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?
News
Tesla loses Director who designed one of the company’s best features
Thomas Dmytryk, who has spent over 11 years with Tesla and helped to develop Over-the-Air updates and the company’s vehicles’ ability to utilize them to improve, has decided to leave.
Tesla has lost the director who designed one of the company’s best features: Over-the-Air updates.
Thomas Dmytryk, who has spent over 11 years with Tesla and helped to develop Over-the-Air updates and the company’s vehicles’ ability to utilize them to improve, has decided to leave. In a lengthy statement on LinkedIn, Dmytryk said that he’s “closing the book.” He had nothing but good things to say:
“After 11 incredible years at Tesla, I’m closing the book. It’s been the ride of a lifetime: always on the news, innovating relentlessly, constantly pushing the limits. Tesla is THE place for talented, passionate people. I feel insanely lucky to have been part in that culture for so long.”
It appears the intense lifestyle of developing and creating intensively for so long might have caught up to Dmytryk, who did not give his definitive plans for the future, and it appears he may be taking some time off before jumping into a new venture:
“The future? Extremely bright. Ambitions intact, just getting started as a transformative company that could elevate billions of lives. So why leave now?! Human life’s always been my North Star, right now I need to be with mines. I’ve always admired Tesla’s top leadership and vision. But what I’ve always found incredible is the tenacity, brilliance and devotion of people on the front line. YOU make Tesla unstoppable. I wish you all the best and of course EPIC wins.”
The move was first reported by NotaTeslaApp.
Over-the-Air updates are among Tesla’s best features. They are used to improve the Full Self-Driving suite, add features, remedy recalls, and more. Many vehicles have the ability to receive OTA updates, as I did in a Ford Bronco previous to my Model Y. However, Tesla does them better than anyone else: they’re seamless, effective, and frequent. Your car always improves.
The move is a blow to Tesla, of course, considering Dmytryk’s massive contribution to the company and extremely long tenure spent, but not something that is overwhelmingly detrimental. Tesla deals with a lot of extremely intelligent people, some of whom are the best in their field, so they are sure to find a suitable replacement.
However, it’s no secret that the company has been losing some of its top talent, some of whom were in executive roles. Some have left to take on new projects, and others have not revealed their career plans.
It seems at least some of those employees are simply deciding to walk away and try new things after working so hard for so long. According to Dmytryk’s LinkedIn, he also played a large part in Musk’s acquisition of X, as he stated he “worked at Twitter/X ~45/week while working at the same pace for Tesla.”
That averages a 13-hour day, seven days a week, or 18 hours for the normal five-day work week.
News
Tesla’s most wanted Model Y heads to new region with no sign of U.S. entry
Unlike the standard Model Y, the “L” stretches the wheelbase by roughly 150 mm and the overall length by about 177 mm to 4,976 mm. The result is a genuine 2-2-2 seating layout that gives six adults proper legroom and cargo space — a true family hauler without the cramped third-row compromises of many three-row SUVs.
Tesla’s most wanted Model Y configuration is heading to a new region, and although U.S. fans and owners have requested the vehicle since its release last year, it appears the company has no plans to bring it to the market.
According to fresh regulatory filings, the six-seat Model Y L is coming to South Korea with signs indicating an imminent launch. The extended-wheelbase configuration, already a hit in China, just cleared energy-efficiency certification from the Korea Energy Agency, paving the way for deliveries as early as the first half of 2026.
The vehicle is already built at Tesla’s Giga Shanghai facility in China, making it an ideal candidate for the Asian market, as well as the European one, as the factory has been known as a bit of an export hub in the past.
$TSLA
BREAKING: The official launch of Tesla Model Y L in S.Korea seems to be quite imminent.Additional credentials related to Model YL were released today.
✅ Battery Manufacturer: LG Energy Solutions
✅ Number of passengers: 6 people
✅ Total battery capacity: 97.25 kWh… pic.twitter.com/hmy64XYi80— Tsla Chan (@Tslachan) March 6, 2026
It seems like Tesla was prepping for this release anyway, as the timing was no accident. A camouflaged Model Y L prototype was spotted testing on Korean highways the same day the certification dropped. Tesla has already secured similar approvals for Australia and New Zealand, with both markets expecting the larger Model Y in 2026.
Unlike the standard Model Y, the “L” stretches the wheelbase by roughly 150 mm and the overall length by about 177 mm to 4,976 mm. The result is a genuine 2-2-2 seating layout that gives six adults proper legroom and cargo space — a true family hauler without the cramped third-row compromises of many three-row SUVs.
