7 ms·

Does SpaceX have any real competitors in the private sector? Would be a bummer if people decided they were a monopoly of some sort and demanded a break up.

by vtange 10y ago

r00fus 10y ago
Does Blue Origin count?
- mijoharas 10y ago
  I believe they are currently doing sub-orbital flights while they are working up to re-usable orbital flights. Please correct me if i misremembered.
  - Eerie 10y ago
    You know there is absolutely no reason for you to "believe" anything about Blue Origin, right? Google, Wikipedia and Blue Origin's own website is 3 seconds away.
  - ncallaway 10y ago
    This is correct. Their current launch stack is and will remain sub-orbital hops above the Kármán line. They are actively working on their next gen launch stack (New Glenn), which is set to have its first launch before 2020. New Glenn will be a reusable launch stack capable of inserting payloads into orbit. It will be roughly similar to the Falcon Heavy in terms of mission capabilities.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  No. Not even close to this.
- ericcumbee 10y ago
  I'm not sure how valid it is, but i read somewhere that Blue Origin and SpaceX are both shooting for the same target, but taking different paths. Blue Origin is doing Reusability first and orbital second. SpaceX went Orbital first and Reusability second. although to me it seems spacex is clearly ahead.
  - vkou 10y ago
    The difference between launching something to space and to orbit is roughly the difference between a bicycle, and a motorcycle. Blue Origin can go to space. They are nowhere close to going to orbit. We've sent things to space and back a long time ago. We call them airplanes. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15
    - ncallaway 10y ago
      Blue Origin isn't as far back as it may seem. They're new engine (BE-4) that will power New Glenn is going through test firings now. Additionally, they're angling to get BE-4 sold into other launch stacks than just their internal hardware. If they are able to get BE-4 out into other launch stacks in the next year or two, it's very possible that New Glenn will launch it's first mission before 2020. New Glenn will be comparable to the Falcon Heavy in terms of lift. The Falcon Heavy won't have it's demo flight until later this year. I'd agree that Blue Origin is behind SpaceX. Still, though, I think they are on a pretty good track to take second place in the reusable launch stack to orbit.
      - yborg 10y ago
        SpaceX Merlin 1C completed its first full duration firing in 2007, a decade ago. Blue Origin is trying to go straight to a large engine with more than twice the thrust of the Merlin 1 AND using a fuel that has never been used in rocketry for an engine this size. I'm impressed that Blue Origin has come this far, but they are most likely 5 years behind SpaceX, and probably more.
- manarth 10y ago
  No: SpaceX is launching satellites into various orbits, which Blue Origin cannot do yet (and cannot do with their current rocket).
- pixelcloud 10y ago
  They are still a ways off from having something comparable to SpaceX. New Glenn might have a test launch in 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
neuronexmachina 10y ago
One could argue whether they're truly private sector, but they still haven't quite displaced ULA. In 2016 there were 12 ULA launches, 8 SpaceX launches, and 2 by Orbital ATK. Looking at other countries, there were 20 Chinese launches, 18 Russian launches, 9 European launches, and 7 Indian launches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_spaceflight#Orbital_launch_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_spaceflight#Orbital_la...
- jacquesm 10y ago
  That's why this is so big, dropping the costs significantly could easily pull a significant fraction of those other launches to SpaceX. Pretty soon the ability to re-launch the same booster will be considered a must-have feature if you want to be in the rocket business, unless you fly missions so close the maximum payload or trajectory that recovery is impossible.
  - rrmm 10y ago
    SpaceX would still have to deal with scheduling: making enough upper stages and having limited launch/landing pads they share with NASA/ULA/ATK. So those with less cost-sensitive payloads (governments) would probably still pay a premium to launch their payloads sooner rather than cheaper.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      That doesn't add up: SpaceX will be able to use a chunk of their savings to outbid their competitors for launch capacity. So any premium paid by a competitor would have to be passed on to their customers to stay afloat whereas SpaceX would merely give a slightly lower discount. SpaceX really caused some sleepless nights today with the executives of other rocket companies they are several years away from being able to begin to play catch-up. This was one very long bet SpaceX made and it paid off today and will continue to pay off for years to come.
