4 ms·
> We need more than one healthy launch provider I believe we have to maintain this by law. Which, of course, means throwing money at whoever stands in the #2
by robomartin 6y ago
> We need more than one healthy launch provider
I believe we have to maintain this by law. Which, of course, means throwing money at whoever stands in the #2 spot, even if their product costs ten times more than #1. This means they have to keep throwing money at the likes of Boeing (which is likely one of the things that's helping keep them alive).
Until they can violate this mandate and stop burning cash like it is rocket fuel these inefficient programs and companies are going to keep doing what they do. No incentive to improve when the fitness function always outputs 100% regardless of what you do.
- londons_explore 6y agoSpaceX could voluntarily split into two arms-length competing companies, neither of which are as competitive as SpaceX today (because each only has half the resources), but both are more competitive than ULA.
- londons_explore 6y agoDoing so would reveal that Boeing is supported not only because it's worth having at least 2 launch providers, but because politicians friends have investments there...
- throwaway316943 6y agoThat would be interesting and maybe not even unprecedented after the Texas vs Florida build off with starship. It might be hard to replicate the leadership team though.