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 readies its autonomous Cybercab and Robotaxi cleaning service
A Texas permit just confirmed Tesla’s cleaning robot is coming to service its Cybercab and Robotaxi fleet.
A routine Texas building permit may have quietly confirmed that Tesla’s robot vacuum and autonomous cleaning bot for the Robotaxi and Cybercab is coming. A state filing with the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, as first discovered by Tesla enthusiast Spencer and posted to X, that project number TABS2025022006, lists the scope of work at Tesla’s Austin Robotaxi hub at 5900 E Ben White Blvd to include a “Cleaning Robot” alongside Supercharger cabinets and an Equipment Inspection System.
Tesla first showed the cleaning robot publicly on January 31, 2025, posting a short video on X with the caption “This robot sucks,” showing a large robotic arm inside a Cybercab cabin switching between attachments to vacuum debris, pick up trash, and wipe down surfaces.
The operational case for this hardware comes down to mathematics. A robotaxi running rides across Austin needs to cycle passengers continuously to generate revenue. Every minute a vehicle sits waiting for a human cleaning crew is a minute it is not earning. A robotic arm that can fully clean a Cybercab cabin between rides in under two minutes removes one of the key bottlenecks in fleet utilization that no autonomous vehicle company has yet solved at scale.
This robot sucks pic.twitter.com/VUmGfCM5B3
— Tesla (@Tesla) January 31, 2025
The 5900 E Ben White Blvd address sits roughly 12 miles southwest of Gigafactory Texas, where Tesla has been mass producing its Cybercab. The Ben White facility is expected to functions as Tesla’s Austin Robotaxi Hub, the physical base of operations where fleet vehicles return between rides to charge, get cleaned, and undergo inspection before being dispatched again – and all autonomously. One can imagine a Cybercab dropping off a passenger, routes itself back to Ben White, pulls into the cleaning station, charges on one of the Supercharger cabinets listed in the same permit, passes the equipment inspection system, and returns to service, all without a human making a single decision.
The sighting activity around both locations has accelerated in parallel with production. By mid-March 2026, Cybercabs were spotted regularly on public roads across Austin and Silicon Valley. Tesla’s Robotaxi operations in Texas has expanded to cover the entire Austin metro area and has spread to Dallas, while autonomous Cybercab employee shuttle runs at Gigafactory Texas are also set to begin soon. What it represents is the physical infrastructure behind a fleet that Tesla intends to run without anyone cleaning, driving, or dispatching it by hand.
SpaceX is preparing for the 13th integrated flight test of its Starship system, with a targeted launch as early as Thursday, July 16. The 90-minute launch window opens at 5:45 p.m. CT from Starbase in South Texas.
This comes roughly seven weeks after Flight 12 on May 22, underscoring the company’s accelerating pace in its rapid development campaign. The mission will use the latest Starship and Super Heavy V3 vehicles equipped with Raptor 3 engines. Booster 20 will attempt a controlled boostback burn, followed by a splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico, while Ship 40 will follow a suborbital trajectory.
Starship’s thirteenth flight test is preparing to launch as early as Thursday, July 16 → https://t.co/Rp7VwBzpWx pic.twitter.com/jdpFlQUEpF
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) July 11, 2026
Key objectives for Flight 13 will include demonstrating reliable stage separation, engine performance under various conditions, and controlled reentry.
A major milestone for Flight 13 is the first deployment of 20 next-generation Starlink V3 satellites. These satellites feature advanced laser links for inter-satellite communication, deployable solar arrays, and onboard cameras, six of which will capture imagery of Starship’s heat shield during flight.
Several heat shield tiles on Ship 40 will be painted white to serve as imaging targets, while additional experiments test upgraded tiles on aft flaps, modified attachments on the aft skirt, and load-sensing tiles to measure stresses. The upper stage will also attempt a single Raptor engine relight in space before a targeted splashdown in the Indian Ocean.
These tests build directly on lessons from Flight 12, which introduced the V3 configuration but encountered issues including a booster flip anomaly during boostback and an engine-out event on the ship. Hardware and software modifications on Booster 20 and Ship 40 aim to improve engine relight reliability, startup sequencing, and overall robustness.
Next Starship launch aiming for Thursday https://t.co/SajPPd4pdb
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 12, 2026
The short interval between Flights 12 and 13 highlights SpaceX’s iterative approach. Elon Musk has repeatedly emphasized that Starship launches will become “incredibly common” in the coming years.
The company envisions scaling to rates as high as one launch per hour within 4-5 years, potentially enabling thousands of flights annually. Such cadence is essential for Starship’s goals: establishing orbital refueling for lunar and Mars missions, deploying massive satellite constellations, and making life multiplanetary.
With each flight, Starship edges closer to full reusability and operational maturity. Success on July 16 would mark another step toward routine access to space and the ambitious vision of humanity becoming a spacefaring civilization.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Tesla readies its autonomous Cybercab and Robotaxi cleaning service
SpaceX reveals Starship Flight 13 launch date