      - rrmm 10y ago
rrmm 10y ago
They wouldn't have a monopoly since there are plenty of other launch services out there (ULA,Russians,ESA,etc). The fact that SpaceX will probably be able to do it for much cheaper doesn't factor into it.
nickik 10y ago
At least in the US that is not possible anymore. The wild inconsistency (arbitrary enforcement) of Anti-Trust Law has been replaced by a consistent definition thanks to the activities of many judges and legal theorists. The new definition is basically that one needs to prove abuse of consumers to make Anti-Trust law effective. I don't think SpaceX is in danger of being accused of that. They really don't have any competition on price anymore, but they are yet unable to actually do as many flights as they need to. To solve that they are building even more launch sites and thanks to the re-usability they will be able to do more flights without further increasing their engine output.
jccooper 10y ago
Bezos's Blue Origin is on track to have a very similar system in a few years, and perhaps even better eventually with the possibility of a reusable second stage. ULA still has plenty of contracts and could compete if its parent companies wanted to spend the money to do so. Arianespace is vaguely commercial, is currently cost-competitive, and could also choose to develop a reusable vehicle, if its parent companies/countries can stand the expense. There are also plenty of small-launcher outfits currently working that could also scale up given a contract and/or investment, just like SpaceX did from Falcon 1 to F9, were SpaceX to leave any room in the market by overpricing.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > Bezos's Blue Origin is on track to have a very similar system in a few years That's on paper, not anything they've flown has come close to what SpaceX is demonstrating as a matter of some routine now. (1) never been to orbit (2) never been to orbit and then back down to a landing (3) 6 flights vs 33 (4) payload < 2 Tonnes vs 5.5 for Falcon 9 re-usable (and 8 expendable). At this point in time Blue Origin to me looks like a slightly more serious version of Armadillo Aerospace and SpaceX looks like the company that will put the majority of tonnage into orbit in the next decade.
  - jccooper 10y ago
    It's easy to confuse Blue Origin with other companies with paper plans, but they're the real deal. Besides having demonstrated clear competence with New Shepard (with an LH2 engine no less), the orbital version is well underway. They've leased the pad, are currently building the factory, and are testing the engine. And Bezos definitely has the money. They may not be flying the New Glenn yet, but they will.
    - Robotbeat 10y ago
      Yeah. Blue Origin is probably at least 4 years behind, but Bezos has more money than God and Blue Origin's approach is technically sound, so yeah. I don't think SpaceX will indefinitely be the only reusable launch provider, and I don't think anyone would want that anyway.
hackuser 10y ago
> Does SpaceX have any real competitors in the private sector? They do, such as Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin, United Launch Alliance, and others I can't think of off the top of my head. However, Musk appears to have a major advantage: At least two major investment banks [0][1][2] and many other observers and investors [3][4] believe a major advantage Musk has over competitors is his relationship with President Trump. They claim it has greatly increased investment in Tesla (and investment indeed has greatly increased since Musk embraced Trump after the election, but of course the cause is impossible to prove and U.S. stocks in general have rallied). If you doubt this is an issue, not only see the cites but search a news index for "musk trump" - it is widespread outside HN. I don't know about the effect on SpaceX (are they public?), but the space business is highly dependent on government contracts, project funding, and regulation; you can imagine what the appearances are. Compare that with competitor Jeff Bezos, for example, who owns a major newspaper that regularly criticizes Trump; will the competition for government contracts and other benefits be free and fair? It would be bad for the space industry, the economy, the U.S. as a nation, and the fight for the free market and against corruption if that relationship decided or even appeared to decide the winner in this competition. Appearances are reality on the public stage; if people merely perceive corruption helped him, the (many) unscrupulous people will try to use that tactics themselves and many others will doubt Musk's legitimacy. I think he has what it takes to win on his own; the other stuff could undermine him unnecessarily, and be bad for everyone else. ---- [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/business/elon-musk-donald-trump-wall-street.