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
Tesla CEO Elon Musk drops massive bomb about Cybercab
“And there is so much to this car that is not obvious on the surface,” Musk said.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk dropped a massive bomb about the Cybercab, which is the company’s fully autonomous ride-hailing vehicle that will enter production later this year.
The Cybercab was unveiled back in October 2024 at the company’s “We, Robot” event in Los Angeles, and is among the major catalysts for the company’s growth in the coming years. It is expected to push Tesla into a major growth phase, especially as the automaker is transitioning into more of an AI and Robotics company than anything else.
The Cybercab will enable completely autonomous ride-hailing for Tesla, and although its other vehicles will also be capable of this technology, the Cybercab is slightly different. It will have no steering wheel or pedals, and will allow two occupants to travel from Point A to Point B with zero responsibilities within the car.
Tesla shares epic 2025 recap video, confirms start of Cybercab production
Details on the Cybercab are pretty face value at this point: we know Tesla is enabling 1-2 passengers to ride in it at a time, and this strategy was based on statistics that show most ride-hailing trips have no more than two occupants. It will also have in-vehicle entertainment options accessible from the center touchscreen.
It will also have wireless charging capabilities, which were displayed at “We, Robot,” and there could be more features that will be highly beneficial to riders, offering a full-fledged autonomous experience.
Musk dropped a big hint that there is much more to the Cybercab than what we know, as a post on X said that “there is so much to this car that is not obvious on the surface.”
And there is so much to this car that is not obvious on the surface
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 2, 2026
As the Cybercab is expected to enter production later this year, Tesla is surely going to include a handful of things they have not yet revealed to the public.
Musk seems to be indicating that some of the features will make it even more groundbreaking, and the idea is to enable a truly autonomous experience from start to finish for riders. Everything from climate control to emergency systems, and more, should be included with the car.
It seems more likely than not that Tesla will make the Cybercab its smartest vehicle so far, as if its current lineup is not already extremely intelligent, user-friendly, and intuitive.
Investor's Corner
Tesla Q4 delivery numbers are better than they initially look: analyst
The Deepwater Asset Management Managing Partner shared his thoughts in a post on his website.
Longtime Tesla analyst and Deepwater Asset Management Managing Partner Gene Munster has shared his insights on Tesla’s Q4 2025 deliveries. As per the analyst, Tesla’s numbers are actually better than they first appear.
Munster shared his thoughts in a post on his website.
Normalized December Deliveries
Munster noted that Tesla delivered 418k vehicles in the fourth quarter of 2025, slightly below Street expectations of 420k but above the whisper number of 415k. Tesla’s reported 16% year-over-year decline, compared to +7% in September, is largely distorted by the timing of the tax credit expiration, which pulled forward demand.
“Taking a step back, we believe September deliveries pulled forward approximately 55k units that would have otherwise occurred in December or March. For simplicity, we assume the entire pull-forward impacted the December quarter. Under this assumption, September growth would have been down ~5% absent the 55k pull-forward, a Deepwater estimate tied to the credit’s expiration.
“For December deliveries to have declined ~5% year over year would imply total deliveries of roughly 470k. Subtracting the 55k units pulled into September results in an implied December delivery figure of approximately 415k. The reported 418k suggests that, when normalizing for the tax credit timing, quarter-over-quarter growth has been consistently down ~5%. Importantly, this ~5% decline represents an improvement from the ~13% declines seen in both the March and June 2025 quarters.“
Tesla’s United States market share
Munster also estimated that Q4 as a whole might very well show a notable improvement in Tesla’s market share in the United States.
“Over the past couple of years, based on data from Cox Automotive, Tesla has been losing U.S. EV market share, declining to just under 50%. Based on data for October and November, Cox estimates that total U.S. EV sales were down approximately 35%, compared to Tesla’s just reported down 16% for the full quarter. For the first two months of the quarter, Cox reported Tesla market share of roughly a 65% share, up from under 50% in the September quarter.
“While this data excludes December, the quarter as a whole is likely to show a material improvement in Tesla’s U.S. EV market share.“
Elon Musk
Tesla analyst breaks down delivery report: ‘A step in the right direction’
“This will be viewed as better than feared deliveries and a step in the right direction for the Tesla story heading into 2026,” Ives wrote.
Tesla analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush released a new note on Friday morning just after the company released production and delivery figures for Q4 and the full year of 2025, stating that the numbers, while slightly underwhelming, are “better than feared” and as “a step in the right direction.”
Tesla reported production of 434,358 and deliveries of 418,227 for the fourth quarter, while 1,654,667 vehicles were produced and 1,636,129 cars were delivered for the full year.
Tesla releases Q4 and FY 2025 vehicle delivery and production report
Interestingly, the company posted its own consensus figures that were compiled from various firms on its website a few days ago, where expectations were set at 1,640,752 cars for the year. Tesla fell about 4,000 units short of that. One of the areas where Tesla excelled was energy deployments, which totaled 46.7 GWh for the year.
🚨 Wedbush’s Dan Ives has released a new note on Tesla $TSLA:
“Tesla announced its FY4Q25 delivery numbers this morning coming in at 418.2k vehicles slightly below the company’s consensus delivery estimate of 422.9k but much better than the whisper numbers of ~410k as the…
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 2, 2026
In terms of vehicle deliveries, Ives writes that Tesla certainly has some things to work through if it wants to return to growth in that aspect, especially with the loss of the $7,500 tax credit in the U.S. and “continuous headwinds” for the company in Europe.
However, Ives also believes that, given the delivery numbers, which were on par with expectations, Tesla is positioned well for a strong 2026, especially with its AI focus, Robotaxi and Cybercab development, and energy:
“This will be viewed as better than feared deliveries and a step in the right direction for the Tesla story heading into 2026. We look forward to hearing more at the company’s 4Q25 call on January 28th. AI Valuation – The Focus Throughout 2026. We believe Tesla could reach a $2 trillion market cap over the coming year and, in a bull case scenario, $3 trillion by the end of 2026…as full-scale volume production begins with the autonomous and robotics roadmap…The company has started to test the all-important Cybercab in Austin over the past few weeks, which is an incremental step towards launching in 2026 with important volume production of Cybercabs starting in April/May, which remains the golden goose in unlocking TSLA’s AI valuation.”
It’s no secret that for the past several years, Tesla’s vehicle delivery numbers have been the main focus of investors and analysts have looked at them as an indicator of company health to a certain extent. The problem with that narrative in 2025 and 2026 is that Tesla is now focusing more on the deployment of Full Self-Driving, its Optimus project, AI development, and Cybercab.
While vehicle deliveries still hold importance, it is more crucial to note that Tesla’s overall environment as a business relies on much more than just how many cars are purchased. That metric, to a certain extent, is fading in importance in the grand scheme of things, but it will never totally disappear.
Ives and Wedbush maintained their $600 price target and an ‘Outperform’ rating on the stock.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk drops massive bomb about Cybercab
Tesla Q4 delivery numbers are better than they initially look: analyst
