3 ms·

It's remarkable that the only serious competitor to SpaceX is China (everyone else will perpetually lag). They have the budget, the iteration pace and will to c

It's remarkable that the only serious competitor to SpaceX is China (everyone else will perpetually lag). They have the budget, the iteration pace and will to catch up. If the US wants to get back to the Moon or go to Mars before China gets there, it's entirely on the shoulders of SpaceX to get us there. Much respect to China's accomplishments in this realm. The Russians are broke. I don't know what Bezos is doing with the $10b in cash he has raised from AMZN share sales but it's unlikely he's going to push Blue Origin to go a lot faster (gradatim ferociter and all that). ESA will keep moving along at its fixed institutional speed. JAXA ($1.5b) and ISRO don't have the budget to get there. It's down to SpaceX (big assist from NASA) vs China for the new space race.

someperson 6y ago
Both Rocket Lab and Blue Origin are currently ahead of China in developing re-usable rocket technology. Blue Origin is admittedly slower than China in developing rocket technology (they haven't even reached orbit yet), but they have a good engine and the New Sheppard has mastered low-velocity vertical takeoff and landing. Rockets designed in China are blocked from accessing the global launch vehicle market due to satellites containing ITAR restricted components (which is virtually all of them). The reason for this is to curtail China's military acquiring dual-use satellite technology, gaining capital to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles and reducing risk of nefarious actions on the satellites themselves. China say they'll master first stage re-usability of a medium-lift launch vehicle by 2025. For those of use who want to see an actual space race, let's hope this is a case of "under promise and over-deliver", because that's a Blue Origin level schedule.
- baybal2 6y ago
  China don't even need to have its launch vehicles reusable to be commercially competitive. The cost of hardware is probably just few percents of the cost of running the space programme itself. And on top of that, China is the heavy industry supergigant.
baybal2 6y ago
> JAXA ($1.5b) and ISRO don't have the budget to get there. Why so, India among other things managed to pull Martian insertion for 1/10th the cost of analogous US mission. And there is no question, that, at least at the moment, they have both working talent set, and leadership.
- adventured 6y ago
  Doing a primitive martian insert isn't anywhere in the same universe as landing people safely on the Moon or Mars. India will require several decades of further development yet to attempt a human Moon landing (much less Mars). Russia (nor the USSR before it) can't come close to doing it and they're still far more advanced than India in human launch capabilities. There are simple things (relatively speaking) you can slash the cost out of dramatically, where it doesn't translate to a far more advanced and difficult mission, and that includes landing humans on the Moon or Mars safely. NASA can do cheaper missions. There is nothing particularly special about that for such advanced organizations. NASA spends a lot of money because time (getting a mission right the first time) and scarce human resources are both more important to them than sheer dollar cost in most circumstances, unless we're talking enormous sums of money. They could have attempted James Webb in a much faster timeline at a far cheaper cost, by increasing the risk of failure in the mission; that trade-off is almost always undesirable for NASA. Simply put, a few hundred million dollars is a very big deal to ISRO, it's not a big deal to NASA. If spending $1 billion on a mission gets you down to 5% risk, or you can spend $100 million at 30% risk of failure, NASA will almost always choose the $1b option because there are not enough human resources to throw at numerous copycat missions and the time cost is immense.
- valuearb 6y ago
  India’s GSLV is less than half the payload capacity of a Falcon 9, and costs as much or lure per launch. India’s space program is funded at $2B a year, significantly more funding than SpaceX has had till recently.

someperson 6y ago

Both Rocket Lab and Blue Origin are currently ahead of China in developing re-usable rocket technology. Blue Origin is admittedly slower than China in developing rocket technology (they haven't even reached orbit yet), but they have a good engine and the New Sheppard has mastered low-velocity vertical takeoff and landing. Rockets designed in China are blocked from accessing the global launch vehicle market due to satellites containing ITAR restricted components (which is virtually all of them). The reason for this is to curtail China's military acquiring dual-use satellite technology, gaining capital to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles and reducing risk of nefarious actions on the satellites themselves. China say they'll master first stage re-usability of a medium-lift launch vehicle by 2025. For those of use who want to see an actual space race, let's hope this is a case of "under promise and over-deliver", because that's a Blue Origin level schedule.

baybal2 6y ago
China don't even need to have its launch vehicles reusable to be commercially competitive. The cost of hardware is probably just few percents of the cost of running the space programme itself. And on top of that, China is the heavy industry supergigant.

baybal2 6y ago

> JAXA ($1.5b) and ISRO don't have the budget to get there. Why so, India among other things managed to pull Martian insertion for 1/10th the cost of analogous US mission. And there is no question, that, at least at the moment, they have both working talent set, and leadership.

adventured 6y ago
Doing a primitive martian insert isn't anywhere in the same universe as landing people safely on the Moon or Mars. India will require several decades of further development yet to attempt a human Moon landing (much less Mars). Russia (nor the USSR before it) can't come close to doing it and they're still far more advanced than India in human launch capabilities. There are simple things (relatively speaking) you can slash the cost out of dramatically, where it doesn't translate to a far more advanced and difficult mission, and that includes landing humans on the Moon or Mars safely. NASA can do cheaper missions. There is nothing particularly special about that for such advanced organizations. NASA spends a lot of money because time (getting a mission right the first time) and scarce human resources are both more important to them than sheer dollar cost in most circumstances, unless we're talking enormous sums of money. They could have attempted James Webb in a much faster timeline at a far cheaper cost, by increasing the risk of failure in the mission; that trade-off is almost always undesirable for NASA. Simply put, a few hundred million dollars is a very big deal to ISRO, it's not a big deal to NASA. If spending $1 billion on a mission gets you down to 5% risk, or you can spend $100 million at 30% risk of failure, NASA will almost always choose the $1b option because there are not enough human resources to throw at numerous copycat missions and the time cost is immense.
valuearb 6y ago
India’s GSLV is less than half the payload capacity of a Falcon 9, and costs as much or lure per launch. India’s space program is funded at $2B a year, significantly more funding than SpaceX has had till recently.