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/business/elon-musk-donald... [1] http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/20/technology/elon-musk-trump/ http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/20/technology/elon-musk-trump/ [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/ubs-analyst-says-he-cant-understand-why-tesla-shares-are-up-so-much.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/ubs-analyst-says-he-cant-und... [3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-26/musk-s-surprising-rapport-with-trump-yields-40-rally-for-tesla https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-26/musk-s-su... [4] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/elon-musk-is-all-in-on-donald-trump/515562/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/elon-... [Mods: Last time I mentioned Musk's relationship with Trump, you objected but the problem wasn't clear to me; I responded and asked, but probably too late to for you to see it. ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13880838 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13880838 ) If this post is somehow objectionable, please tell me the problem so that I can avoid it in the future. This seems like many other posts on HN, except its content criticizes a very popular figure and includes a controversial one; hopefully popularity doesn't preclude criticism and the POTUS can be discussed. I am speaking plainly and documenting it very well.]
InclinedPlane 10y ago
Arianespace is their biggest competitor, they are the de facto rulers of the commercial launch market, with SpaceX hot on their heels. The Ariane 5 launches twin payloads about 7 times a year, for a total of about 14 total spacecraft launches per year. SpaceX is about at a similar cadence but has yet to hit the overall schedule and mission reliability figures that Arianespace has achieved so it's still a bit of a race. Launching on Ariane is the easy, safe choice. Launching on the Falcon 9 is still considered to be a little bit risky, more so from a schedule perspective (which is still a big deal in the industry). SpaceX is increasing its launch cadence and reducing its prices substantially (through reusability) so they are becoming more competitive by leaps and bounds every moment. If they can follow through on their cadence increases (right now they are around an average of 3 weeks between launches and a minimum of 2 weeks) and cost reductions (see recent flight) no one else will be able to keep up with them. Their internal cost reductions on reuse are unknown but their current price reductions are around 30%, which is off of their already incredibly aggressive low launch prices. If SpaceX can provide launches at around $45 mil and can launch often enough to satisfy demand reasonably then they'll end up with the majority of the commercial launch business eventually. If you can put your satellite in orbit reliably and save on the order of $50 million then you'd be insane not to do so. There's a bit of an insurance premium with launching on SpaceX currently but that should even out after a while and the huge cost reductions swamp that difference regardless (even if, for example, SpaceX were to blow up another rocket tomorrow). The only realistic competitor for SpaceX in the near term is Blue Origin, once they develop their orbital launcher which will also have VTVL first stage reusability. The timeline on that is sometime before 2020, but that's likely to be the soonest any real competition for SpaceX's business model shows up. Once it becomes commonplace for launches to involve first stage reuse (which will probably happen over the next 5 years or so) I'd expect a lot of the other rocket companies (like Boeing and LockMart) to come out with similar designs (or go out of business or be relegated to national payloads only). It's a lot easier to put forward some hypothetical "better" design for your next generation rocket when everything is on paper, it's a lot harder to pretend your rocket is still better when you're getting your face pushed in by the competition on price by huge margins on a regular basis. Once SpaceX has the Falcon Heavy running (which will be even more reusable since the upper stage is a smaller proportion of the rocket) they'll be able to launch nearly anything anyone else can, and at dramatically lower costs. Once they're able to launch GPS satellites (which they've already got orders for) as well as the big national security birds (on the FH) for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars less than ULA then almost all of that business is going to flow to them and LockMart/Boeing are going to have some tough times.
kilroy123 10y ago
The Russians are doing more private launches with Soyuz and the Indians are also likely to do the same.
- Robotbeat 10y ago
  From what I can tell, that's not true. Last year, SpaceX did 5 commercial launches (i.e. non-government) with Falcon 9 while Soyuz only did 2 or 3 (depending on how you count "commercial").

