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?
In the world of autonomous ride-hailing, there are only a handful of names. Among those few companies lies a strategy play by each to keep the opposition on their toes. Tesla, on the other hand, already tipped its hand at where it is headed next.
Tesla has signaled its next major push in the autonomous ride-hailing market by filing for an Autonomous Vehicle Network Company permit in Nevada (Docket 26-05015). Through Tesla Robotaxi, LLC, the company seeks approval to operate up to 5,000 robotaxis in Clark County, including high-traffic areas like Las Vegas and Henderson airports, within the first 12 months of launch.
This filing builds on Tesla’s earlier testing approvals from the Nevada DMV in September 2025 and preparations such as maintenance hubs in the Las Vegas area. Nevada represents a strategic expansion into a major tourist destination, where high visitor volumes could drive strong utilization and showcase the reliability of unsupervised autonomy to a broad audience.
We’d have to assume this means Tesla is targeting Las Vegas, and it’s a great move from a business perspective.
Vegas is such a melting pot of people from all around the country and the world. It will expose people from all corners of the globe to Tesla’s autonomy capabilities https://t.co/Qz3fQmhULF pic.twitter.com/Du5pj2RyWC
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 6, 2026
Approval would mark a significant step toward commercial operations in a new state, following progress in Texas.
Tesla’s shareholder decks and earnings calls have clearly outlined these ambitions. In the Q4 2025 shareholder deck, the company listed planned Robotaxi coverage for the first half of 2026, explicitly naming Las Vegas alongside Phoenix, Miami, Orlando, and Tampa, with Dallas and Houston already advancing. Austin was noted as “ramping unsupervised,” while the Bay Area remained in safety-driver mode.
By Q1 2026, the deck updated statuses to reflect launches in Dallas and Houston, with “preparations underway” for the remaining cities, including Las Vegas. Paid Robotaxi miles nearly doubled sequentially in Q1, underscoring momentum even as broader timelines adjusted slightly for regulatory and operational readiness.
On earnings calls, CEO Elon Musk and executives have emphasized a phased rollout prioritizing safety. Unsupervised operations in Texas have shown strong results with no reported accidents or injuries in the program. Tesla continues groundwork in additional major U.S. metros through testing and permitting, positioning it to scale quickly once approvals clear.
This Nevada move aligns with Tesla’s vision of transforming from an EV maker into an AI and robotics leader. The forthcoming Cybercab, which started production at Giga Texas in April, is expected to eventually dominate the fleet, replacing many Model Y vehicles and driving down costs to enable affordable rides.
For investors and the industry, this signals Tesla’s intent to dominate key Sun Belt and tourist markets where weather, regulations, and demand favor rapid scaling. Success in Las Vegas could validate the model for denser urban and high-tourism environments, accelerating the shift toward a future where robotaxis generate meaningful revenue.
Las Vegas will also expand knowledge among the general public at Tesla’s capabilities, helping people experience driverless ride-hailing from several companies during their time on The Strip.
The Tesla Model 3’s cheapest trim level just got a major accolade, as Edmunds just revealed the Rear-Wheel-Drive trim of the all-electric sedan is the most efficient EV that is currently in production.
The 2026 Tesla Model 3 Rear-Wheel-Drive not only beat its EPA-estimated range by 30 miles, but it also bested its efficiency mark by 13.2 percent. The Model 3 tested by Edmunds traveled 393 miles, beating its EPA rating by 8.3 percent, while it returned 21.7 kWh per 100 miles, or 4.61 mi/kWh.
Beating those two metrics is especially pertinent when it comes to EV ownership and driving down the cost of ownership from ICE counterparts across the board. The real money savings come from driving down the cost of driving per mile, especially when it comes to high-mileage driving.
Edmunds stated in its report and review that the process it uses to test EV efficiency is aimed at giving “the most accurate representation of a car’s real-world range.” The assessment uses a strict route that features 60 percent city and 40 percent highway driving, and an average speed of 40 MPH across the trip.
It also drives each car within 5 MPH of all posted speed limits, and the climate control is set on Auto at 72 degrees to ensure even testing. In other words, Edmunds does not use methods to maximize efficiency, and instead tries to make it reasonable to achieve the same ratings yourself.
