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 scaled back driver monitoring to be less naggy with the latest version of the Full Self-Driving (Supervised) suite, which is version 14.3.3.
The latest version is already earning praise from owners, who are reporting that the suite is far less invasive when it comes to keeping drivers from taking their eyes off the road. The first to mention it was notable Tesla community member on X known as Zack, or BLKMDL3.
14.3.3 nags less too https://t.co/IuiWzuYO6O
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 18, 2026
Musk confirmed that v14.3.3 was made to nag drivers significantly less, something that Tesla has worked toward in the past and has said with previous versions that it is less likely to push drivers to look ahead, at least after looking away for a few seconds.
This refinement aligns with Tesla’s ongoing push toward unsupervised FSD. The update also brings faster Actual Smart Summon (now up to 8 mph), reliable “Hey Grok” voice commands, richer visualizations, smoother Mad Max acceleration, and an intervention streak counter that rewards consistent use. Reviewers describe the drive as more human-like and confident, with fewer twitches or unnecessary maneuvers.
Musk has repeatedly signaled this direction. In late 2025, he stated that FSD would allow phone use “depending on context of surrounding traffic,” noting safety data would justify relaxing rules so drivers could text in low-risk scenarios like stop-and-go traffic.
We tested this, and even still, the cell phone monitoring really seems to be less active in terms of alerting drivers:
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.1 texting and driving: we tested it
Earlier, ahead of v14, Musk promised the system would “nag the driver much less” once safety metrics improved.
In 2023, he confirmed the steering wheel torque nag would be “gradually reduced, proportionate to improved safety,” shifting reliance to the cabin camera. Subsequent updates like v13.2.9 and v12.4 further loosened monitoring, cracking down on workarounds while easing legitimate distractions.
These steps reflect Tesla’s data-driven approach: FSD’s safety record—reportedly averaging millions of miles per crash—now outpaces human drivers in many scenarios, giving the company confidence to dial back interventions. Reduced nags improve usability and trust, encouraging more drivers to rely on the system rather than disengaging out of frustration.
However, there are certainly still some concerns. In many states, it is illegal to handle a cell phone in any way, requiring the use of hands-free devices. In Pennsylvania, it is illegal to use your cell phone at stop lights, which is definitely a step further than using it while the car is actively in motion.
v14.3.3 represents tangible progress. Making FSD less adversarial and more seamless is definitely a step forward, but drivers need to be aware of the dangers of distracted driving. FSD is extremely capable, but it is in no way fully autonomous, nor does its performance warrant owners to take their attention off the road.
Tesla has officially expanded its Full Self-Driving (FSD) suite in Europe once again, as it will now be offered to customer vehicles in Lithuania, marking a significant milestone as the second European Union country to offer the system.
Tesla confirmed FSD’s rollout in Lithuania this morning:
FSD Supervised now rolling out to Teslas in Lithuania 🇱🇹!
Making European roads safer, one by one pic.twitter.com/Uuj0bNG7pP
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) May 20, 2026
Tesla showed several clips of Full Self-Driving navigation in Lithuania to mark the announcement, while Lithuanian Transport Minister Juras Taminskas highlighted the system’s potential to assist with lane-keeping, speed adjustment, and traffic tasks on longer drives, while emphasizing that drivers must stay alert and ready to intervene.
Just a few weeks ago, Tesla officially entered Europe with Full Self-Driving in the Netherlands. The expansion of FSD on the continent is now officially underway.
Full Self-Driving’s European Journey
Europe has long posed one of the toughest regulatory challenges for Tesla’s autonomy ambitions due to stringent safety standards under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) framework, particularly UN Regulation 171 for Driver Control Assistance Systems.
The Netherlands’ RDW authority granted the pioneering approval after over 18 months of rigorous testing, including 1.6 million kilometers on European roads and extensive data submissions.
This approval enables mutual recognition across the EU, allowing other member states to adopt it nationally without full re-testing. Lithuania quickly leveraged this mechanism, becoming the second adopter. Tesla positions FSD Supervised as a tool to incrementally improve road safety, with the company claiming it reduces incidents when used properly.
Bottlenecks slowing broader European deployment include fragmented national regulations, varying levels of regulatory skepticism, and requirements for robust driver monitoring. Some EU officials have raised concerns about performance in adverse conditions like icy roads or speeding scenarios, alongside frustrations over Tesla’s public advocacy approach.
Additional hurdles involve data privacy, liability frameworks, and the need for EU-wide harmonization. While countries like Belgium appear to be fast-tracking adoption, larger markets such as Germany, France, and Italy are expected to follow in the coming months, with potential EU-wide progress targeted for later in 2026.
Tesla Full Self-Driving Across the World
As of May, Full Self-Driving (Supervised) is available in approximately ten countries.
In North America, it has been live for years in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Puerto Rico. Asia-Pacific additions include Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea, while China utilizes what Tesla calls “City Autopilot.” In Europe, the Netherlands and now Lithuania join the list, with more countries mulling the possibility of also approving FSD.
Tesla offers FSD via monthly subscriptions (around €99 in Europe) or one-time purchases (with deadlines approaching in many markets), shifting toward recurring revenue models. Today is the final day Europeans will be able to purchase the suite outright.
This expansion underscores Tesla’s push for global autonomy, starting with supervised and building toward greater capabilities. With Lithuania now online, momentum is building across Europe, though regulatory caution will continue shaping the pace. Owners in approved regions report smoother highway and urban driving, but the system remains Level 2, which requires human oversight.
Elon Musk
Tesla ditches India after years of broken promises
Tesla has ditched its plans to build a factory in India after years of failed negotiations.
Tesla’s long-running effort to establish a manufacturing presence in India is officially over. India’s Minister of Heavy Industries H.D. Kumaraswamy confirmed on May 19, 2026 that Tesla has informed authorities it will not proceed with a manufacturing facility in the country.
Tesla first signaled serious interest in India around 2021, when it began hiring local staff and lobbying the Indian government for lower import tariffs. The ask was straightforward: reduce duties enough for Tesla to test the market with imported vehicles before committing capital to a local factory. India’s position was equally firm, with an ask of Tesla to commit to manufacturing first, then receive tariff relief. Neither side moved, and the talks quietly collapsed.
Tesla to open first India experience center in Mumbai on July 15
India had offered a policy that would reduce import duties from 110% down to 15% on EVs priced above $35,000, provided companies committed at least $500 million toward local manufacturing investment within three years. Tesla declined to participate. The tariff standoff was only part of the problem. Analysts pointed to significant gaps in India’s local supply chain, inadequate industrial infrastructure, and a mismatch between Tesla’s premium pricing and the purchasing power of India’s automotive market as additional factors that made the investment difficult to justify.
First signs of an unraveling relationship came in April 2024, when Musk abruptly cancelled a planned trip to India where he was set to meet Prime Minister Modi and announce Tesla’s market entry. By July 2024, Fortune reported that Tesla executives had stopped contacting Indian government officials entirely. The government at that point understood Tesla had capital constraints and no plans to invest.
The more fundamental issue is that Tesla’s existing factories are currently operating at approximately 60% capacity, making a commitment to building new manufacturing capacity in a new market difficult to defend to investors. Tesla will continue selling imported Model Y vehicles through its existing showrooms in Mumbai, Delhi, Gurugram, and Bengaluru, but local production is no longer part of the plan.
Tesla scales back driver monitoring with latest Full Self-Driving release
Tesla Full Self-Driving expands in Europe, entering its second country
