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?
Lifestyle
Tesla’s newest feature lets you floor it out of a Supercharger while plugged in
Tesla’s new Emergency Drive Away feature lets owners flee a Supercharger while still plugged in.
Tesla has given drivers a way to escape while a vehicle is plugged-in at a Supercharger, in the event of an emergency. The company’s charging team announced a new feature on X called Emergency Drive Away, which lets a driver shift into Drive and pull away while the charging cable is still connected to the car.
Until now, a Tesla would not leave Park with a charge cable plugged in. Drivers had to release the latch from the touchscreen, the Tesla app, or the button on the charge handle, then wait for the port to let go. Emergency Drive Away removes that lockout, but Tesla is clear that it comes at a cost. “Use of this feature will damage your vehicle and the Supercharger,” the company wrote, adding that the function is meant for emergencies only and that deliberate misuse will lead to “additional penalties.” Tesla did not say what those penalties are.
Emergency Drive Away lets you shift into Drive while still plugged into a Supercharger pic.twitter.com/40GSzyP4lG
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) October 1, 2026
The in-car prompt is just as direct, with the warning reading: “Driving with the cable connected will cause damage to your vehicle and the Supercharger. Short camera recordings will be shared with Tesla.” That footage gives Tesla a way to separate a real emergency from someone who simply did not want to wait for the latch.
The feature requires software update 2026.38.3, and Tesla said in replies to owners that it works at every Supercharger in the United States without new stall hardware. Model S and Model X vehicles built before 2021 are not supported, and the company says the feature applies to U.S. Superchargers “for now,” leaving Canada and other markets out at launch.
Tesla Supercharger argument leads to tragic shooting incident
Tesla did not tie the announcement to any specific event, but it arrives two months after a gunman opened fire at an In-N-Out in Twin Falls, Idaho, on August 1, targeting three people in two Teslas at the neighboring Supercharger. One of them, a 66 year old man from Salt Lake City, was killed. Superchargers have been the scene of violence before, including a fatal shooting at a station near Denver in 2023.
In the weeks after Twin Falls, owners pushed Tesla for a native way to escape a stall, and many pointed back to EVject, the aftermarket breakaway connector Tesla sued in 2024 over claims it lacked overtemperature protection. The two companies later reached an agreement that led EVject to recall its earlier connectors in favor of a version with thermal sensors.
Our mission has always been about providing peace of mind and eliminating sitting duck scenarios.
We patented the built-in breakaway charger tip on Feb 15, 2023. Awarded Jan 30, 2024. Then shared the designs with @TeslaCharging
Thank you @Tesla for rolling out a solution. This… https://t.co/djOzswLw9N
— EVject (@EVject) October 2, 2026
Tesla announced on Monday that the Roadster event scheduled for today would be postponed due to the need for it to be held outside.
Less than 24 hours later, CEO Elon Musk broadened that by stating it was due to high winds, immediately sending everyone into a frenzy over the Roadster’s potential ability to fly.
And realistically, it could definitely have to do with it flying, hovering, or hopping; whatever Tesla has in mind for this demonstration could not be impacted by wind. However, it might have nothing to do with the vehicle flying whatsoever, and instead could be a simple precaution, as the Roadster is a very unique vehicle with some already official specs that are just mind-blowing.
Tesla will very, very likely be showcasing both the acceleration rate and potentially even a top speed demo at the event in Waco. Both of these demonstrations, performed with a vehicle that has such incredibly fast metrics, could easily be impacted by wind as well.
Tesla Roadster event requires restricted airspace, and the FAA obliges
Top Speed Demo
At high speeds, aerodynamic forces are already overwhelmingly present. A crosswind or sudden gust adds a layer of sideways force that the tires must counter with slip angle. On a short demo course, that force can shove the car off the intended line, especially in a light car with a low frontal area and little mass to resist the push.
Electric cars, due to their battery packs, have an advantage of an extremely low center of gravity, giving them extra stability. However, the speeds at which the Roadster could travel at the demo could spell some issues if crosswinds are present.
Gusts are worse than a steady wind because the load changes faster than a driver can smoothly correct. That shows up as weaving or a late correction. Headwinds and tailwinds can also spell disaster. Headwinds cut a measured top speed but raise the power needed to get there or maintain it. Meanwhile, a tailwind can inflate the top speed, and downforce issues could become more noticeable.
Wind also loads the body unevenly. A low car can feel light on the upwind side or see a sudden change in downforce if the gust hits a wing or diffuser at an angle. Tire temperature and pressure might stay near a normal level, but lateral grip can be lost as the vehicle is spent fighting the wind.
