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.
TESLARATI Premium Membership
$19.99 USDA 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?
SpaceX announced today that it would expand its launch capabilities into a new U.S. state: Louisiana.
Today, SpaceX, in conjunction with the Louisiana Economic Development Office, said that it will establish a new launch facility, which it will call Starbase, Louisiana. It will be located near Vermilion Parish, supporting thousands of launches each year, at least eventually.
CEO Elon Musk commented by stating, “Starbase Louisiana will ultimately have over a dozen launch towers, enabling more than 30 Starship flights per day and making it the biggest launch site on Earth!”
Starbase Louisiana will ultimately have over a dozen launch towers, enabling more than 30 Starship flights per day and making it the biggest launch site on Earth!
SpaceX makes sci-fi real. https://t.co/C7Ht0U12ba
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 25, 2026
The expansion is SpaceX’s latest move to push its launch cadence to be more frequent than ever. SpaceX said that Starbase, Louisiana, will be built to “support thousands of Starship flights a year,” with the first coming in 2029.
SpaceX announced the new facility in partnership with the Louisiana Economic Development Office as it will bring a major influx of jobs and investments into the area. Currently, it will produce more than 3,000 new jobs in Louisiana, and SpaceX plans to invest at least $100 billion into the entire facility, ensuring that many jobs are created as a result.
Environmental Responsibility
SpaceX acknowledges the impact launches could have on marshlands, local wildlife, and water sources. Here’s how the company plans to help with the issues in Vermilion Parish:
- Restoring the Shoreline: “In Vermilion Parish, the shoreline is eroding between 3.3 and 23 feet per year. We’re partnering with state and federal agencies to expand Louisiana’s Coastal Master Plan and Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act projects, including Gulf shoreline protection breakwaters designed to reduce wave energy and slow loss along the Gulf edge.”
- Rebuilding the Marshlands: “In working with the state, we’re planning thousands of acres of marsh creation using beneficial-use placement of dredged material and offshore sediment sources. Restoration will also include interior marsh bank stabilization and rebuilding marsh in remnant canals. These projects can reconnect fragmented wetlands, restore natural buffers against storms, and return habitat that has been lost to erosion and historic canalization.”
- Preserving Coastal Wildlife: “Pecan Island and nearby wetlands are high-value habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and other coastal wildlife. SpaceX is not developing the full footprint of the land and will preserve wetlands and wildlife habitat. At existing launch sites, waterfowl and other birds continue to use nearby habitat during operations. Working with wildlife agencies, landowners, and conservation groups, SpaceX will support monitoring and management so this habitat stays productive and hunting, fishing, birding, and other recreational activities that are part of this coast’s culture can continue.”
SpaceX shares rose about 2.5 percent on the news.
Tesla Cybertruck trims saw a big price change, at least on two of the three available to consumers, as demand for the all-electric pickup appears to be increasing.
Tesla bumped up its Base All-Wheel-Drive trim level up to $74,990 from $69,990 and the Premium All-Wheel-Drive configuration from $79,990 to $84,990. The Cyberbeast price remains unchanged at $99,990.
🚨 Cybertruck prices went up as Tesla bumped them 7%
– Tesla Cybertruck AWD is now $74,990
– Tesla Cybertruck Premium AWD now $84,990
– Tesla Cyberbeast now $99,990 https://t.co/MYJbaw56GL— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 25, 2026
Despite questions of demand for the truck, Tesla is bumping its two least expensive trims up $5,000 to signal that there are plenty of buyers. Although SpaceX has been buying Tesla Cybertruck units to utilize as company vehicles, it is no secret that the Cybertruck is among the most sought-after Tesla models out there.
The issue has always been pricing, at least for the most part. When Tesla initially launched the Cybertruck AWD at $59,990 a few months back, the company stated that price would remain intact for just ten days due to the influx of orders it received.
Cybertruck Sales: Is It the Product or Pricing?
Depending on who you ask, you will likely hear one of two explanations for relatively low Cybertruck sales: either the product itself or the pricing.
Yes, this is the best-selling all-electric pickup on the market. However, there are people who simply hate the look of it, which I understand, but do not agree with. Look is totally subjective, and I love the look of the Cybertruck.
Some people will not buy the Cybertruck because of the look, but I am under the impression that sales would be much better if this truck were priced lower; something that might not be possible considering Tesla’s need to make money on its products. When it was unveiled in 2019, its most expensive trim level was $69,990. Now, the cheapest trim level is more expensive than that.
I would be in a Cybertruck if it were more affordable. I LOVE my Model Y, but Cybertruck is the best vehicle Tesla makes, and it’s not particularly close. Even in the base model, the steer-by-wire, the space, storage, and performance make it more desirable than the Model Y to me. I cannot be the only Tesla owner without a Cybertruck who feels this way.
If you’re interested in buying a Tesla vehicle, use my referral link.
Energy
Tesla Semi factory is getting a celebration nobody expected
Tesla will inaugurate its Nevada Semi factory September 24, five months after production quietly began ramping.
Tesla says it will officially inaugurate its new Semi factory in Nevada next month. The Tesla Semi account posted the announcement on X, sharing a graphic titled “Semi Rollout” with a date of September 24. No further details were given about the format of the event or who would attend.
While Tesla’s dedicated Semi plant in Sparks, adjacent to Gigafactory Nevada, opened back in April, with the first trucks rolling off the high volume line on April 29, the timing for the factory inauguration comes at a surprise. The ribbon cutting event five months into production is a break from how Tesla has usually handled its other factories, where the first truck or car off the line typically served as the milestone moment.
Inauguration of new Semi factory in Nevada next month pic.twitter.com/a8kAlxrOOn
— Tesla Semi (@tesla_semi) August 24, 2026
The 1.7 million square foot factory was built as part of a $3.6 billion expansion Tesla announced in early 2023, and it shares a site with the battery cell lines that feed the Semi’s structural pack, a decision meant to remove the supply bottleneck that delayed the truck for years. The plant is designed for 50,000 trucks a year at full ramp. Semi program director Dan Priestley has said production “is now ramping” rather than claiming it has reached scale.
Nine years passed between the Semi’s 2017 unveiling and this stage of production, with the truck slipping from an original 2019 target through hand built pilot units for PepsiCo and a slow build out of the Nevada plant. An inauguration event now gives Tesla a stage to talk up that ramp and reset expectations for how many trucks it can begin delivering at scale.
The September date also lines up with the Semi’s next milestone. Tesla confirmed the truck is heading to Europe with a full unveiling at the IAA Transportation trade show in Hannover, Germany, running September 15 through 20. Between the Nevada event and the Hannover reveal, Tesla has roughly a week and a half in September to make the case that the Semi is now a truck being built and sold on two continents rather than tested in a handful of fleets.
SpaceX announces new Starbase for ‘thousands of Starship launches annually’
Tesla just made Cybertruck more expensive