Does SpaceX have any real competitors in the private sector? Would be a bummer if people decided they were a monopoly of some sort and demanded a break up.

by vtange 10y ago

Does SpaceX have any real competitors in the private sector? Would be a bummer if people decided they were a monopoly of some sort and demanded a break up.

r00fus 10y ago

Does Blue Origin count?

mijoharas 10y ago
I believe they are currently doing sub-orbital flights while they are working up to re-usable orbital flights. Please correct me if i misremembered.
- Eerie 10y ago
  You know there is absolutely no reason for you to "believe" anything about Blue Origin, right? Google, Wikipedia and Blue Origin's own website is 3 seconds away.
- ncallaway 10y ago
  This is correct. Their current launch stack is and will remain sub-orbital hops above the Kármán line. They are actively working on their next gen launch stack (New Glenn), which is set to have its first launch before 2020. New Glenn will be a reusable launch stack capable of inserting payloads into orbit. It will be roughly similar to the Falcon Heavy in terms of mission capabilities.
jacquesm 10y ago
No. Not even close to this.
ericcumbee 10y ago
I'm not sure how valid it is, but i read somewhere that Blue Origin and SpaceX are both shooting for the same target, but taking different paths. Blue Origin is doing Reusability first and orbital second. SpaceX went Orbital first and Reusability second. although to me it seems spacex is clearly ahead.
- vkou 10y ago
  The difference between launching something to space and to orbit is roughly the difference between a bicycle, and a motorcycle. Blue Origin can go to space. They are nowhere close to going to orbit. We've sent things to space and back a long time ago. We call them airplanes. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15
  - ncallaway 10y ago
    Blue Origin isn't as far back as it may seem. They're new engine (BE-4) that will power New Glenn is going through test firings now. Additionally, they're angling to get BE-4 sold into other launch stacks than just their internal hardware. If they are able to get BE-4 out into other launch stacks in the next year or two, it's very possible that New Glenn will launch it's first mission before 2020. New Glenn will be comparable to the Falcon Heavy in terms of lift. The Falcon Heavy won't have it's demo flight until later this year. I'd agree that Blue Origin is behind SpaceX. Still, though, I think they are on a pretty good track to take second place in the reusable launch stack to orbit.
    - yborg 10y ago
      SpaceX Merlin 1C completed its first full duration firing in 2007, a decade ago. Blue Origin is trying to go straight to a large engine with more than twice the thrust of the Merlin 1 AND using a fuel that has never been used in rocketry for an engine this size. I'm impressed that Blue Origin has come this far, but they are most likely 5 years behind SpaceX, and probably more.
manarth 10y ago
No: SpaceX is launching satellites into various orbits, which Blue Origin cannot do yet (and cannot do with their current rocket).
pixelcloud 10y ago
They are still a ways off from having something comparable to SpaceX. New Glenn might have a test launch in 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

neuronexmachina 10y ago

One could argue whether they're truly private sector, but they still haven't quite displaced ULA. In 2016 there were 12 ULA launches, 8 SpaceX launches, and 2 by Orbital ATK. Looking at other countries, there were 20 Chinese launches, 18 Russian launches, 9 European launches, and 7 Indian launches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_spaceflight#Orbital_launch_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_spaceflight#Orbital_la...

jacquesm 10y ago
That's why this is so big, dropping the costs significantly could easily pull a significant fraction of those other launches to SpaceX. Pretty soon the ability to re-launch the same booster will be considered a must-have feature if you want to be in the rocket business, unless you fly missions so close the maximum payload or trajectory that recovery is impossible.
- rrmm 10y ago
  SpaceX would still have to deal with scheduling: making enough upper stages and having limited launch/landing pads they share with NASA/ULA/ATK. So those with less cost-sensitive payloads (governments) would probably still pay a premium to launch their payloads sooner rather than cheaper.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    That doesn't add up: SpaceX will be able to use a chunk of their savings to outbid their competitors for launch capacity. So any premium paid by a competitor would have to be passed on to their customers to stay afloat whereas SpaceX would merely give a slightly lower discount. SpaceX really caused some sleepless nights today with the executives of other rocket companies they are several years away from being able to begin to play catch-up. This was one very long bet SpaceX made and it paid off today and will continue to pay off for years to come.
    - rrmm 10y ago

rrmm 10y ago

They wouldn't have a monopoly since there are plenty of other launch services out there (ULA,Russians,ESA,etc). The fact that SpaceX will probably be able to do it for much cheaper doesn't factor into it.

