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?
EVgo has tapped Tesla Superchargers for its most recent efforts to expand its charging presence in the United States, a move that seems logical based on the effectiveness of the automaker’s own infrastructure.
EVgo opened its first Supercharger site in Illinois, a 12-stall station near downtown Chicago at 3145 South Ashland Avenue in the Riverside Square & River’s Edge center, right beside a grocery store. This marks the start of the company’s plan to deploy hundreds of Supercharger stalls across the United States, primarily at grocery-anchored Regency Centers properties where drivers can shop, eat, or run errands while they charge.
We’ve opened our first EVgo Supercharger location in Illinois, marking the start of our plan to add hundreds of Supercharger stalls across the U.S.
Designed for both NACS and CCS vehicles with Magic Dock technology, these new sites help make fast charging more accessible and convenient for all EV drivers. Learn more: https://t.co/V92t5FDryQ
— EVgo Fast Charging Network (@evgonetwork) November 5, 2026
The new location uses Tesla’s Magic Dock technology so both NACS and CCS vehicles can plug in natively without drivers needing to carry their own adapters. Peak power reaches 325 kW at this site, with pricing set between $0.25 and $0.35 per kWh depending on the hour—the same rate for Tesla and non-Tesla drivers.
The stalls also appear in Tesla’s in-car navigation and Trip Planner, making them easy for Tesla owners to find and route to. Illinois has seen EV registrations rise nearly 60 percent over the past two years, and EVgo’s broader network has experienced more than 700 percent growth in charging demand over three years, so the timing fits the market’s trajectory.
Choosing Tesla hardware through the Supercharger for Business program turns out to have been a smart, practical move.
Tesla’s V4 stalls and cabinets deliver high, reliable power with a proven track record of strong uptime, while Magic Dock delivers true dual-standard compatibility in one package. Because the sites show up in Tesla’s navigation tools, EVgo instantly gains visibility among millions of existing Tesla drivers, which should raise utilization and help the company double its addressable market as more vehicles adopt NACS. EVgo still owns the stations and sets pricing, yet benefits from Tesla’s established hardware, longer cables, and operational support.
The result is faster, lower-risk infrastructure expansion that serves every EV driver—Tesla or otherwise—with convenient, high-power charging at everyday retail locations. For drivers, that means fewer adapters, more predictable stops, and a denser network just as electric vehicles become everyday transportation.
Tesla’s Austin Gigafactory is reportedly shifting to round-the-clock vehicle production through the end of 2026, according to longtime drone observer Joe Tegtmeyer.
In his November 2 update, Tegtmeyer, widely regarded as one of the most reliable independent sources on Giga Texas activity (we call him the Drone GOAT), stated that the plant has added a night shift, creating two 12-hour production shifts.
Tegtmeyer said in his video:
“Now, I do have some interesting news about that when it comes to the production schedule here at Giga Texas, and things are actually looking pretty good, especially when you think about what the demand is and the delivery numbers that they’re looking for and what they’re expecting. So, normally they have shifts Monday through Friday. It’s a day shift and it’s about 10 hours long or so, give or take. But now they’re on day and night shifts and they’re going to 12-hour days. So they’re going to be adding or they have another shift. They have 12 hours for both of them. In addition to that, the typical downtime that we’re going to be seeing around the holidays, specifically Thanksgiving and Christmas to the New Year time frame is actually changed. And we’re not going to see those big several day events where there is no production. At least that’s what the plan is right now. So, it’s really a great sign, I think, when we consider what they’ve done in the past and what production and the deliveries have been so far. So, maybe it’s shaping up to be a really strong quarter.”
Previously, General Assembly typically operated on a single roughly 10-hour day shift, Monday through Thursday or Friday. The new arrangement keeps General Assembly on its Monday-to-Thursday schedule while adding overnight capacity, and most other areas of the factory continue working the full week with some weekend activity.