South Korean filings list it as an all-wheel-drive imported electric passenger vehicle with a 97.25 kWh total battery capacity supplied by LG Energy Solution. Local tests show an impressive 543 km (337 miles) combined range at room temperature and 454 km (282 miles) in colder conditions, easing one of the biggest concerns for Korean EV buyers.
Tesla Model Y lineup expansion signals an uncomfortable reality for consumers
But for U.S. fans, things are not looking good for a launch in the market.
CEO Elon Musk has been blunt. The six-seater “wouldn’t arrive in the U.S. until late 2026, if ever,” he said, pointing to the company’s heavy bet on unsupervised Full Self-Driving and robotaxi platforms like the Cybercab. With the Model X slated for discontinuation, many families hoped the stretched Model Y would slide into the lineup as an affordable three-row bridge. So far, that hope remains unfulfilled.
For now, South Korean drivers will be among the first buyers outside China to enjoy the spacious, efficient Model Y L. Tesla continues its global rollout strategy, tailoring vehicles to regional tastes while North American customers keep refreshing their apps and crossing their fingers.
The Model Y L proves the appetite for practical, family-sized electric SUVs is stronger than ever. Hopefully, Tesla will listen to its fans and bring the vehicle to the U.S. where it would likely sell well.
Elon Musk
Tesla is ramping up its advertising strategy on social media
Tesla has long stood out in the automotive world for its unconventional approach to advertising—or, more accurately, its near-total avoidance of it. For over a decade, the company spent virtually nothing on traditional marketing.
Tesla seems to be ramping up its advertising strategy on social media once again. Marketing and advertising have not been a major focus of Tesla’s, something that has brought some criticism to the company from its fans.
However, the company looks to be making adjustments to that narrative, as it has at times in the past, as ads were spotted on several different platforms over the past few days.
On Facebook and YouTube, ads were spotted that were evidently placed by Tesla. On Facebook, Tesla was advertising Full Self-Driving, and on YouTube, an ad for its Energy Division was spotted:
Tesla also threw up some ads on YouTube for Energy https://t.co/19DGQMjBsA pic.twitter.com/XQRfgaDKxY
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 9, 2026
Tesla has long stood out in the automotive world for its unconventional approach to advertising—or, more accurately, its near-total avoidance of it. For over a decade, the company spent virtually nothing on traditional marketing.
In 2022, Tesla’s U.S. ad spend was roughly $152,000, a rounding error compared to General Motors’ $3.6 billion the following year.
Traditional automakers averaged about $495 per vehicle on ads; Tesla spent $0. CEOElon Musk’s stance was explicit: “Tesla does not advertise or pay for endorsements,” he posted on X in 2019. “Instead, we use that money to make the product great.”
The strategy relied on word-of-mouth from delighted owners, Elon’s massive X following, viral product launches, media frenzy, and customer referrals. A great product, Musk argued, sells itself. It does not need Super Bowl spots or billboards. Resources poured into R&D instead, with Tesla investing nearly $3,000 per car, far more than rivals.
Tesla counters jab at lack of advertising with perfect response
This reluctance wasn’t arrogance; it was philosophy, and Musk made it clear that the money was better spent on the product. Heavy spending on ads was seen as wasteful when innovation and authenticity drove organic demand. Shareholder calls for marketing budgets were ignored.
The current shift, paid Facebook ads promoting Full Self-Driving (Supervised) and YouTube Shorts offering up to $1,000 back on Powerwall batteries, marks a pragmatic evolution.
These targeted campaigns coincide with the end of one-time FSD purchases and a March 31 deadline for FSD transfer eligibility on new vehicles.
This move likely signals Tesla adapting to scale, as well as a more concerted effort to stop misinformation regarding its platform. As EV competition intensifies and the company bets big on robotaxis and energy storage, pure organic buzz may not suffice to hit adoption targets. Selective digital ads allow precise, cost-effective reach without abandoning core principles.
If successful, it could foreshadow measured expansion into marketing, boosting high-margin software and home energy revenue while preserving Tesla’s innovative edge. But, it’s nice to see the strategy return, especially as Tesla has been reluctant to change its mind in the past.
Tesla loses Director who designed one of the company’s best features
Tesla’s most wanted Model Y heads to new region with no sign of U.S. entry
