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 Model Y L gets new entertainment feature
Beyond audio quality, Immersive Sound X aligns with Tesla’s ecosystem of over-the-air updates, potentially allowing future refinements.
Tesla is including a new entertainment feature in the Model Y L, improving the vehicle even further and making it what appears to be the best configuration of the all-electric crossover globally.
Unfortunately, we in the U.S. do not yet have access to the vehicle, and the plans for it to enter the market remain up in the air, as CEO Elon Musk has said it could appear late this year. However, there is nothing concrete at this time.
Tesla’s latest enhancement to the Model Y L is a new Immersive Sound X feature, exclusive to the Model Y L.
Model YL has new sound system setting. Immersive Sound X. This is NOT on the new Y and 3 pic.twitter.com/7OpJuzyoGf
— Electric Future (@electricfuture5) March 16, 2026
It aims to transform the in-car listening experience into something truly cinematic. First introduced by Tesla China in October 2025, this advanced audio mode is now rolling out to deliveries in Australia and New Zealand, highlighting Tesla’s approach to region-specific premium upgrades.
At its core, Immersive Sound X leverages real-time sound extraction technology to create a customizable 3D soundstage. Using advanced algorithms, it analyzes audio tracks to separate direct sounds, such as vocals or lead instruments, from ambient elements like echoes and reverb.
The system then positions direct sounds front and center while diffusing ambient sounds to the side and rear speakers, simulating an expansive virtual environment. This results in a heightened sense of depth and spatial awareness, making listeners feel as if they’re in a concert hall or studio.
What sets Immersive Sound X apart from the standard Immersive Sound found in other Tesla models is its hardware dependency and enhanced processing. The Model Y L boasts an 18-speaker system with a subwoofer, compared to the 15-speaker setup, plus a subwoofer, in the Model Y Long Range’s previous premium audio configuration.
This upgrade provides more “kick” and precision, enabling finer control over the soundstage. Unlike traditional surround sound, which requires multi-channel mixes like Dolby Atmos, Immersive Sound X works with any stereo source from platforms like Spotify or Apple Music, so every owner will be able to use it.
Tesla Model Y lineup expansion signals an uncomfortable reality for consumers
You can fine-tune the experience via an adjustable immersion slider, scaling the “size” of the virtual space to personal preferences. This caters to a more custom sound.
An Auto mode intelligently adapts based on media type, whether it’s music, podcasts, or videos, ensuring optimal immersion without manual tweaks. This feature is unavailable on standard Model Y variants (with 7 or 15 speakers) or Model 3 trims, underscoring Tesla’s strategy to differentiate higher trims through superior hardware and software integration.
Beyond audio quality, Immersive Sound X aligns with Tesla’s ecosystem of over-the-air updates, potentially allowing future refinements.
For audiophiles and casual listeners alike, it elevates mundane commutes into immersive journeys, proving Tesla’s commitment to blending cutting-edge tech with user-centric design.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk teases crazy outlook for xAI against its competitors
Musk’s response was vintage hyperbole, designed to rally supporters and dismiss doubters, something his responses on social media often do.
Elon Musk has never been one to shy away from crazy timelines, massive expectations, and outrageous outlooks. However, his recent plans for xAI and where he believes it will end up compared to its competitors are sure to stimulate conversation.
In a bold and characteristic response on X, Elon Musk fired back at a recent analysis that positioned his AI venture, xAI, as lagging behind industry frontrunners.
The post, from March 14, came as a direct reply to forecaster Peter Wildeford’s assessment, which drew from benchmarks and reporting to rank AI developers.
xAI will catch up this year and then exceed them all by such a long distance in 3 years that you will need the James Webb telescope to see who is in second place
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 14, 2026
Wildeford placed Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI in a virtual tie at the top, with xAI and Meta trailing by about seven months. Chinese players like Moonshot, Deepseek, zAI, and Alibaba were estimated to be nine months behind, while France’s Mistral lagged by about a year and a half.
Musk’s response was vintage hyperbole, designed to rally supporters and dismiss doubters, something his responses on social media often do.
He claimed xAI would “catch up this year,” meaning by the end of 2026, erasing that seven-month deficit against the leaders. But he didn’t stop there.
Musk escalated his vision to 2029, predicting xAI would “exceed them all by such a long distance” that observers would need the James Webb Space Telescope, NASA’s orbiting observatory stationed about 930,000 miles from Earth, to spot whoever lands in second place. This analogy underscores Musk’s confidence in xAI’s trajectory, implying an astronomical lead that could redefine the AI landscape.
