It was a vague and almost cryptic sentence, as, in all honesty, it was not completely clear whether she was talking about recent releases that are just making their way to market, like the Model 3 and Model Y “Standard,” or new vehicles altogether.
Nevertheless, it’s worth dissecting.
Tesla “Standard” Models
On October 7, Tesla launched the Standard Model 3 and Model Y, stripped-down versions of their now “Premium” siblings. The Standard trims lack premium features like leather seats, a rear touchscreen, and a glass roof, among other features.
These cars are just starting to be delivered for the first time, so it is possible that Denholm was referring to these cars.
Potential Model 2 Hint?
There has always been a looming vehicle model that many Tesla fans and owners have been intrigued by: the Model 2.
This car was hinted at being the $25,000 model that Tesla was rumored to be developing, and many thought that was the vehicle that would be released earlier this month, not the Standard Model 3 and Model Y.
Instead, the Model 2 could be something that would enable Tesla to reach an entirely new consumer base, including those who are not able to swing the payment for the company’s more premium offerings.
It seems Tesla will have to launch some sort of extremely affordable model in the future, and with the Cybercab being slotted at that rough price point, it would not be out of the question for it to be in the realm of possibility for future releases.
It’s worth noting, however, that it is probably unlikely this will happen. Tesla is so deadset focused on autonomy, it seems Cybercab would take extreme precedence over the unconfirmed “Model 2.”
Cybertruck-inspired SUV
Tesla fans have been begging the company to develop a full-size SUV that would compete with the Ford Expedition or Chevrolet Tahoe, but the company has not given any indication that this would be something it would build.
Nevertheless, there was a very subtle hint in a recent promotional clip that showed a Cyber SUV mock-up placed strategically next to a clay model of a Model 3:
The Model X is simply not what people want when it comes to an SUV, as it does not have the seating capacity and cargo space that many need with a full-sized SUV.
This issue, in particular, has been one that has been extremely relevant to the company’s future lineup as consumers have shown they would be interested in a Tesla vehicle that fit this description.
Additionally, von Holzhausen said in September that a Cyber SUV or a smaller electric pickup with a more traditional design is “definitely things we’ve considered…We’re working on so many innovative and fun things.”
Tesla gives big hint that it will build Cyber SUV, smaller Cybertruck
Investor's Corner
Tesla enters new stability phase, firm upgrades and adjusts outlook
Dmitriy Pozdnyakov of Freedom Capital upgraded his outlook on Tesla shares from “Sell” to “Hold” on Wednesday, and increased the price target from $338 to $406.
Tesla is entering a new phase of stability in terms of vehicle deliveries, one firm wrote in a new note during the final week of October, backing its position with an upgrade and price target increase on the stock.
Dmitriy Pozdnyakov of Freedom Capital upgraded his outlook on Tesla shares from “Sell” to “Hold” on Wednesday, and increased the price target from $338 to $406.
While most firms are interested in highlighting Tesla’s future growth, which will be catalyzed mostly by the advent of self-driving vehicles, autonomy, and the company’s all-in mentality on AI and robotics, Pozdnyakov is solely focusing on vehicle deliveries.
The analyst wrote in a note to investors that he believes Tesla’s updated vehicle lineup, which includes its new affordable “Standard” trims of the Model 3 and Model Y, is going to stabilize the company’s delivery volumes and return the company to annual growth.
Tesla launches two new affordable models with ‘Standard’ Model 3, Y offerings
Tesla launched the new affordable Model 3 and Model Y “Standard” trims on October 7, which introduced two stripped-down, less premium versions of the all-electric sedan and crossover.
They are both priced at under $40,000, with the Model 3 at $37,990 and the Model Y at $39,990, and while these prices may not necessarily be what consumers were expecting, they are well under what Kelley Blue Book said was the average new car transaction price for September, which swelled above $50,000.
Despite the rollout of these two new models, it is interesting to hear that a Wall Street firm would think that Tesla is going to return to more stable delivery figures and potentially enter a new growth phase.
