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
NASA’s first human outpost on the Moon starts now – SpaceX on deck
NASA named the rovers, landers, and vendors that will build America’s first Moon Base.
NASA has laid out its most detailed Moon Base plan to date, describing a permanent outpost near the Moon’s south pole that the agency intends to build over the coming decade as a direct stepping stone to Mars. “The Moon Base will be America’s and humanity’s first outpost on another celestial world,” NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said, adding that every mission crewed and uncrewed “will be a learning opportunity as we return to the lunar surface, build the infrastructure to stay, and master the skills required to live and operate in one of the most demanding and dangerous environments imaginable.”
The plan is structured in three phases involving both uncrewed and crewed missions to deliver equipment, vehicles, and infrastructure to the surface, with the first three moon base missions targeted to launch before the end of 2026.
Moon Base I, targeting fall 2026, will use Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Mark 1 lander to deliver scientific instruments to the Shackleton Connecting Ridge, the same region where Artemis astronauts will land. Moon Base II will send Astrobotic’s Griffin lander carrying more than 1,100 pounds of cargo including Astrolab’s FLIP rover to begin developing mobility systems on the surface. Moon Base III will carry the Lunar Vertex science mission on Intuitive Machines’ Nova-C Trinity lander to study lunar swirls near the south pole, with ESA and Korean science payloads aboard.
On the rover side, NASA awarded Astrolab $219 million and Lunar Outpost $220 million to build the first phase of Lunar Terrain Vehicles, with both rovers targeted for deployment to the lunar surface by 2028. Astrolab’s crewed rover weighs roughly 2,000 pounds and can reach over 6 mph. Lunar Outpost’s Pegasus rover can operate autonomously or via remote control at over 9 mph. Blue Origin separately received $188 million with an option worth $280.4 million to deliver cargo landers for rover transport.
NASA also confirmed that MoonFall, a mission deploying four survey drones to scout Artemis landing sites, has selected Firefly Aerospace to build the transport spacecraft, with a 2028 launch target.
SpaceX sits at the center of that commercial layer. SpaceX holds the NASA Human Landing System contract for the Starship-derived lander that will put astronauts on the surface under Artemis IV, currently targeting 2028. Before that can happen, SpaceX must demonstrate in-orbit propellant transfer at scale, a process requiring multiple Starship tanker launches to fuel a single mission. Water ice at the lunar south pole is central to the base’s long-term viability, as it can be converted into drinking water, breathable oxygen, and rocket fuel, directly reducing dependence on Earth resupply. That resource loop becomes far more practical if Starship can land and be refueled on or near the Moon itself.
Elon Musk has publicly stated that Starship V3, which recently completed its first flight, should be capable enough for initial Mars missions. The Moon Base plan announced Tuesday is the infrastructure layer that connects everything between those two ambitions, and SpaceX is the only American company currently contracted to build the rocket that gets humans to either destination.
A new Tesla patent that has been granted to the company this week has revealed a potential strategy for solving a major issue that could impact both the Full Self-Driving suite and Optimus.
The patent, which is No. 12,636,684, describes a “Lens Cleaning System,” and was submitted by Tesla in May 2025.
The language in the patent details a lens cleaning system that can dispense fluid and wipe it away with a wiper assembly.
Optimus can see you now… 🤖👁️
The patent for @Tesla_Optimus‘s eye structure just dropped. $TSLA pic.twitter.com/Jac4VhDmKH
— SETI Park (@seti_park) May 26, 2026
This would effectively clean any debris that would potentially impact the visibility of the cameras on Tesla automobiles or Optimus’s camera eyes. Perhaps the most pertinent example is through the Full Self-Driving suite, as debris that can accumulate on the vehicle’s exterior cameras can impact the suite’s ability to operate effectively.
This requires a remedy through manual cleaning, but this patent hints that Tesla could be planning to implement this new technology on its upcoming vehicles.
Interestingly, we have started to see it on some Robotaxi vehicles, and it will likely be included in the Cybercab, especially as that vehicle will enable full autonomy.
Back in January, the first Model Y Robotaxi units were spotted with camera washers on the side repeaters, as the video below shows fluid squirting and rinsing off any debris that is limiting visibility.
🚨 Tesla looks to have installed Camera Washers on the side repeater cameras on Robotaxis in Austin
pic.twitter.com/xemRtDtlRR— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 23, 2026
This hardware patent does bring up an interesting question for those of us who own Teslas with AI4 and have been told that our cars will one day be capable of full autonomy: Will this washer be available as a retrofit on already-built cars?
Perhaps the “Lens Cleaning System” patent is a good look at one way Tesla plans to combat one of the most obvious issues of autonomy that utilizes a camera-based system. For Optimus, it could be less needed as it could be manually cleaned by owners. For cars, it seems like a bigger necessity, especially as autonomy nears and Tesla gets close to launching a feature-complete FSD suite.
SpaceX’s Starlink product has just gotten its latest airline adoptee, and the move marks the successful partnership of three of the “Big Four” U.S. airlines.
American Airlines announced on Tuesday that it would utilize Starlink in more than 500 narrowbody aircraft beginning in the first quarter of 2027. These include the Airbus aircraft in its fleet, including the new A321XLR and A321neo.
With the new partnership with American Airlines, Starlink is now present on three of the largest airlines in the country: American, United, and Southwest.
Starlink gets its latest airline adoptee for stable and reliable internet access
Starlink’s VP of Enterprise Sales, Jason Fritch, said:
“We are proud to bring Starlink on board American Airlines, delivering fast and reliable internet to passengers and crew. Whether traveling for leisure or business, Starlink enables a fully connected experience gate to gate, making every flight smoother and more enjoyable.”
Additionally, American Airlines Chief Customer Officer, Heather Garboden, said:
“As a premium global airline, we are continuously seeking out world-class partners like Starlink to deliver what our customers need and want. The addition of Starlink solidifies American as a leading airline in keeping passengers connected in flight.”
Starlink has been on a tear over the past year, as it has continued to be adopted by a wide variety of airlines as a more consistent and reliable way to provide WiFi to its passengers. It has already gained a great reputation among residential users, but its biggest commercial application appears to be how it is being used in the air.
American Airlines will adopt Starlink on more than 500 of its narrowbody aircraft beginning in Q1 2027
“As a premium global airline, we are continuously seeking out world-class partners like Starlink to deliver what our customers need and want,” said American Airlines Chief… pic.twitter.com/XY2wflycc0
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 26, 2026
The only airline of the Big Four not to adopt Starlink thus far is Delta, which chose to opt for the alternative, which is Amazon Leo. CEO Ed Bastian said to Bloomberg that Delta chose Amazon’s product over Starlink’s because “the opportunities, in terms of the improved bandwidth with a much lower price point than what we’ve ever seen from Starlink, will make a big difference.”
Delta will not start installing Amazon Leo until 2028.
“Of course, we expect Starlink will be warning people that we’re going to go with an inferior product,” Bastian said. “But I’m not too worried about partnering with Amazon.”
NASA’s first human outpost on the Moon starts now – SpaceX on deck
Tesla patent reveals strategy for solving major Full Self-Driving, Optimus issue
