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?
News
SpaceX’s triple-rocket that launched a Tesla into space is back on a mission
SpaceX Falcon Heavy returns after 18 months away to deliver a satellite that only it could carry.
After an 18-month absence, SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy is returning to mission on Monday morning when it’s scheduled to lift off from Launch Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center at 10:21 a.m. EDT.
The mission is called ViaSat-3 F3, and the heavy satellite payload needs to reach geostationary orbit, sitting 22,236 miles above Earth where its speed matches the planet’s rotation. Getting a satellite that heavy to that altitude demands more thrust than a single-core Falcon 9 can deliver.
This marks the Falcon Heavy’s 12th flight overall since its debut in February 2018, and its first since NASA’s Europa Clipper mission in October 2024.
Arguably, the most exciting element for spectators will be watching the booster recoveries in action when the two side boosters, B1072 and B1075, will attempt simultaneous landings at Landing Zone 2 and the newer Landing Zone 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, while the center core will be expended over the ocean.
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
Following satellite deployment, expected roughly five hours after launch, ViaSat-3 F3 will spend several months traveling to its final orbital slot before undergoing in-orbit testing, with service entry expected by late summer 2026
As Teslarati reported, NASA awarded SpaceX a $175.7 million contract on April 16, 2026 to launch the ESA Rosalind Franklin Mars rover aboard a Falcon Heavy no earlier than late 2028, which would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars. That contract came on top of an already deep pipeline that includes the Roman Space Telescope, the Dragonfly Saturn mission, and multiple national security payloads.
SpaceX executed 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. With Starlink surpassing 10 million subscribers and an IPO targeting a $1.75 trillion valuation still ahead, Monday’s launch is one more data point in a company that has quietly become the backbone of both commercial and government space access worldwide.
Tesla is launching its solution to end Supercharger fights once and for all, eliminating any confusion on who is to charge next at a congested location.
Last year, a notable incident at a Tesla Supercharger led to a fight, and it all stemmed from a disagreement over who arrived at the location first.
Congestion at Tesla Superchargers is a pretty infrequent occurrence for most of us, but there are more congested and popular areas where wait times can be extensive. An unfortunate growing pain of EV ownership is the plain fact that chargers are not as available as gas pumps, and there are, at times, lines to charge.
This can cause tensions to flare and people to get entitled when visiting Superchargers. Nobody wants to spend hours at a Supercharger, but now, there will be no more confusion when there is a queue, and that’s thanks to Tesla’s new Virtual Queue for Superchargers.
Tesla is finally starting to build out the Virtual Supercharger Queue, according to Not a Tesla App, but it still relies on drivers to make it work.
When a driver is near a Supercharger that is full, a message will pop up on the Tesla App, using the driver’s location to determine their eligibility to join the virtual queue.
The app states:
“While the app is closed, Tesla uses your location to notify you of accurate wait times at Superchargers when you arrive.”
Another message within the app states:
“There is a waitlist to charge. Are you sure you want to start a charging session now?”
This sounds as if it will require drivers to act appropriately and only plug in when the app prompts them to do so, by letting them know it is their turn.
The app will notify the driver of their position in the queue, as well as how many vehicles are ahead of them.
Tesla launches first ‘true’ East Coast V4 Supercharger: here’s what that means
The company announced a while back that it would be working on a solution for this issue. Personally, I’ve only had to wait at a Supercharger for a charge on one occasion, and there was a line of between 3 and 10 cars during this singular occurrence.
I’m out at the Lancaster, PA Supercharger and showed up with a queue of three vehicles.
It’s now up to five and there have been several issues with order of arrival and confusion about who is first.
Any update on Supercharger queue? @elonmusk @aelluswamy @r_jegaa
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 31, 2026
There were no conflicts or arguments about who had arrived first, but there was some discussion between several drivers during my time there about who was to charge first. Throw a non-Tesla EV into the mix, one that can only charge at a pull-in spot, and that causes even more of a complication.
News
Tesla offers awesome Free Supercharging incentive on an unexpected vehicle
In the past, Tesla has used Free Supercharging to incentivize the purchase of its expensive vehicles, like the Model S and Model X. However, those vehicles are leaving the company lineup, and Tesla saw a benefit from applying the incentive to another car.
Tesla is offering an awesome new Free Supercharging incentive on a vehicle that is sort of unexpected.
In the past, Tesla has used Free Supercharging to incentivize the purchase of its expensive vehicles, like the Model S and Model X. However, those vehicles are leaving the company lineup, and Tesla saw a benefit from applying the incentive to another car.
Tesla North America has introduced a compelling new incentive aimed at boosting Model 3 sales. Starting with orders placed on or after April 24, buyers of the Model 3 Premium (Long Range) and Performance variants in the United States will receive one full year of complimentary Supercharging.
The offer applies exclusively to new vehicle orders and does not extend to existing owners or other trims like the base Rear-Wheel Drive model.
New orders of Model 3 Premium & Performance now come with 1 year of free Supercharging 🇺🇸
Also, all Teslas pay the lowest Supercharging rates – all others pay a ~40% premium or need a subscription
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) April 24, 2026
The announcement underscores Tesla’s continued dominance in EV charging infrastructure.
While the incentive provides 12 months of zero-cost access to the Supercharger network, Tesla also reiterated its pricing structure: all Tesla vehicles receive the lowest Supercharging rates.
Non-Tesla EVs, by contrast, pay approximately 40 percent more per kWh or must purchase a subscription to access the network at standard rates. This tiered approach highlights the strategic value of owning a Tesla, where seamless integration with the world’s largest and most reliable fast-charging network remains a key differentiator.
For prospective buyers, the savings can be substantial. Depending on driving habits, a typical Model 3 owner might log 12,000–15,000 miles annually.
With average Supercharging costs around $0.40–$0.50 per kWh, one year of free sessions could translate to $800–$1,200 in avoided expenses.
That effectively lowers the total cost of ownership and makes long-distance travel more affordable from day one. Early delivery customers have already noted similar past incentives, with one Cybertruck owner reporting over $2,400 saved in just six months under similar offers that Tesla has deployed in the past.
The timing of the offer appears strategic. Tesla faces growing competition from other automakers expanding their own charging networks and offering aggressive EV incentives.
By bundling free Supercharging rather than discounting the vehicle’s MSRP, Tesla preserves perceived value while directly addressing one of the biggest barriers for new EV adopters: charging costs and convenience.
The move also encourages higher-mileage use of the network, generating valuable real-world data for Tesla’s autonomous driving development.
Why Tesla would apply this incentive to the Model 3 is pretty interesting. It usually is a pretty good incentive to move units out the door, so there’s some speculation whether Tesla is planning to launch new upgrades to the mass-market sedan in the coming months, and the company wants to move what will be outdated units from its inventory.
However, there is also just the idea that Tesla could be attempting to stimulate some early quarter demand for the Model 3, especially as the Model Y continues to sell very well. Tesla’s loss of the $7,500 EV tax credit last year had an impact on sales, and Tesla might be testing some formidable options to see if it can add some demand once again.
SpaceX’s triple-rocket that launched a Tesla into space is back on a mission
The FCC just said ‘No’ to SpaceX for now