Many Wall Street firms have been more focused on AI, Robotics, and Tesla’s self-driving project, which are the more prevalent things that will drive investor growth over the next few years.
Wedbush’s Dan Ives, for example, tends to focus on the company’s prowess in AI and self-driving. However, he did touch on vehicle deliveries in the coming years in a recent note.
Ives said in a note on October 2:
“While EV demand is expected to fall with the EV tax credit expiration, this was a great bounce-back quarter for TSLA to lay the groundwork for deliveries moving forward, but there is still work to do to gain further ground from a delivery perspective.”
Tesla has some things to figure out before it can truly consider guaranteed stability from a delivery standpoint. Initially, the next two quarters will be a crucial way to determine demand without the $7,500 EV tax credit. It will also begin to figure out if its new affordable models are attractive enough at their current price point to win over consumers.
Elon Musk
Tesla preps for a harsh potential reality if Musk comp vote doesn’t go to plan
A successful vote for Tesla would see the compensation package get approved. But there is always the possibility of a rejection, which would likely see Musk leave the company.
Tesla could be forced to look for a new CEO in the coming months, as a crucial November 6 Shareholder Meeting vote will determine whether Elon Musk will stick around.
A major vote is coming up at the 2025 Tesla Shareholder Meeting, as investors will determine whether Musk should be given a new compensation plan that would award him up to $1 trillion and more than one-fourth of the total voting power within the company.
Tesla board chair reiterates widely unmentioned point of Musk comp plan
A successful vote for Tesla would see the compensation package get approved. But there is always the possibility of a rejection, which would likely see Musk leave the company.
“My fundamental concern with regard to how much voting control I have at Tesla is if I go ahead and build this enormous robot army, can I just be ousted at some point in the future? That’s my biggest concern,” Musk said at last week’s Earnings Call. “That’s what it comes down to in a nutshell. I don’t feel comfortable wielding that robot army if I don’t have at least a strong influence.”
Tesla Board of Directors Head Robyn Denholm has been on somewhat of a PR tour over the past few days, answering questions about the compensation plan, which is among the biggest issues currently for the company.
Denholm told Bloomberg yesterday that Tesla investors need to be prepared for Musk to abandon ship if the package is not approved, which brings on a new question: Who would take over the CEO role?
That is a question Denholm also answered yesterday, bringing forth the conclusion that Tesla would not look for an outside hire if Musk were to leave the company. Instead, it would promote someone internally.
The way it was reported by Bloomberg and Reuters seems to make it seem as if Tesla is preparing for the worst, as it states the company “is looking at internal CEO candidates,” not preparing to do so.
Of the executives at Tesla who immediately come to mind as ideal candidates for a potential takeover should Musk leave, Tesla China President Tom Zhu and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy both come to mind. Zhu has monumental executive experience already, as he was appointed to the role of Senior VP of Automotive back in December 2022.
He then returned to China in 2024.
It seems Tesla wants to align its future, with or without Musk, on the same path that it is currently on, and internal candidates might have a better idea of what that looks like and truly means.
Tesla hints it could see ‘a few more vehicles’ released soon
Tesla enters new stability phase, firm upgrades and adjusts outlook
Tesla preps for a harsh potential reality if Musk comp vote doesn’t go to plan
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoSpaceX posts Starship booster feat that’s so nutty, it doesn’t even look real
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoTesla Full Self-Driving gets an offer to be insured for ‘almost free’
-
News2 weeks agoElon Musk confirms Tesla FSD V14.2 will see widespread rollout
-
News2 weeks agoTesla is adding an interesting feature to its centerscreen in a coming update
-
News2 weeks agoTesla launches new interior option for Model Y
-
News2 weeks agoTesla widens rollout of new Full Self-Driving suite to more owners
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoTesla CEO Elon Musk’s $1 trillion pay package hits first adversity from proxy firm
-
News1 week agoTesla might be doing away with a long-included feature with its vehicles