nickik 10y ago

At least in the US that is not possible anymore. The wild inconsistency (arbitrary enforcement) of Anti-Trust Law has been replaced by a consistent definition thanks to the activities of many judges and legal theorists. The new definition is basically that one needs to prove abuse of consumers to make Anti-Trust law effective. I don't think SpaceX is in danger of being accused of that. They really don't have any competition on price anymore, but they are yet unable to actually do as many flights as they need to. To solve that they are building even more launch sites and thanks to the re-usability they will be able to do more flights without further increasing their engine output.

jccooper 10y ago

Bezos's Blue Origin is on track to have a very similar system in a few years, and perhaps even better eventually with the possibility of a reusable second stage. ULA still has plenty of contracts and could compete if its parent companies wanted to spend the money to do so. Arianespace is vaguely commercial, is currently cost-competitive, and could also choose to develop a reusable vehicle, if its parent companies/countries can stand the expense. There are also plenty of small-launcher outfits currently working that could also scale up given a contract and/or investment, just like SpaceX did from Falcon 1 to F9, were SpaceX to leave any room in the market by overpricing.

jacquesm 10y ago
> Bezos's Blue Origin is on track to have a very similar system in a few years That's on paper, not anything they've flown has come close to what SpaceX is demonstrating as a matter of some routine now. (1) never been to orbit (2) never been to orbit and then back down to a landing (3) 6 flights vs 33 (4) payload < 2 Tonnes vs 5.5 for Falcon 9 re-usable (and 8 expendable). At this point in time Blue Origin to me looks like a slightly more serious version of Armadillo Aerospace and SpaceX looks like the company that will put the majority of tonnage into orbit in the next decade.
- jccooper 10y ago
  It's easy to confuse Blue Origin with other companies with paper plans, but they're the real deal. Besides having demonstrated clear competence with New Shepard (with an LH2 engine no less), the orbital version is well underway. They've leased the pad, are currently building the factory, and are testing the engine. And Bezos definitely has the money. They may not be flying the New Glenn yet, but they will.
  - Robotbeat 10y ago
    Yeah. Blue Origin is probably at least 4 years behind, but Bezos has more money than God and Blue Origin's approach is technically sound, so yeah. I don't think SpaceX will indefinitely be the only reusable launch provider, and I don't think anyone would want that anyway.

hackuser 10y ago

> Does SpaceX have any real competitors in the private sector? They do, such as Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin, United Launch Alliance, and others I can't think of off the top of my head. However, Musk appears to have a major advantage: At least two major investment banks [0][1][2] and many other observers and investors [3][4] believe a major advantage Musk has over competitors is his relationship with President Trump. They claim it has greatly increased investment in Tesla (and investment indeed has greatly increased since Musk embraced Trump after the election, but of course the cause is impossible to prove and U.S. stocks in general have rallied). If you doubt this is an issue, not only see the cites but search a news index for "musk trump" - it is widespread outside HN. I don't know about the effect on SpaceX (are they public?), but the space business is highly dependent on government contracts, project funding, and regulation; you can imagine what the appearances are. Compare that with competitor Jeff Bezos, for example, who owns a major newspaper that regularly criticizes Trump; will the competition for government contracts and other benefits be free and fair? It would be bad for the space industry, the economy, the U.S. as a nation, and the fight for the free market and against corruption if that relationship decided or even appeared to decide the winner in this competition. Appearances are reality on the public stage; if people merely perceive corruption helped him, the (many) unscrupulous people will try to use that tactics themselves and many others will doubt Musk's legitimacy. I think he has what it takes to win on his own; the other stuff could undermine him unnecessarily, and be bad for everyone else. ---- [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/business/elon-musk-donald-trump-wall-street.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/business/elon-musk-donald... [1] http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/20/technology/elon-musk-trump/ http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/20/technology/elon-musk-trump/ [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/ubs-analyst-says-he-cant-understand-why-tesla-shares-are-up-so-much.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/ubs-analyst-says-he-cant-und... [3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-26/musk-s-surprising-rapport-with-trump-yields-40-rally-for-tesla https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-26/musk-s-su... [4] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/elon-musk-is-all-in-on-donald-trump/515562/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/elon-... [Mods: Last time I mentioned Musk's relationship with Trump, you objected but the problem wasn't clear to me; I responded and asked, but probably too late to for you to see it. ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13880838 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13880838 ) If this post is somehow objectionable, please tell me the problem so that I can avoid it in the future. This seems like many other posts on HN, except its content criticizes a very popular figure and includes a controversial one; hopefully popularity doesn't preclude criticism and the POTUS can be discussed. I am speaking plainly and documenting it very well.]

