4 ms·

As a counterexample, what is your take on the current outcroppings of LEO launch providers? Surely they are also quite capital intensive.

throwaway5752 7y ago
You mean SpaceX? I don't think large R&D orgs have a monopoly on innovation. And they aren't guaranteed to produce good results. In context, though, the US put people on the moon 50 years ago at the cost in present dollars of $.5T. Easily that much or more has probably been invested in the defense side of rocket development. I think SpaceX was applying 50 years of incremental improvements to a technology that was relatively stagnant ("it just works" conservative approach/lower government funding/general risk aversion profile). This is not to slight them at all, just putting it in perspective. But look at the payloads. Right now it's satellites/cargo. They still haven't done a manned mission. Commercial aircraft fly thousands of miles per day and carry hundreds of people. They do this while being repaired by different teams around the world. It's not as glamorous, but incremental updates in adhesives, radar, rivets, and other safety and repairability are big deals and R&D into safety and reliability shouldn't be discounted. That's on top of the satellite division and Phantom Works (sustained and controlled hypersonic scramjet, wings that change shape). I am not a rocket scientist, so take it all with a grain of salt.
- redis_mlc 7y ago
  > They still haven't done a manned mission. Good. What a waste of resources. > Commercial aircraft fly thousands of miles per day and carry hundreds of people. Jet engines are more reliable than rocket engines, and will always be.
  - bumby 7y ago
    > What a waste of resources. In your opinion, what should be the end goal worthy of resource allocation in the space sector?
- travisporter 7y ago
  I was actually thinking of Rocketlab, Vector, etc, but I definitely agree with overall sentiment. Reality is new R&D happens slowly unfortunately.
Nasrudith 7y ago
While capital certainly forms a barrier to entry benefits at scale has more of an effect on the equilibrium. Lets say that there is a rough quality/profitability function vs size called EOS. More money can help skip to the far end but if it doesn't give enough of an edge there isn't much point. A given field's capital requirements and EOS aren't independent but neither are they necessarily always driven by capital requirements. Essentially capital intensive makes it harder to enter and reduces the rate of attempts while EOS affects how well they can actually compete when they get there. Take Microsoft establishing the XBox Console ve Bing. Both took large ammounts of capital to launch but one is a success while the other is generally regarded as a joke. Once they got large enough as a platform the Xbox was "on the map" and a significant segment here to stay. Bing meanwhile remains a "second best". Other examples of EOS in action - while there are larger law firms they haven't consolidated, and most artists take commissions independently instead of forming a megaconglomerate. They don't get much of anything from it due to specialization and lack of shared demand. One example of EOS shifting is the decline of music producers with digital music and the rise of independent artists - the higher scale lost the relative edge.

throwaway5752 7y ago

You mean SpaceX? I don't think large R&D orgs have a monopoly on innovation. And they aren't guaranteed to produce good results. In context, though, the US put people on the moon 50 years ago at the cost in present dollars of $.5T. Easily that much or more has probably been invested in the defense side of rocket development. I think SpaceX was applying 50 years of incremental improvements to a technology that was relatively stagnant ("it just works" conservative approach/lower government funding/general risk aversion profile). This is not to slight them at all, just putting it in perspective. But look at the payloads. Right now it's satellites/cargo. They still haven't done a manned mission. Commercial aircraft fly thousands of miles per day and carry hundreds of people. They do this while being repaired by different teams around the world. It's not as glamorous, but incremental updates in adhesives, radar, rivets, and other safety and repairability are big deals and R&D into safety and reliability shouldn't be discounted. That's on top of the satellite division and Phantom Works (sustained and controlled hypersonic scramjet, wings that change shape). I am not a rocket scientist, so take it all with a grain of salt.

redis_mlc 7y ago
> They still haven't done a manned mission. Good. What a waste of resources. > Commercial aircraft fly thousands of miles per day and carry hundreds of people. Jet engines are more reliable than rocket engines, and will always be.
- bumby 7y ago
  > What a waste of resources. In your opinion, what should be the end goal worthy of resource allocation in the space sector?
travisporter 7y ago
I was actually thinking of Rocketlab, Vector, etc, but I definitely agree with overall sentiment. Reality is new R&D happens slowly unfortunately.

Nasrudith 7y ago

While capital certainly forms a barrier to entry benefits at scale has more of an effect on the equilibrium. Lets say that there is a rough quality/profitability function vs size called EOS. More money can help skip to the far end but if it doesn't give enough of an edge there isn't much point. A given field's capital requirements and EOS aren't independent but neither are they necessarily always driven by capital requirements. Essentially capital intensive makes it harder to enter and reduces the rate of attempts while EOS affects how well they can actually compete when they get there. Take Microsoft establishing the XBox Console ve Bing. Both took large ammounts of capital to launch but one is a success while the other is generally regarded as a joke. Once they got large enough as a platform the Xbox was "on the map" and a significant segment here to stay. Bing meanwhile remains a "second best". Other examples of EOS in action - while there are larger law firms they haven't consolidated, and most artists take commissions independently instead of forming a megaconglomerate. They don't get much of anything from it due to specialization and lack of shared demand. One example of EOS shifting is the decline of music producers with digital music and the rise of independent artists - the higher scale lost the relative edge.