Connect with us

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.

Published

9 years ago

on

Gemini 10 launches using a modified TItan ICBM motor.
Gemini 10 launches using a modified TItan ICBM motor.

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 Lawmakers cannot make the ICBM problem just go away through legislation. 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 Don't reinvent the wheel when ICBM engines are available.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.Arguing against ICBM engines is 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.

Advertisement

The government is an ICBM retailer, not a competitor.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, Quote_Elon10Percentimagine 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.

Don't let ICBM engines be your excuse not to build a better engine.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.Banning ICBM rocket engines doesn't help further space exploration.

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?

Advertisement
Related Topics:

Accidental computer geek, fascinated by most history and the multiplanetary future on its way. Quite keen on the democratization of space. | It's pronounced day-sha, but I answer to almost any variation thereof.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

‘I don’t understand TSLAQ:’ notable investor backs Tesla, Elon Musk

Published

6 hours ago

on

October 8, 2025

By

tesla showroom
(Credit: Tesla)

One notable investor that many people will recognize said today on X that he does not understand Tesla shorts, otherwise known as $TSLAQ, and he’s giving some interesting reasons.

Martin Shkreli was long known as “Pharmabro.” For years, he was known as the guy who bought the rights to a drug called Daraprim, hiked the prices, and spent a few years in Federal prison for securities fraud and conspiracy.

Shkreli is now an investor who co-founded several hedge funds, including Elea Capital, MSMB Capital Management, and MSMB Healthcare. He is also known for his frank, blunt, and straightforward responses on X.

His LinkedIn currently shows he is the Co-Founder of DL Software Inc.

One of his most recent posts on X criticized those who choose to short Tesla stock, stating he does not understand their perspective. He gave a list of reasons, which I’ll link here, as they’re not necessarily PG. I’ll list a few:

Advertisement
  • Fundamentals always have and will always matter
  • TSLAQ was beaten by Tesla because it’s “a great company with great management,” and they made a mistake “by betting against Elon.”
  • When Shkreli shorts stocks, he is “shorting FRAUDS and pipe dreams”

After Shkreli continued to question the idea behind shorting Tesla, he continued as he pondered the mentality behind those who choose to bet against the stock:

“I don’t understand ‘TSLAQ.’ Guy is the richest man in the world. He won. It’s over. He’s more successful with his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th largest companies than you will ever be, x100.

You can admit you are wrong, it’s just a feeling which will dissipate with time, trust me.”

Advertisement

According to reports from both Fortune and Business Insider, Tesla short sellers have lost a cumulative $64.5 billion since Tesla’s IPO in 2010.

Elon Musk issues dire warning to Tesla (TSLA) shorts

Shorts did accumulate a temporary profit of $16.2 billion earlier this year.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla will let you bring back this removed Model 3 part for a price

It will cost $595 and is available on Tesla’s website. You will have to have a Model 3 on your Tesla account to purchase the stalk retrofit kit.

Published

9 hours ago

on

October 8, 2025

By

Credit: Tesla Asia/X

Tesla is now letting Model 3 owners in the United States bring back one part that the company decided to remove after it refreshed the all-electric sedan last year. Of course, you can do it for a price.

With the Model 3 “Highland” refresh that Tesla launched last year, one of the most monumental changes the company made was to ditch the turn signal stalk altogether. Instead, Tesla opted for turn signal buttons, which have been met with mixed reviews.

I drove the new Tesla Model 3, here’s what got better

The change was widely regarded as Tesla preparing for more autonomous driving in its vehicles, especially as its interiors have gotten even more minimalistic.

The lack of a stalk in the new Model 3 was just another move the company made to adjust drivers and passengers to seeing less at the steering wheel column.

Advertisement

However, many drivers did not prefer the use of buttons and wanted the stalk reinstalled. Tesla allowed it in several regions, launching a retrofit kit. It has now made its way to the United States:

It will cost $595 and is available on Tesla’s website. You will have to have a Model 3 on your Tesla account to purchase the stalk retrofit kit.

It is interesting to note that despite Tesla’s strategy to remove the stalk with the new Model 3, which was released in early 2024, the company did not choose to make the same move with the new Model Y.

Advertisement

The new Model Y launched in the United States in early 2025, and Tesla chose to install a stalk in this vehicle.

It seemed as if the turn signal buttons were too much of a polarizing feature, and although the company technically could have given orderers an option, it would not have been the most efficient thing for manufacturing.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.1 first impressions: Robotaxi-like features arrive

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.1 is here, and we got to experience it for ourselves.

Published

10 hours ago

on

October 8, 2025

By

Tesla rolled out its Full Self-Driving v14.1 yesterday, its first public launch of its most robust and accurate FSD iteration yet. Luckily, I was able to get my hands on it through the Early Access Program.

The major changes in FSD v14.1 were revealed in the release notes, which outline several notable improvements in areas such as driving styles, parking, and overall navigation. Here’s what Tesla outlined fully in its release notes:

  • Added Arrival Options for you to select where FSD should park: in a Parking Lot, on the Street, in a Driveway, in a Parking Garage, or at the Curbside.
  • Added handling to pull over or yield for emergency vehicles (e.g. police cars, fire trucks, ambulances).
  • Added navigation and routing into the vision-based neural network for real-time handling of blocked roads and detours.
  • Added additional Speed Profile to further customize driving style preference.
  • Improved handling for static and dynamic gates.
  • Improved offsetting for road debris (e.g. tires, tree branches, boxes).
  • Improve handling of several scenarios including: unprotected turns, lane changes, vehicle cut-ins, and school busses.
  • Improved FSD’s ability to manage system faults and recover smoothly from degraded operation for enhanced reliability.
  • Added alerting for residue build-up on interior windshield that may impact front camera visibility. If affected, visit Service for cleaning!

