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?
The Tesla Model Y became the first-ever car to reach a legendary Norwegian milestone, surpassing 100,000 new registrations after gaining a reputation as one of the most popular vehicles in the country and the world.
As of May 20, Norwegian authorities have registered 100,224 units of the electric SUV, according to data from local outlet Opplysningsrådet for veitrafikken (OFV).
By population, roughly one in every 29 passenger cars on Norwegian roads is now a Model Y, underscoring its rapid rise as a national favorite.
Since the first deliveries in August 2021, the Model Y has transformed from a newcomer to a staple in Norwegian traffic.
Tesla back on top as Norway’s EV market surges to 98% share in February
Geir Inge Stokke, the Managing Director of OFV, described the achievement as “remarkable,” noting that few single models have gained such traction so quickly. “Tesla Model Y has hit the Norwegian market spot on, and the numbers illustrate how fast the EV market has developed here,” Stokke said.
The Model Y’s success reflects Norway’s aggressive push toward electrification. Nearly nine out of ten units, 87.6 percent, to be exact, are privately registered, with the remaining 12.4 percent on company plates. Owners span the country, from major cities to smaller municipalities, proving it is no longer just an urban or niche vehicle but a true “people’s car.
Who is Buying Tesla Model Ys in Norway?
Typical Model Y drivers are men in their early 40s. The average registered user age is 44, with 83 percent male and 17 percent female. Stokke noted that household usage often extends beyond the primary registrant, broadening the vehicle’s real-world appeal.
Geographically, adoption concentrates in urban centers with strong charging infrastructure. Oslo leads with 16,861 registrations (16.82 percent of the national total), followed by Bergen (7,450), Bærum (4,313), and Trondheim (4,240).
The top five municipalities—Oslo, Bergen, Bærum, Trondheim, and Asker—account for 35,463 units, or about 35 percent of all Model Ys. Yet the vehicle’s presence outside big cities highlights its broad acceptance.
Growth Trajectory and Popularity
Tesla built a lot of sales momentum in a short amount of time. In 2021, registrations closed out at 8,267, but more than doubled to more than 17,000 units in 2022 and more than 23,000 units in 2023. 2025 was the company’s strongest year yet, as Tesla managed to record 27,621 registrations.
Through 2026, Tesla already has 7,036 registrations.
Tesla’s Global Success with the Model Y
Tesla has tasted so much success with the Model Y; it has been the best-selling car in the world three times, it has dominated EV sales in numerous countries, and contributed to a mass adoption of electric vehicles across the planet.
As Stokke emphasized, the Model Y’s journey from newcomer to icon mirrors Norway’s broader success story. With robust incentives that push sales, excellent infrastructure, and consumer eagerness to transition to sustainable powertrains, the country continues setting global benchmarks in sustainable mobility.
The Tesla Model Y stands as a shining example of how quickly change can happen when conditions align.
SpaceX has disclosed the full financial details of its groundbreaking agreement with Anthropic, confirming that the AI company will pay $1.25 billion per month for dedicated high-performance computing resources.
The revelation came through SpaceX’s latest securities filing in preparation for its initial public offering, shedding light on one of the largest compute deals in the artificial intelligence sector to date. The prospectus was released last night, as SpaceX is heading toward its IPO.
This arrangement underscores the fierce demand for specialized infrastructure as frontier AI models require unprecedented levels of processing power to train and operate effectively. Industry analysts see the disclosure as a significant milestone, highlighting how top AI labs are locking in massive capacity to stay ahead in a rapidly accelerating field.
For SpaceX, it feels like a massive move that pushes its perception as a company from space exploration to artificial intelligence.
SpaceX is following in Tesla’s footsteps in a way nobody expected
The comprehensive deal grants Anthropic exclusive access to SpaceX’s Colossus clusters, encompassing Colossus I and the substantially expanded Colossus II, which together deliver hundreds of megawatts of power along with more than 200,000 NVIDIA GPUs.
Payments extend through May 2029, totaling nearly $45 billion overall; capacity is scheduled to ramp up during May and June 2026 at an initial discounted rate to facilitate seamless integration. Both companies retain the option to terminate the agreement with ninety days’ notice, so there is definitely some flexibility for both.
This pact not only enhances Anthropic’s ability to scale usage limits for Claude users but also injects substantial recurring revenue into SpaceX, bolstering its expansion into advanced data center operations and future orbital computing initiatives.
Observers describe the collaboration between the two companies as strategically advantageous because it gives Anthropic cutting-edge AI development the opportunity to collaborate with SpaceX’s expertise in rapid, large-scale infrastructure deployment.
This disclosure arrives at a pivotal moment when computing resources have become the primary bottleneck for AI progress.
As leading organizations compete to build more powerful systems, securing reliable, high-density facilities has emerged as a key differentiator.
SpaceX’s sites, such as those in Memphis, offer superior power availability and advanced cooling solutions that set them apart from conventional providers. For Anthropic, the added capacity is expected to deliver tangible improvements, including extended context windows, quicker inference times, and innovative features that appeal to both enterprise clients and individual users.
Looking ahead, the partnership paves the way for ambitious joint projects, including potential space-based AI compute platforms designed to overcome terrestrial limitations on energy and thermal management. Such efforts could redefine sustainable computing at massive scales.
Financially, the deal solidifies SpaceX’s diverse revenue profile ahead of its public market debut, extending beyond traditional aerospace activities. The massive check SpaceX will cash each month opens up the idea that additional
While some experts question the sustainability of these enormous expenditures given ongoing efficiency gains in AI architectures, the commitment reflects a strong belief in sustained demand growth.
The agreement also exemplifies productive synergies across sectors, with aerospace engineering insights optimizing AI hardware performance. As global attention on technology concentration increases, arrangements of this nature may help shape equitable access to critical resources.
Elon Musk
SpaceX just filed for the IPO everyone was waiting for
SpaceX filed its public S-1, revealing $18.7 billion in revenue and billions in losses.
SpaceX publicly filed its S-1 registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2026, making its financial details available to the public for the first time ahead of what could be the largest IPO in history.
An S-1 is the formal document a company must submit to the SEC before going public. It includes audited financials, risk factors, business descriptions, and how the company plans to use the money it raises. Companies are required to file one before selling shares to the public, and it must be published at least 15 days before the investor roadshow begins. SpaceX had already submitted a confidential draft to the SEC in April, which allowed regulators to review the filing privately before it went public.
The S-1 reveals that SpaceX generated $18.7 billion in consolidated revenue in 2025, driven largely by its Starlink satellite internet division, which posted $11.4 billion in revenue, growing nearly 50% year over year. Despite that growth, the company lost about $4.9 billion in 2025 and has burned through more than $37 billion since its founding.
SpaceX just forced Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to team up for the first time in history
A significant portion of those losses trace back to xAI, Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company, which was recently merged into SpaceX. SpaceX directed roughly 60% of its capital spending in 2025 to its AI division, totaling around $20 billion, yet that division lost billions and grew revenue by only about 22%.
SpaceX plans to list its Class A common stock on Nasdaq under the ticker SPCX, with Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America leading the offering. The dual-class share structure means going public will not meaningfully reduce Musk’s control, as Class B shares he holds carry 10 votes per share compared to one vote for public Class A shares.
The company is targeting a raise of around $75 billion at a valuation of roughly $1.75 trillion, which would make it the largest IPO ever. The investor roadshow is reportedly planned for June 5.
Tesla Model Y becomes first-ever car to reach legendary milestone
SpaceX reveals what Anthropic will pay for massive compute deal
