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?
Tesla has officially put the Cybercab up for sale, revealing a bargain price and a $299 per month “Autonomy Subscription” that could hit customer hands as soon as December.
The offer requires a $299 monthly Autonomy Subscription, with the first month included in the purchase price, along with a $1,000 non-refundable order deposit. Tesla’s ordering interface shows deliveries targeted for Austin, Texas.
Tesla says that the Cybercab is making transportation more efficient, affordable and accessible than ever before, and that buyers can order their own Cybercab for personal use.
🚨🚨🚨 BREAKING: Tesla Cybercab is officially on sale for $29,990 with a $299/mo “Autonomy Subscription”
Delivery slotted for December! HUGE!
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 13, 2026
The Cybercab is Tesla’s dedicated robotaxi, a gold-finished, two-passenger vehicle without a steering wheel or pedals, designed from the outset for unsupervised autonomous operation. It has been in limited Robotaxi service in Austin since September 2026, operating alongside Tesla’s larger fleet of Model Y vehicles.
Production takes place at Gigafactory Texas, which launched earlier this year. Tesla has stated for some time that it planned to put Cybercabs on sale by the end of the year, and it looks like they will come through on that promise if everything goes according to plan.
The Autonomy Subscription is mandatory for the vehicle to operate because it is void of a steering wheel and pedals. Tesla notes that the subscription and regular vehicle maintenance are required, indicating that personal owners will depend on the company’s software and service infrastructure rather than traditional ownership models.
One month of the subscription is included with purchase and subsequent months are billed separately until canceled.
This limited personal-sales opening marks a shift from Tesla’s earlier emphasis on fleet and transport-as-a-service operations. During the Q3 2026 Earnings Call, executives indicated that the vast majority of Cybercabs would remain Tesla-owned and used for rideshare service, while still aiming to place some vehicles with customers by year-end.
Elon Musk has previously targeted a price below $30,000, which was a huge point of emphasis for the Cybercab being the central point of Tesla’s “transportation-as-a-service” model.
Availability remains restricted to invited customers rather than a public order page, and the initial deliveries are expected only in the Austin area where unsupervised Robotaxi operations are already active. Buyers will need to accept the geographic and operational constraints of current autonomous deployment, as the vehicle cannot be driven manually outside supported zones.
The move gives a small number of early buyers the chance to own Tesla’s dedicated autonomous vehicle at the long-discussed sub-$30,000 price point, while the bulk of production continues to support the company’s expanding Robotaxi network.
UPDATE: The FAA has granted the license for Starship Flight 15.
Starship Flight 15 License has been granted by the FAA!
Let’s go! https://t.co/DugsgjvYAe
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 13, 2026
SpaceX is set to attempt its 15th test flight of Starship this evening from Starbase, Texas.
SpaceX is targeting Starship Flight 15 for a launch as soon as today, Friday, November 13, pending an FAA Flight License, during a 75-minute window that opens at 4:45 p.m. CT (5:45 p.m. ET) from Orbital Launch Pad 2 at Starbase, Texas. The flight remains pending final regulatory approval.
WATCH Starship Flight 15 here:
https://t.co/C6GnCHyF8p
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 13, 2026
The mission, using Booster 22 and Ship 42, aims to achieve the first full recovery of an orbital launch system. Primary objectives include a tower catch of the Super Heavy booster roughly six and a half minutes after liftoff and the first-ever tower catch of a Starship upper stage after more than 22 hours in space.
SpaceX will perform Starship double catch attempt with Flight 15
Between those catches, Ship 42 is planned to enter a low Earth orbit of about 275 km, complete roughly 14 orbits, and deploy 26 next-generation Starlink V3 satellites (Starlink Group 31-2). Three of those satellites carry cameras to inspect the ship’s heat shield in orbit and help controllers decide whether the vehicle is healthy enough for a return to the tower.
Contingency ocean splashdown options exist if either stage is not cleared for catch.
To watch the attempt, check the link to the broadcast in both X posts in this article. The live webcast is scheduled to begin about 30 minutes before liftoff and is planned to continue through the ship catch the next day, with the possibility of extended onboard views during the orbital coast via Starlink.
Because the schedule is dynamic, check back here or on our social media channels for the latest updates on window timing and regulatory status. A successful dual catch would mark a major milestone toward making Starship a rapidly reusable rocket capable of frequent flights.
WATCH Starship Flight 15 here:
https://t.co/C6GnCHyF8p
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 13, 2026
Tesla has trimmed its Model Y offerings as its Standard All-Wheel-Drive configuration has been removed from the online configurator after roughly nine months on sale. The move follows the removal of the Cybertruck, as its trims have also been minimized as that vehicle heads for total discontinuation at the end of Summer 2027.
Launched in February 2026 as a mid-tier dual-motor option between the Rear-Wheel-Drive model and the Premium trims, the Standard All-Wheel-Drive Model Y offered 294 miles of range and a 4.6-second 0-60 mph time in a stripped-down package.
🚨 Tesla has pulled the $41,990 Model Y AWD from its U.S. configurator after nine months on sale.
The cheapest AWD Model Y you can order is now the $49,990 Premium AWD, with Premium deliveries quoted for Jan–Mar 2027.
The $39,990 RWD stays, and AWD units remain in inventory. https://t.co/uROJp2lVpx
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 13, 2026
With it gone, the cheapest new AWD Model Y buyers can configure is now the Premium AWD at $49,990, with estimated deliveries pushed into January–March 2027. The $39,990 rear-wheel-drive Model Y remains available for custom orders, and some AWD units are still listed in inventory.
The move arrives days after Tesla sharply narrowed its Cybertruck lineup. New orders for the Dual Motor AWD and Premium AWD versions have been disabled, leaving only the high-performance Cyberbeast—priced around $109,990 before fees—as the sole configurable option.
Elon Musk has stated that Cybertruck production at Gigafactory Texas will wind down around the middle to late summer of 2027 to free manufacturing space for greater Cybercab output. Tesla has raised prices on remaining trims and is prioritizing higher-margin builds while working through an existing order backlog that exceeds what the line can complete before conversion.
These parallel decisions reflect a broader effort to simplify Tesla’s retail customer lineup. Lower-volume or lower-margin variants are being phased out or deprioritized in favor of core, higher-spec models that generate stronger profitability and clearer production planning.
For the Model Y, this concentrates volume on the remaining RWD and Premium configurations while Premium deliveries already stretch into 2027. For the Cybertruck, it accelerates the transition away from a stainless-steel pickup that underperformed relative to initial volume expectations.
Tesla Model Y Standard Full Review: Is it worth the lower price?
The freed capacity and reduced complexity directly support Cybercab scaling. Tesla began pilot Cybercab production at Giga Texas in early 2026, launched paid autonomous rides in Austin in September, and is preparing for substantial volume growth.
By streamlining the existing vehicle portfolio, the company is reallocating factory space, engineering attention, and supply-chain resources toward its purpose-built Robotaxi, which lacks a steering wheel or pedals and is designed exclusively for unsupervised autonomy.
The result is a leaner retail lineup today and a clearer path to high-volume Cybercab deployment tomorrow.
Tesla Cybercab goes on sale for $29,990, slated for December deliveries
SpaceX Starship Flight 15: How to watch the double catch attempt