In comparison to other EVs, it beat the 2026 Mercedes-Benz CLA 350, which went 385 miles, as well as the 2026 Audi A6 Sportback E-tron Prestige AWD, which traveled 392 miles. Only the Mercedes-Benz CLA 250+ traveled farther, making it an impressive 434 miles on a charge.
However, the Tesla Model 3 RWD’s efficiency is “unmatched” because of its incredibly low energy usage per mile.
🚨 Tesla Model 3 RWD:
-At $36,990, it is $9,000 cheaper than the average transaction price for a new car ($46,023 via KBB)
-Was 13.2% more efficient than its EPA estimate
-Traveled 393 miles on a charge despite its 363-mile EPA range https://t.co/Grov2hXqpa pic.twitter.com/Zl8rnZZLIB
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 8, 2026
The Model 3 Rear-Wheel-Drive might be the best bang-for-your-buck EV if you’re looking to buy new and want access to features like Full Self-Driving, while also being aware of efficiency. This trim of the Model 3 is also priced over $9,000 cheaper than what Kelley Blue Book says the average transactional price for a new car was in May 2026, which sits at $46,023.
If you’re looking for something with more speed, an All-Wheel-Drive drivetrain, or more premium features, the Premium trims of the Model 3 currently come with one year of Free Supercharging.
The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP) stands to reap one of the most extraordinary returns in pension fund history thanks to a bold 2019 investment in SpaceX.
According to a recent report from The Globe and Mail, the Toronto-based fund invested roughly $300 million CAD (~$220 million USD at the time) in Elon Musk’s space company as its inaugural deal through the Teachers’ Innovation Platform.
At SpaceX’s anticipated $1.75 trillion IPO valuation, set for a mid-June debut on Nasdaq under ticker $SPCX, that stake could now be worth up to $11.6 billion USD. This would represent a roughly 50x return and easily become OTPP’s most successful single investment ever.
The fund manages $279 billion in assets for approximately 346,000 working and retired teachers in Ontario, potentially delivering an average boost of around $33,500 per member if fully realized.
SpaceX has filed its S-1 and plans to price shares at $135 each, aiming to raise a record $75 billion in what would be the largest IPO in history, surpassing Saudi Aramco. The company reported $18.67 billion in revenue for 2025, driven primarily by Starlink satellite internet growth and NASA contracts, though it continues to post significant losses tied to ambitious R&D in Starship and AI initiatives.
Important pieces moving forward include:
- Starlink Expansion: The satellite broadband service is scaling rapidly, targeting global connectivity, especially in underserved rural and remote areas. This segment offers massive recurring revenue potential as numbers climb.
- Starship and Reusability Leadership: SpaceX’s fully reusable Starship aims to slash launch costs dramatically, enabling frequent missions, Mars ambitions, and lucrative government/defense contracts. Success here could unlock exponential growth.
- AI and Diversification: Recent moves, including ties to xAI, position SpaceX in high-growth AI infrastructure, broadening beyond traditional aerospace.
- Validation Scrutiny: While the $1.75 trillion target excites investors, analysts like Morningstar value the company closer to $780 billion, citing high multiples (around 90x trailing revenue) and execution risks. A 180-day lockup period will prevent early investors like OTPP from selling immediately post-IPO.
The irony has not been lost on observers. Ontario’s government previously canceled a Starlink rural internet contract amid political tensions involving Musk, yet the pension fund’s savvy investment, made when SpaceX was valued around $33-36 billion, and Starlink was nascent, delivers outsized gains independent of politics.
For OTPP, this windfall strengthens its already solid 111 percent funding ratio and underscores the value of patient, innovation-focused capital allocation.
For SpaceX, the IPO marks a new chapter: greater transparency, access to public markets for talent retention and growth capital, and heightened pressure to deliver on its multi-planetary vision.
All eyes are fixed on whether SpaceX can justify its lofty valuation through sustained execution. For Ontario teachers, the returns are already stellar, but SpaceX, like other Musk companies in the past, has plenty of things to prove. Perhaps the most ideal person for the job is at the helm, hoping to bring the company to a massive valuation.
Tesla tipped its hand at where Robotaxi is heading next
Tesla Model 3’s cheapest trim just got a major accolade
