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
SpaceX to launch military missile tracking satellites through new Space Force contract
SpaceX wins a $178.5M Space Force contract to launch missile tracking satellites starting in 2027.
The U.S. Space Force awarded SpaceX a $178.5 million task order on April 1, 2026 to launch missile tracking satellites for the Space Development Agency. The contract, designated SDA-4, covers two Falcon 9 launches beginning in Q3 2027, one from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida and one from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. The satellites, built by Sierra Space, are designed to bolster the nation’s ability to detect and track missile threats from orbit.
The award falls under the National Security Space Launch Phase 3 Lane 1 program, which Space Force uses to move payloads to orbit on faster timelines and at more competitive prices. “Our Lane 1 contract affords us the flexibility to deliver satellites for our customers, like SDA, more easily and faster than ever before to all the orbits our satellites need to reach,” said Col. Matt Flahive, SSC’s system program director for Launch Acquisition, in the official press release.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
The SDA-4 contract is the latest in a long string of national security wins for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported last month, the Space Force recently shifted a GPS III satellite launch from ULA’s Vulcan rocket to SpaceX’s Falcon 9 after a significant Vulcan booster anomaly grounded ULA’s military missions indefinitely. That move made it four consecutive GPS III satellites transferred to SpaceX after contracts were originally awarded to its competitor.
This didn’t come without a fight and dates back years. SpaceX originally had to sue the Air Force in 2014 for the right to compete for national security launches, at a time when United Launch Alliance held a near monopoly on the market. Since then, the company has steadily displaced ULA as the dominant provider, and last year the Space Force confirmed SpaceX would handle approximately 60 percent of all Phase 3 launches through 2032, worth close to $6 billion.
With missile defense satellites now part of its launch manifest alongside GPS, communications, and reconnaissance payloads, SpaceX is giving hungry investors something to chew on before its imminent IPO.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s Q1 delivery figures show Elon Musk was right
On the surface, the numbers reflect a mature EV market facing competition, softening demand, and the loss of certain incentives. Yet they also quietly validate a prediction Elon Musk has repeated for years: Tesla’s traditional auto business is becoming far less central to the company’s future.
Tesla reported its Q1 delivery figures on Thursday, and the figures — solid but unspectacular — show that CEO Elon Musk was right about what the company’s most important production and division would be.
We are seeing that shift occur in real time.
Tesla delivered 358,023 vehicles in the first quarter of 2026, according to the company’s official report released April 2.
The figure represents modest year-over-year growth of roughly 6 percent from Q1 2025’s 336,681 deliveries but a sharp sequential drop from Q4 2025’s 418,227. Production reached 408,386 vehicles, while energy storage deployments hit 8.8 GWh.
On the surface, the numbers reflect a mature EV market facing competition, softening demand, and the loss of certain incentives. Yet they also quietly validate a prediction Elon Musk has repeated for years: Tesla’s traditional auto business is becoming far less central to the company’s future.
Musk has long argued that vehicles alone will not define Tesla’s value.
Optimus Will Be Tesla’s Big Thing
In September 2025, Musk stated bluntly on X that “~80% of Tesla’s value will be Optimus,” the company’s humanoid robot.
He has described Optimus as potentially “more significant than the vehicle business over time.” Those comments were not abstract futurism. In January 2026, during the Q4 2025 earnings call, Musk announced the end of Model S and X production, framing it as an “honorable discharge,” he called it.
Those are the biggest factors.
~80% of Tesla’s value will be Optimus.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 1, 2025
The Fremont factory space, once dedicated to those flagship sedans, is being converted into an Optimus manufacturing line, with a long-term target of one million robots per year from that single facility alone.
The Q1 2026 numbers arrive at precisely the moment this strategic pivot is accelerating. Model 3 and Y deliveries totaled 341,893 units, while “other models” (including Cybertruck, Semi, and the final wave of S/X) added 16,130.
Growth is no longer explosive because Tesla is no longer chasing volume at all costs. Instead, the company is reallocating capital and factory floor space toward autonomy, energy storage, and robotics, businesses Musk believes will command far higher margins and enterprise value than incremental car sales.
Delivery Hits and Misses are Becoming Less Important
Wall Street’s pre-release consensus had pegged deliveries near 365,000. Coming in below that estimate might have rattled investors focused solely on automotive metrics. Yet Musk’s thesis has never been about maximizing quarterly vehicle shipments.
Tesla, he has insisted, “has never been valued strictly as a car company.”