I wanted to try it for myself. My big must-dos were my complaints with v13.2.9, which included parking when arriving at a destination, Navigation when leaving a destination, and definitely a general improvement in the car traveling at an acceptable rate of speed, even when using the “Hurry” driving style.

Here’s what I noticed with the new Full Self-Driving v14.1:

Speed Profiles are More Realistic

I am driving on “Hurry” about 95% of the time when utilizing Full Self-Driving. In past versions, most notably v13.2.9, my Tesla would slowly reach the speed limit, and it would tend to hang out at about 1-2 MPH either above or below it.

My first observation with v14.1 was the vehicle’s tendency to get right up to speed and, since I was still on Hurry, drive slightly above the speed limit. It never got out of line; it traveled at speeds I would typically drive at manually.

Advertisement

I think this is a big improvement on its own, because I felt that I was pressing the accelerator too frequently in past FSD versions. Oftentimes, it just wasn’t going fast enough to justify the “Hurry” label; it felt more conservative and more like a student driver than anything.

Check it out:

This was among my favorite improvements, and it was the first thing I noticed as the car navigated me to the Supercharger, where my next positive is.

Navigating into parking lots, self-parking at Supercharger

One of the changes noted in the Release Notes was the addition of Arrival Options, which allows the car to select the appropriate parking situation. Since I was going to charge, the car had already chosen “Charger” as the parking option.

Pulling into a gas station or convenience store, especially during work days, can be stressful, as they are usually congested and full of foot and vehicle traffic. In past FSD versions, I have noticed the car being slightly “jumpy” and even hesitant to proceed through the lot.

Driving through parking lots was a noticeable improvement. It seems as if the car is much more confident in making its way through, while still being aware and cautious enough to safely navigate to the Supercharger.

Advertisement

It then backed straight into a Supercharger stall, which was recently repaired and is once again active. I was actually upset it chose this specific stall because it had been inactive for a while. However, Tesla got this stall back up and running, the car chose it, and backed into the spot flawlessly:

This was super cool to experience, and I think it is a testament to how hard the Tesla AI team has worked. CEO Elon Musk recently stated that FSD would enable automatic parking at Superchargers, which was really awesome to experience firsthand.

Advertisement

I decided to leave the Supercharger and go to an auto parts store to pick up some interior cleaner and some microfiber towels. I love keeping my Tesla clean!

I also thought it would be a great opportunity to see how it would react to another parking lot, how it would navigate it, and let it choose a parking spot. It did it all flawlessly:

Advertisement

I had zero complaints about everything here. All of it was done really well.

Making a choice after being caught in the middle of an intersection

I arrived at a tight intersection in Dallastown, PA, and what my car did next has catalyzed quite a conversation on X.

It proceeded out into the middle of the intersection as the light was green. It had to yield to oncoming traffic, and while waiting, the light turned yellow, then red.

Most people, including myself, would have turned right and proceeded through the intersection since the car was already past the line. However, FSD chose to back up and wait for the next light cycle, which I felt was also a more than acceptable option:

There are some conflicting perspectives on what it chose to do here. Some said they would have proceeded and would want FSD to also proceed. I can agree with that perspective, but I also think it is not the worst thing in the world to back up. In Pennsylvania, I couldn’t find the exact law that says what is right or wrong. Instead, I did see that a left turn on red is only feasible when you’re going from a One-Way street to another One-Way.

I’m not totally sure what is “correct” here, but I think either option is fine. I have personally done both, and I’ve seen other drivers do both. I was more than fine with the car doing this, and I was honestly impressed that it did.

Navigated a busy grocery store lot, found suitable parking

This is not the busiest my local grocery store gets, but it was still congested enough for me to be impressed.

Advertisement

FSD decided to do one loop in the parking lot before it found a spot that it felt was good enough for me. I was perfectly fine with where it chose to park, and I thought it did a really great job. I was impressed with how stress-free I felt, as I have noted in the past that parking lots are definitely an area where Tesla needs to improve.

I was happy with its performance:

Strange right turn signal as if it saw an emergency vehicle

This was the first bug I noticed with FSD v14.1. While traveling on a local road, it put the right turn signal on and approached the curb as if it was pulling over for an emergency vehicle or as if it was going to park on the street.

It then realized its mistake and proceeded:

I’m not super sure what caused this, but I was a tad bit confused. There were no police cars, ambulances, or anyone with flashing lights to my rear. There was a dump truck on the other side of the road, and I almost felt like the way it navigated “around” that was probably what triggered it.

Navigation is still making strange decisions

I’ve written about navigation and my discontent with some of its decisions. It seems v14.1 didn’t resolve much of anything with navigation, and it did a couple of things wrong.

The first was that it tried to take the illogical and pointless path out of the Supercharger. I wrote about this a few days ago, as FSD tried to take my car the wrong way.

Advertisement

It did it again, but I overrode the decision, and it was all okay:

This is a minor issue, but it is still pretty frustrating. Hopefully, the navigation will learn after performing this adjustment after enough times.

Advertisement

The next navigation issue was more frustrating than the Supercharger one, especially considering it completely ignored the route. The navigation had the vehicle very clearly heading straight, but out of nowhere, the right turn signal went on. I overrode it, but the car still turned right, ignoring the navigation completely:

I ended up taking over here and driving until I could get to a stop sign.

Advertisement

Final Thoughts

I am really impressed with all of the changes Tesla made with FSD v14.1, and while there were a handful of bugs, things were tremendously better than v13.2.9.

Continue Reading

Trending