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
Tesla influencers argue company’s polarizing Full Self-Driving transfer decision
Tesla maintains it will honor transfers for orders with initial delivery windows before the deadline and offers full deposit refunds otherwise, citing longstanding fine print that the program is “subject to change at any time.”
Tesla’s decision to tighten its Full Self-Driving (FSD) transfer promotion has ignited fierce debate among owners and enthusiasts.
The company quietly updated its terms in late February 2026, changing the eligibility from “order by March 31, 2026” to “take delivery by March 31, 2026.”
What began as a flexible incentive to boost sales, allowing buyers to transfer their paid FSD (Supervised) to a new vehicle, now excludes many, particularly Cybertruck owners facing delivery delays into summer or later.
Tesla maintains it will honor transfers for orders with initial delivery windows before the deadline and offers full deposit refunds otherwise, citing longstanding fine print that the program is “subject to change at any time.”
The reversal has polarized the Tesla community, with accusations of a “bait-and-switch” clashing against defenses of corporate pragmatism. Many owners who placed orders under the original wording feel betrayed, especially as production backlogs and new unsupervised FSD rollout complicate timelines.
However, Tesla has allowed them to cancel their orders and receive a refund.
Critics of the decision argue that the change disadvantages loyal customers who helped fund FSD development, calling it poor communication and a revenue grab as Tesla pivots toward subscriptions.
Popular influencers have amplified the divide. Whole Mars Catalog struck a measured but firm tone, acknowledging the original “order by” language but emphasizing Tesla’s right to adjust terms. He has continued to defend Tesla in this particular issue:
Sad to see so many fans trashing Tesla with such extreme language.
LIARS!!! PATHETIC!!! And if you aren’t as furious and angry as they are they are you’re “worshipping” and saying “they can do no wrong”.
Let’s get real here. They’re not liars. They offered FSD transfer to us… https://t.co/3Ay7vGaVR6
— Whole Mars Catalog (@wholemars) March 3, 2026
He criticized extreme backlash as “dramatization” and “spoiled kids,” noting the unsupervised FSD era and broader sales challenges make blanket transfers financially risky. Whole Mars advocated for polite outreach to CEO Elon Musk over the issue.
Rather than “calling them out”, I would simply say “Hey Elon, really hoped to be able to do FSD transfer on my cybertruck but the terms changed. Would really appreciate if Tesla could extend this to everyone who ordered before the terms changes”
that would probably work
— Whole Mars Catalog (@wholemars) March 3, 2026
In a contrasting perspective, Dirty TesLA voiced sharper frustration, posting that blocking transfers feels “crazy” and distancing himself from “people that want to worship a corporation and say they can do no wrong.” His stance resonated with owners who view the policy flip as disrespectful to early adopters.
Popular Tesla influencer Sawyer Merritt captured the frustration felt by thousands. In a widely shared thread viewed over 700,000 times, Merritt detailed how pre-change Cybertruck orders now risk losing FSD eligibility unless their initial delivery window falls before March 31.
It’s not a contradiction, it’s a change in policy that Tesla just made an hour ago. I am trying to check if the change is retroactive to all existing orders, including Cybertruck AWD orders, because if it is, that sucks big time.
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) February 28, 2026
The controversy underscores deeper tensions—between Tesla’s need for revenue discipline and owners’ expectations of goodwill. As FSD evolves toward unsupervised capability, the community remains split: some see the change as necessary business, others as a broken promise. Whether Tesla reconsiders under pressure or holds firm remains to be seen, but it does not appear they are planning to budge.
News
Tesla Semi’s latest adoptee will likely encourage more of the same
Public visibility matters. When shoppers see a trusted name like Ralph’s running clean, high-tech trucks on public roads, skepticism fades. Competitors such as Albertsons, which pre-ordered Semis years ago, and other chains chasing ESG targets now have proof that electric autonomy works in real-world grocery fleets.
The latest adoptee of the Tesla Semi will likely encourage more businesses in the same realm to adopt the all-electric Class 8 truck, as a new company utilizing the Semi has been spotted in Southern California.
A sleek, futuristic Tesla Semi truck branded for Ralph’s Supermarkets was spotted cruising a Los Angeles highway in a viral 13-second dashcam video posted March 2, by X user ChargePozitive.
Tesla Semi Truck in the wild pic.twitter.com/SnQY8ShMMJ
— ChargePozitive ⚡️➕ (@ChargePozitive) March 2, 2026
This sighting confirms Kroger’s March 2025 partnership with Tesla to deploy up to 500 autonomous electric Semis.