The modest Q1 auto performance, paired with the deliberate wind-down of legacy programs and the ramp of Optimus, underscores that point. While EV demand stabilizes, Tesla is building the infrastructure for Robotaxis and humanoid robots that could dwarf today’s car business.
The future is here, and it is happening. It’s funny to think about how quickly Tesla was able to disrupt the traditional automotive business and force many car companies to show their hand. But just as fast as Tesla disrupted that, it is now moving to disrupt its own operation.
Cars, once the only recognizable and widely-known division of Tesla, is now becoming a background effort, slowly being overtaken by the company’s ambitions to dominate AI, autonomy, and robotics for years to come.
Critics may still view the shift as risky or premature. But the Q1 figures, solid but unspectacular in the auto segment, illustrate exactly what Musk has been signaling: the era when Tesla’s valuation rose and fell with every Model Y delivery is ending.
The company’s long-term bet is on AI-driven products that turn vehicles into high-margin robotaxis and factories into robot foundries. Thursday’s delivery report did not just meet the market’s tempered expectations; it proved Elon Musk was right all along.
The car business, once everything, is quietly becoming an important piece of a much larger puzzle.
Investor's Corner
Tesla reports Q1 deliveries, missing expectations slightly
The figure, however, fell short of Wall Street’s consensus estimate of 365,645 units, reflecting ongoing headwinds in the global EV market.
Tesla reported deliveries for the first quarter of 2026 today, missing expectations set by Wall Street analysts slightly as the company aims to have a massive year in terms of sales, along with other projects.
Tesla delivered 358,023 vehicles in the first quarter of 2026, marking a 6.3 percent increase from 336,681 vehicles in Q1 2025.
The figure, however, fell short of Wall Street’s consensus estimate of 365,645 units, reflecting ongoing headwinds in the global EV market. Production reached approximately 362,000 vehicles, with Model 3 and Model Y accounting for the vast majority. The results come as Tesla navigates softening demand, intensifying competition in China and Europe, and the expiration of key U.S. federal tax incentives.
🚨 BREAKING: Tesla delivered 358,023 vehicles in Q1 2026
Tesla also reported record energy deployments of 8.8 GWh
Wall Street had delivery consensus estimates of 365,645 pic.twitter.com/EVNAu5L3UT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 2, 2026
Energy storage deployments provided a bright spot, hitting a record 8.8 GWh in Q1. This underscores the accelerating momentum in Tesla’s energy segment, which has become a critical growth driver even as automotive volumes stabilize.
Year-over-year, the energy business continues to outpace vehicle sales, with analysts noting strong backlog demand for Megapack systems amid rising grid-scale needs for renewables and AI data centers.
Looking ahead, analysts project full-year 2026 vehicle deliveries in the range of 1.69 million units—a modest 3-5% rise from roughly 1.64 million in 2025.
Growth is expected to accelerate in the second half as production ramps and new incentives emerge in select markets. However, risks remain: persistent high interest rates, price competition from legacy automakers and Chinese EV makers, and potential margin pressure could cap upside.
Tesla has not issued official full-year guidance, but executives have signaled confidence in sequential quarterly improvements driven by cost reductions and refreshed lineups.
By the end of 2026, Tesla plans several major product launches to reignite momentum. The refreshed Model Y, including a new 7-seater variant already rolling out in select markets, is expected to boost family-oriented sales with updated styling, efficiency gains, and interior enhancements.
Autonomous ambitions remain central to Tesla’s mission, and that’s where the vast majority of the attention has been put. Volume production of the Cybercab (Robotaxi) is targeted to begin ramping in 2026, potentially unlocking new revenue streams through unsupervised Full Self-Driving (FSD) deployment.
A next-generation affordable EV platform, possibly under $30,000, is also in advanced planning stages for 2026 or 2027 introduction. On the energy front, the Megapack 3 and larger Megablock systems will drive further deployment scale.
While Q1 highlights transitional challenges in autos, Tesla’s diversified roadmap, spanning refreshed consumer vehicles, commercial trucks, Robotaxis, and explosive energy growth, positions the company for a stronger second half and beyond. Investors will watch Q2 closely for signs of sustained recovery, especially with new vehicles potentially on the horizon.
SpaceX to launch military missile tracking satellites through new Space Force contract
Tesla’s Q1 delivery figures show Elon Musk was right
Tesla reports Q1 deliveries, missing expectations slightly
Elon Musk says Tesla is developing a new vehicle: ‘Way cooler than a minivan’
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