Breaking down these claims reveals Musk’s strategic optimism. First, the short-term catch-up: xAI, launched in 2023, has already released models like Grok, but recent benchmarks, including those for Grok 4.2, have shown it falling short in capabilities compared to rivals.
Anthropic’s Claude series, Google’s Gemini, and OpenAI’s GPT models dominate in areas like reasoning, coding, and multimodal tasks. Musk’s assertion suggests aggressive scaling in compute, talent, or architecture, perhaps leveraging xAI’s ties to Tesla’s Dojo supercomputers or Musk’s vast resources, to close the gap swiftly.
The longer-term dominance by 2029 paints an even more audacious picture. Musk envisions xAI not just parity but supremacy, outpacing competitors in innovation speed and model sophistication.
This could involve breakthroughs in energy-efficient training, real-world integration, like Tesla’s robotics, or ethical AI alignment, aligning with Musk’s stated goal of “understanding the universe.”
Critics, however, point to parallels with Tesla’s Full Self-Driving delays; one reply highlighted Musk’s 2023 promise of FSD readiness. Musk has made this promise for many years, and although the system has been strong and improving, it is still a ways off from the completely autonomous operation that was expected by now.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.2.5 might be the most confusing release ever
Musk’s comment highlights the intensifying U.S.-centric AI race, with xAI challenging the “three-way” dominance noted by Wharton professor Ethan Mollick, whom Wildeford quoted. As geopolitical tensions rise—evident in the Chinese firms’ lag—Musk’s tease could spur investment and talent wars.
Yet, it also invites scrutiny: Will xAI deliver, or is this another telescope-needed mirage? In an industry where timelines slip but stakes soar, Musk’s words keep the spotlight on xAI’s ambitious path forward.
Elon Musk
Tesla Terafab set for launch: Inside the $20B AI chip factory that will reshape the auto industry
Tesla set to launch “Terafab Project: A vertically integrated chip fabrication effort combining logic processing, memory, and advanced packaging.
Tesla is making one of the boldest bets in its history. On March 14, Elon Musk posted on X that the “Terafab Project launches in 7 days,” pointing to March 21, 2026 as the start date for what he has described as a vertically integrated chip fabrication effort combining logic processing, memory, and advanced packaging.
Tesla first confirmed Terafab on its January 28, 2026 earnings call, where Musk told investors the company needs to build a chip fabrication facility to avoid a supply constraint projected to materialize within three to four years. But the seeds were planted even earlier. At Tesla’s annual general meeting last year, Musk warned that even in the best-case scenario for chip production from their suppliers, it still wouldn’t be enough, and declared that building a “gigantic chip fab” simply had to be done.
While there has been no official announcement on where Tesla plans to break ground on the massive Terafab, all signs point to the North Campus of Giga Texas in Austin.
Months of speculation has surrounded Tesla’s North Campus expansion at Giga Texas, where drone footage captured by observer Joe Tegtmeyer revealed massive construction site preparation just north of the existing factory on a scale that rivals the original Giga Texas footprint itself.
Samsung’s Tesla AI5/AI6 chip factory to start key equipment tests in March: report
The project is projected to produce 100–200 billion AI and memory chips annually, targeting 100,000 wafer starts per month, at an estimated cost of $20 billion. Tesla is targeting 2-nanometre process technology and anticipated to be the most advanced node currently in commercial production. Dubbed the Tesla AI5 chip, the chip will pack 40x–50x more compute performance and 9x more memory than AI4, and will be among the first products Terafab factory is set to produce. This highly optimized, and massively powerful inference chip is designed to make full self-driving (FSD) and Tesla’s Optimus robots faster, safer, and with full autonomy.
(Credit: Tesla)
This is where Terafab becomes a genuine game-changer. If Tesla successfully builds a 2nm chip fab at scale, it becomes one of only a handful of entities that’s capable of producing AI silicon in-house, with competitive implications that extend far beyond Tesla’s own vehicles, and potentially positioning Tesla as a chip supplier or licensor to other industries.
Credit: @serobinsonjr/X
The next-gen Tesla AI chips will power advancements in Full Self-Driving software, the Cybercab Robotaxi program, and the Optimus humanoid robot line. Musk’s projections for Optimus require chip volumes that no existing external supplier can commit to on Tesla’s timeline.Competitors like Waymo and GM’s Cruise remain dependent on third-party silicon, leaving them exposed to the same supply chain vulnerabilities Tesla is now working to eliminate entirely.
The Terafab launch this week may not mean a factory opens its doors overnight, but it signals Tesla is serious about owning the entire AI stack, from software to silicon.
Tesla Model Y L gets new entertainment feature
Elon Musk teases crazy outlook for xAI against its competitors
