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?
After launching in Austin, Texas, last week, Tesla is looking to expand the Cybercab to new parts of the United States in an effort that will see the driverless, steering wheel-less, and pedal-less vehicle chauffeur people around as part of the Robotaxi ride-hailing service.
However, the expansion will go far beyond the United States, and CEO Elon Musk revealed he hopes Europe will be the next market where Cybercab will be operational.
Musk has publicly expressed hope that Tesla’s Cybercab robotaxi will reach Europe in the near future.
On September 8, Tesla’s Chief Executive quoted a German rider who had just completed a trip in Austin, Texas, and wrote that he hoped the vehicle would not take years to arrive in Germany. Musk replied with a short but notable message: “Hopefully soon in Europe too.”
Hopefully soon in Europe too https://t.co/vqQ69bLJuN
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 8, 2026
The comment arrived only days after Tesla opened Cybercab ride-hailing to the public in Austin. The two-seat vehicle has no steering wheel or pedals and relies entirely on Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software. Early passengers have described the rides as quiet, smooth, and more stylish than competing robotaxis such as Waymo.
Austin is currently the only city where members of the public can hail a Cybercab through Tesla’s Robotaxi app. The initial fleet is small; Texas registration records show only a few dozen of the purpose-built vehicles on the road.
Tesla set to open Cybercab rides to the public, with no steering wheel or pedals
Tesla has also been operating a larger number of conventional Model Y robotaxis in the same area, but the Cybercab itself represents the company’s first dedicated, controls-free taxi design.
Europe presents a different regulatory picture. The European Union does not permit manufacturers to self-certify vehicles the way Tesla did in the United States.
Type-approval rules and a small-series limit of 1,500 automated vehicles per type per year apply across the bloc.
Supervised Full Self-Driving has gained provisional approval in several member states through national recognition of Dutch certification, yet unsupervised robotaxi operation remains a separate and more distant step. Tesla has not announced a European launch city, date, or approval pathway for the Cybercab.
Musk himself has previously cautioned that the company does not control European regulators. In an earnings call earlier in 2026, he noted that even supervised FSD took an “immense amount of time” to clear and that unsupervised service would be “somewhat at the mercy of the governments in Europe and the EU.”
The latest social-media remark therefore functions more as an expression of intent than a timetable.
If the Cybercab eventually reaches European streets, it would mark a significant expansion of Tesla’s robotaxi ambitions beyond the United States. For now, the vehicle remains an Austin-only experience, and the gap between Musk’s hope and actual deployment will be decided by regulators rather than by engineering alone.
Tesla Cybercab might have just rolled out to the public as it entered the company’s Robotaxi suite in Austin this past week. However, the vehicle might already be on its way to becoming even better, as the company is asking riders to describe what they’d like to see improved with the Cybercab.
Tesla sent a rider experience survey to Cybercab passengers only days after paid rides began in Austin. The questionnaire asks how satisfied riders were with the overall trip. Then it requests star ratings for availability and wait time, door functionality, vehicle touchscreen, mobile app experience, seat comfort, interior space, ride comfort, cleanliness, and cargo space.
A later section asks which features riders would most like to have and allows selection of up to three items from a list that includes heated seats, ventilated seats, fully reclining seats, a tray table, a wireless phone charger, a better sound system, and more storage. Respondents may also choose none of these or write in another idea. The survey closes with a recommendation score from zero to ten.
Tesla just sent out a Cybercab rider experience survey so you can give feedback to the team. pic.twitter.com/YsU5OYdAjW
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 8, 2026
This rapid request for input illustrates Tesla’s habit of treating early users as collaborators rather than mere customers. The company has long refined vehicles through software updates and hardware changes informed by real-world use across its passenger cars.
Collecting structured opinions so soon after commercial service started shows the same mindset applied to a purpose-built autonomous taxi. The questions themselves reveal an openness to cabin changes even after the first vehicles reached public streets, which is no surprise.
Tesla has always hoped to cater a great experience to anyone in its vehicles, which is why so many fan-requested features have made it into its vehicles.
Replies already circulating online favor reclining seats, tray tables, wireless charging, improved audio, and extra room when seats fold back.
Tesla Cybercabs narrowly miss deadly Amazon cargo plane crash
Those preferences point toward comfort upgrades that Tesla can implement in later production batches or through cabin revisions. Because the Cybercab is designed around software first principles, many requested amenities can arrive faster than in traditional automakers.
Tesla’s willingness to survey riders immediately after launch therefore makes near-term cabin and experience improvements likely as the team reviews responses and iterates toward a more refined robotaxi people will choose daily.
Tesla Cybertruck Lead Engineer Wes Morrill revealed the company has made several changes to the all-electric pickup, which he calls a “living thing, constantly evolving and improving.”
Cybertruck is manufactured at Tesla’s Gigafactory Texas just outside of Austin, and over the past few years, Tesla has continued to make small changes to the pickup to improve everything from cost, reliability, serviceablility, and manufacturability.
“The finish line isn’t getting to production. A product is a living thing, constantly evolving and improving,” Morrill added.
RELATED:
Tesla Cybertruck AWD is a steal at $60k, is it still at $75k? Full Review
Some of those changes are yet to be revealed, but perhaps the most notable one was the change Tesla made to the aero shield that sits underneath the truck. In the past, it was aluminum, but now the Cybertruck is using a self-reinforcing polypropylene.
Morrill said that the polypropylene is “stretched into fibers and then laminated into the form,” and is much more durable, much lighter, and significantly cheaper than aluminum when it is manufactured this way.
It also enabled some improvements in the geometry of the Cybertruck, improving the manufacturing around the bolts and edges, in addition to minor form changes. These all benefitted the Cybertruck in more ways than one: specifically with durability and improved drag.
I was surprised by how interested people were to find out we made a relatively benign change to the Cybertruck aero shield, a part of the car most people never even see. So I’ll share some more details.
Here are two photos, the left is one of the latest trucks off the… pic.twitter.com/F5cZo2CZKf
— Wes (@wmorrill3) September 7, 2026
Typically, Teslas are not necessarily identified by model year because these changes are fluid and occur when the company sees fit to implement them. It is not like other automotive companies, which usually make sweeping manufacturing changes when building a new model year.
Instead, Teslas are recognized by their “generation” or “era.” For example, those with a newer Model Y might refer to their car as a “Juniper.” This is the same with Model 3, as many refer to the new body style as the “Highland.”
Tesla’s manufacturing changes are proof of the company’s constant need to improve its products and move things forward with its vehicles. There is no need to drag one’s feet and wait until next year if the product can be made better right now, and that’s precisely what Tesla did with the Cybertruck.
Elon Musk hints at Tesla Cybercab’s next market
Tesla Cybercab improvements are already on the minds of company engineers