InclinedPlane 10y ago

Arianespace is their biggest competitor, they are the de facto rulers of the commercial launch market, with SpaceX hot on their heels. The Ariane 5 launches twin payloads about 7 times a year, for a total of about 14 total spacecraft launches per year. SpaceX is about at a similar cadence but has yet to hit the overall schedule and mission reliability figures that Arianespace has achieved so it's still a bit of a race. Launching on Ariane is the easy, safe choice. Launching on the Falcon 9 is still considered to be a little bit risky, more so from a schedule perspective (which is still a big deal in the industry). SpaceX is increasing its launch cadence and reducing its prices substantially (through reusability) so they are becoming more competitive by leaps and bounds every moment. If they can follow through on their cadence increases (right now they are around an average of 3 weeks between launches and a minimum of 2 weeks) and cost reductions (see recent flight) no one else will be able to keep up with them. Their internal cost reductions on reuse are unknown but their current price reductions are around 30%, which is off of their already incredibly aggressive low launch prices. If SpaceX can provide launches at around $45 mil and can launch often enough to satisfy demand reasonably then they'll end up with the majority of the commercial launch business eventually. If you can put your satellite in orbit reliably and save on the order of $50 million then you'd be insane not to do so. There's a bit of an insurance premium with launching on SpaceX currently but that should even out after a while and the huge cost reductions swamp that difference regardless (even if, for example, SpaceX were to blow up another rocket tomorrow). The only realistic competitor for SpaceX in the near term is Blue Origin, once they develop their orbital launcher which will also have VTVL first stage reusability. The timeline on that is sometime before 2020, but that's likely to be the soonest any real competition for SpaceX's business model shows up. Once it becomes commonplace for launches to involve first stage reuse (which will probably happen over the next 5 years or so) I'd expect a lot of the other rocket companies (like Boeing and LockMart) to come out with similar designs (or go out of business or be relegated to national payloads only). It's a lot easier to put forward some hypothetical "better" design for your next generation rocket when everything is on paper, it's a lot harder to pretend your rocket is still better when you're getting your face pushed in by the competition on price by huge margins on a regular basis. Once SpaceX has the Falcon Heavy running (which will be even more reusable since the upper stage is a smaller proportion of the rocket) they'll be able to launch nearly anything anyone else can, and at dramatically lower costs. Once they're able to launch GPS satellites (which they've already got orders for) as well as the big national security birds (on the FH) for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars less than ULA then almost all of that business is going to flow to them and LockMart/Boeing are going to have some tough times.

kilroy123 10y ago

The Russians are doing more private launches with Soyuz and the Indians are also likely to do the same.

Robotbeat 10y ago
From what I can tell, that's not true. Last year, SpaceX did 5 commercial launches (i.e. non-government) with Falcon 9 while Soyuz only did 2 or 3 (depending on how you count "commercial").