While the initial announcement targeted Midwest supply chains, the California appearance under the Ralph’s banner shows the program expanding to Kroger’s West Coast operations. Ralph’s, a staple for millions of Southern California shoppers, is now hauling groceries with the Semi, which has zero tailpipe emissions and claims up to 500 miles of range per charge.
Tesla Semi pricing revealed after company uncovers trim levels
The timing could not be better for sustainable logistics. Traditional trucking accounts for a massive share of retail emissions, but Tesla’s Semi slashes fuel and maintenance costs while leveraging full autonomy to ease driver shortages and improve safety.
Tesla’s expanding Megacharger network, including new sites along major freight corridors and partnerships like the recently-announced one with Pilot Travel Centers, is removing range anxiety and making nationwide scaling realistic. There’s still a long way to go, but things are moving in the right direction.
Public visibility matters. When shoppers see a trusted name like Ralph’s running clean, high-tech trucks on public roads, skepticism fades. Competitors such as Albertsons, which pre-ordered Semis years ago, and other chains chasing ESG targets now have proof that electric autonomy works in real-world grocery fleets.
PepsiCo’s successful pilots already demonstrated viability, and Ralph’s sighting adds retail credibility.
As Tesla ramps high-volume Semi production through 2026, this isn’t an isolated curiosity. Instead, it’s a catalyst. More grocers adopting the platform will accelerate industry-wide decarbonization, cut operating expenses, and deliver tangible environmental wins.
The future of sustainable supply chains is already on the highway, and Ralph’s just made it impossible to ignore.
Moving forward, Tesla hopes to expand the Semi program into other regions, including Europe, which CEO Elon Musk recently said is a total possibility next year.
Elon Musk
Tesla ramps Cybercab test manufacturing ahead of mass production
Tesla still has plans for volume production, which remains between four and eight weeks away, aligning with Musk’s statements that early ramps would be deliberately measured given the Cybercab’s novel architecture and full reliance on Tesla’s vision-based Full Self-Driving technology.
Tesla is seemingly ramping Cybercab test manufacturing ahead of mass production, which is scheduled to begin next month, the company said.
At Tesla’s Gigafactory Texas, production of the Cybercab, the company’s groundbreaking purpose-built Robotaxi vehicle, is accelerating markedly. Drone footage from Joe Tegtmeyer captured striking aerial footage today, revealing what appears to be the largest public sighting of Cyebrcabs to date.
A total of 25 units were observed by Tegtmeyer across the Gigafactory Texas property, marking a clear step-up in testing and validation activities as Tesla prepares for a broader output.
Tesla Cybercab production begins: The end of car ownership as we know it?
In the footage, 14 metallic gold Cybercabs were parked in a tight formation outside the factory exit, showcasing their sleek, autonomous-only design with no steering wheels, pedals, or traditional controls. Another 9 units sat at the crash testing facility, likely undergoing structural and safety validations, while two more appeared at the west end-of-line area for final checks.
Big day for Cybercab at Giga Texas today! Actually, yesterday to kick off March, the production line went into a higher volume & today we see 25 at three main locations, and there were several others I observed driving around too!
I think this may be the largest single grouping… pic.twitter.com/HZDMNv57lJ
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) March 3, 2026
Tegtmeyer noted additional Cybercabs driving around the complex, hinting at active movement and real-world testing beyond static parking.
This surge follows the first production Cybercab rolling off the line in mid-February 2026, several weeks ahead of the originally anticipated April start.
That milestone, celebrated by Tesla employees and confirmed by CEO Elon Musk, kicked off low-volume builds on the dedicated “unboxed” manufacturing line, a modular process designed to slash costs, reduce factory footprint, and enable faster assembly compared to conventional methods.
Industry observers interpret the jump to dozens of visible units in early March as evidence that Tesla has transitioned into higher-volume test manufacturing.
Tesla still has plans for volume production, which remains between four and eight weeks away, aligning with Musk’s statements that early ramps would be deliberately measured given the Cybercab’s novel architecture and full reliance on Tesla’s vision-based Full Self-Driving technology.
The Cybercab, envisioned as a sub-$30,000 autonomous two-seater for robotaxi fleets, represents Tesla’s bold pivot toward scalable autonomy and robotics.
Tesla fans and enthusiasts on X praised the imagery, with many expressing excitement over the visible progress toward deployment. While challenges remain, including software maturity, regulatory hurdles, and supply chain scaling, the increased factory activity underscores Tesla’s momentum in turning the Cybercab vision into reality.
As Giga Texas continues expanding and refining the manufacturing process of the Cybercab, the coming months will prove to be a pivotal time in determining how quickly this revolutionary vehicle reaches roads in the U.S. and internationally.
Tesla influencers argue company’s polarizing Full Self-Driving transfer decision
Tesla Semi’s latest adoptee will likely encourage more of the same