Acceleration Demo
Launch and 0-60 MPH runs are shorter, so the car spends less time exposed to forces that could cause things to go awry. However, the first second is very sensitive, as a crosswind at launch could yaw the car before speed builds and prior to aerodynamic impact being too great. The driver will be required to correct traction control or manage how much the wheels are spinning, which will likely be corrected automatically by some sort of traction control system within the Roadster (we are fairly certain Tesla will implement something brilliant with it).
These things could cause an unstable run.
A headwind would increase drag as speed rises, while a tailwind would do the opposite. Meanwhile, surface effects, like wind-driven dust, light debris, or even rain, could reduce grip at the exact moment the tires are asked for peak longitudinal force. Standing water plus a crosswind is a common reason an acceleration attempt might be scrapped.
Flying or Not
No matter what Tesla has in store for the Roadster, waiting for ideal conditions is a great idea. People who follow and support the company, along with the engineers involved in the Roadster program, have been waiting nine years since the last unveiling for this moment. Everything should be ideal.
Some speculate that it’s just not ready, and that’s ridiculous. Why would Tesla even schedule the event — albeit prematurely — after nine years if it was not ready? Why would they jump the gun now?
We were all excited for today, but it truly is the most ideal thing in the world to wait two more weeks so everything, including the weather, can be perfect. The delay is simply worth it. But Tesla, seriously, make this the last one.
Elon Musk
SpaceX nails “Lucky 13” astronaut launch, leaning into Tesla tradition and superstition
SpaceX launched Crew-13 astronauts to the ISS Thursday, setting up a record fast Dragon docking.
SpaceX launched NASA’s Crew-13 mission to the International Space Station on Thursday morning, getting four astronauts to orbit despite a forecast of thunderstorms and gusty winds that had threatened to push the flight to Friday.
Falcon 9 lifted off from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station at 11:10 a.m. ET carrying Dragon Grace, NASA confirmed. On board are NASA commander Jessica Watkins, NASA pilot Luke Delaney, Canadian Space Agency astronaut Joshua Kutryk and Roscosmos cosmonaut Sergey Teteryatnikov. The first stage booster, B1101, landed at Landing Zone 40 beside the pad on its third flight after previously supporting Crew-12 and a Starlink mission.
Liftoff of Crew-13! pic.twitter.com/vteT0DXMTh
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) October 1, 2026
It was the first spaceflight for Delaney, Kutryk and Teteryatnikov. Watkins, who flew on Crew-4 in 2022, became the first NASA astronaut to launch aboard a Crew Dragon twice.
Before launch, the crew rode to the pad in Teslas, a tradition on NASA’s SpaceX crew flights since 2020. This time the cars carried specialty plates reading “Lucky 13.” Watkins said the mission patch leans into the number on purpose, as a nod to Apollo 13 and the resilience of that crew.
Grace is now on a short trip to the station. Docking at the forward port of the Harmony module is scheduled for about 7 p.m. ET, roughly 7 hours and 50 minutes after liftoff, which Space.com notes would be the fastest Crew Dragon transit to the ISS yet. Most Dragon flights take around 15 to 24 hours to catch the station. Hatch opening is planned for 8:25 p.m. ET.
The launch came more than two weeks later than originally planned. An oxidizer leak was found in Grace’s propulsion system in August, and NASA and SpaceX added time for tests. That pushed back the return of Crew-12, which has been aboard the station since February and is now set to splash down off Southern California next week. Crew-13 is expected to stay about six months.
SpaceX rescue mission for stranded ISS astronauts nears end — Here’s when they’ll return home
SpaceX already holds NASA orders for crew rotations through Crew-17, while Boeing is preparing an uncrewed Starliner flight to the station as early as December.
Crew-13 was only the first of three SpaceX launches planned for Thursday, as Teslarati previewed on Wednesday. A Falcon 9 launched its Transporter-18 mission from California today, where Google will be launching its first orbital artificial intelligence (AI) test satellite. Meanwhile, Falcon Heavy is set to launch the classified NROL-97 mission for the National Reconnaissance Office from Launch Complex 39A at 11:53 p.m. ET. Its two side boosters will return to Landing Zones 1 and 2, which means Central Florida could hear up to three sonic booms in a single day. The busy stretch follows Starship’s Flight 14 on Monday, which reached orbit for the first time.
Tesla’s newest feature lets you floor it out of a Supercharger while plugged in
Why Tesla Roadster unveiling delay might have nothing to do with it flying