Notably, the plant is also forgoing the multi-day shutdowns around Thanksgiving and the Christmas–New Year period that have occurred in prior years
Giga Texas currently builds the Model Y, the larger Model Y L, the Cybertruck, and the Cybercab robotaxi. Tesla has not confirmed the shift change or specified which lines will receive the extra output. Recent comments suggest Cybercab production has been constrained by the pace at which the Robotaxi fleet can absorb new vehicles, making the Model Y and Model Y L the more likely beneficiaries as the company works through order backlogs.
Tegtmeyer’s November 2 footage and commentary also highlighted broader site progress. Cortex 2 continues to expand, with additional compute coming online, a roughly 25 percent lengthening of the structure on the north end, and work on a third cooling plant.
The Boring Company tunnel site showed increased activity in the large launch pit, while the Advanced Technology Chip Fab (a SpaceX–Tesla joint R&D facility) continued steel superstructure and heavy truss installation, along with concrete pours.
The reported capacity increase arrives as Tesla aims for a strong fourth quarter following solid third-quarter results. While unconfirmed by the company, the information aligns with Tegtmeyer’s consistent track record of accurate on-site observations.
If Tesla makes the decision to sustain the all-day production plans, the dual 12-hour shifts would meaningfully raise weekly output potential at one of Tesla’s most important manufacturing hubs.
News
Tesla opens new “Cybaer” Engineering Center in Berlin
Tesla opened its Berlin Engineering Center, uniting four sites and 30 labs near Giga Berlin.
Tesla has opened a new engineering hub in Berlin, putting the teams that design and test its European parts about 30 minutes from the factory that builds them.
The Berlin Tesla Engineering Center, or BTEC, opened Wednesday in the Köpenick district. Tesla Europe said on X that the project went from permit to operational in under a year and consolidates four engineering sites and 30 labs onto a single campus. It is the company’s third hub of this kind, after Fremont and Shanghai.
“We’re combining materials, powertrain, vehicle engineering & validation under one roof, enabling a short feedback loop between development & ramp,” Tesla Europe wrote.
Berlin Tesla Engineering Center opens today From permit to operational in under a year, it brings 4 engineering sites onto 1 campus w/ 30 different labs in Köpenick, 30 minutes from Giga Berlin With our 3rd hub of this kind after Fremont & Shanghai, we’re combining materials, powertrain, vehicle engineering & validation under one roof – enabling a short feedback loop between development & ramp — Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) November 4, 2026
Tesla converted the former production halls of a cable factory for the site. About 250 engineers and technicians are starting there, most of them relocated from existing Tesla facilities such as Tilburg in the Netherlands. Tesla has already applied for approval of a second phase that would take the headcount to roughly 500, and it put the total investment at €100 million.
The labs cover battery cells, motors, materials and complete vehicles, and a large hall is set aside for safety testing of components, including airbags. During the opening, staff demonstrated a pedestrian leg impact test on the front of a Tesla using a catapult rig, Tagesspiegel reported. The center’s logo is a cubist Berlin bear that employees call the “Cybaer.”
Tesla said its Berlin design and engineering teams already contributed to the Model Y, Semi and Roadster, and that the work continues at BTEC. The center will handle technical problem solving for Giga Berlin in Grünheide while also developing and validating parts for vehicles built in China and the United States.
“We came here to stay,” BTEC head Brückner told dpa. “We serve all of Europe via Gigafactory Berlin-Brandenburg.” He said a site close to the plant was a priority, and that the old industrial building allowed Tesla to move quickly.
That proximity matters more now that Giga Berlin is growing again. In June, Tesla said it would raise Model Y output at the plant to 7,500 vehicles per week and hire 1,000 more workers after a record first quarter of more than 61,000 units. The factory recently built 7,000 Model Ys in a single week for the first time. Tesla also more than doubled the planned 4680 cell capacity at the site to 18 GWh per year in May, and has talked about eventually taking Grünheide to one million vehicles annually.
Sales are giving Tesla reason to invest. KBA data released the same day showed Tesla’s German registrations nearly quadrupled year over year in October to 2,932 units, bringing the total for the first ten months of 2026 to 47,742.
EVgo taps Tesla Superchargers for mass charging expansion
Tesla Giga Texas reportedly moves to 24/7 production
